Stillwater Mining (SWC) DEF 14A Definitive proxy

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

x Filed by the Registrant

¨ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant

Check the appropriate box:

¨ Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

x Definitive Proxy Statement

¨ Definitive Additional Materials

¨ Soliciting Material Pursuant to Rule 14a-12

Stillwater Mining Company

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

x	No fee required.
¨	Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
	1.	Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
	2.	Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
	3.	Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
	4.	Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
	5.	Total fee paid:
¨	Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
¨	Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
	1.	Amount Previously Paid:
	2.	Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
	3.	Filing Party:
	4.	Date Filed:

Stillwater Mining Company

April 2, 2015

Dear Shareholders,

It is my pleasure to invite you to the Stillwater Mining Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be located at City College at Montana State University Billings, Health Science Building, Room 119, 3803 Central Avenue, Billings Montana at 2 p.m. on May 4, 2015. The attached Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Statement will serve as your guide to the business to be conducted.

We are firmly committed to continued improvement of our annual proxy statement, both in the information you need to make an informed decision about your company, and with a constant eye towards clear, easy to understand language.

Our focus on robust corporate governance practices continues and we have further expanded our disclosures in this document regarding executive compensation and corporate governance.

While we hope you can join us in Billings, whether or not you attend in person, it is important that your shares be represented and voted at the meeting. Please vote your shares by signing and returning your proxy or voting instruction card, using telephone or internet voting. Instructions on how to vote are found on page 5.

If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you will be able to listen to a webcast of the meeting at www.stillwatermining.com. We look forward to seeing many of you in Billings on May 4, 2015.

Brian Schweitzer

Chairman of the Board

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Time and Date	2:00 p.m. (Mountain Daylight Time), on May 4, 2015
Place	City College at Montana State University Billings
	Health Science Building, Room 119
	3803 Central Avenue
	Billings, Montana 59102
Items of Business	(1)	To elect the seven nominees named in the attached proxy.
	(2)	To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2015.
	(3)	To conduct an advisory vote on executive compensation.
	(4)	To conduct such other business properly presented at the meeting or any postponements or adjournments thereof.
Adjournments and Postponements	Any actions on the items of business described above may be considered at the annual meeting at the time and on the date specified above, or at any time and date to which the annual meeting may be properly adjourned or postponed.
Record Date	You are entitled to vote only if you were a Stillwater Mining Company shareholder as of the close of business on March 9, 2015.
Voting	Your vote is very important. Whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting, we hope you will vote as soon as possible. If you received a paper copy of a proxy or voting instruction card by mail, you may submit your proxy or voting instruction card for the annual meeting by voting by phone, the internet, or by signing, dating and returning your proxy in the postage-paid envelope provided.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Brent R. Wadman

Vice President, Legal Affairs & Corporate Secretary

This notice of annual meeting and proxy statement and form of proxy are being distributed

and made available on or about April 2, 2015.

Table of Contents

GENERAL INFORMATION	1
Solicitation	1
Voting Rights	1
Voting	1
Revocability of Proxies	2
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 4, 2015	2
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS	2
Election Process	2
Director Qualifications	3
Nominees for Election	3
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEES	8
Director Independence	9
Committees	9
Candidate Selection Process	11
Nomination Process	12
Board Oversight of Risk	12
Review of Compensation Risk	13
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation	13
Shareholder Communication with Directors	13
Director Compensation	14
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS	15
Introduction and Organization	15
Part 1: The 2015 Compensation Program	15
Part 2: 2014 Compensation Program, Philosophy, Elements and Decisions	23
Compensation Structure	25
Impact of Tax and Accounting	31
Hedging Policy	32
Recoupment Policy	32
Timing and Pricing of Equity Grants	33
Consideration of Prior Amounts Realized	33
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT	33
2014 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE	34
2014 GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS	35
2014 OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END	35
2014 OPTIONS EXERCISED AND STOCK VESTED	36
PENSION BENEFITS	36
2014 NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION	36
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE-IN-CONTROL	37
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, OTHER COMPENSATION AND POTENTIAL PAYMENTS INFORMATION	41
Employment Agreements	41
Equity Incentive Plans & Award Agreements	44
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance	44
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS	45
AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT	46
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT	48
PROPOSAL 2: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM	49
PROPOSAL 3: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION	49
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS	50
Cost of Solicitation	50
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION	51
GENERAL	51

Stillwater Mining Company

PROXY STATEMENT ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON MAY 4, 2015

This Proxy Statement is being furnished to the shareholders of Stillwater Mining Company (the “Company”) in connection with the solicitation by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) of proxies to be voted at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company, and any postponements or adjournments thereof. The meeting will be held on May 4, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. (Mountain Daylight Time) at the City College at Montana State University Billings, Health Science Building, Room 119, 3803 Central Avenue, Billings, Montana.

These proxy solicitation materials were first mailed on or about April 2, 2015, to all shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting. The meeting is being held:

1. To elect the seven nominees named in this proxy statement to the Company’s Board.

2. To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2015.

3. To conduct an advisory vote on executive compensation.

4. To conduct such other business properly presented at the meeting or any postponements or adjournments thereof.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Solicitation

The enclosed proxy is being solicited by the Board on behalf of the Company. The cost of this solicitation will be borne by the Company. In addition to solicitation by mail, the officers, directors and employees of the Company may solicit proxies by telephone, facsimile, email, other electronic means or in person. The Company may also request banks and brokers to solicit their customers who have a beneficial interest in the Common Stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”) registered in the names of nominees. The Company will reimburse such banks and brokers for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

Voting Rights

Holders of shares of Common Stock at the close of business on March 9, 2015 (the “Record Date”) are entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting. On the Record Date, 120,605,241 shares of Common Stock were issued, outstanding and entitled to vote. The holders of at least 50% of the shares of Common Stock issued, outstanding and entitled to vote at the meeting, present in person or by proxy, constitutes a quorum.

Each share of Common Stock outstanding on the Record Date is entitled to one vote.

Voting

The vote of the holders of (i) a plurality of votes cast by the shares present in person or represented by proxy is required to elect seven nominees standing for the election of directors, (ii) a majority of the shares present in person or represented by proxy is required to approve Proposal 2, regarding the ratification of the selection of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, and Proposal 3, the advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers.

If a shareholder abstains from voting on any matter, the Company intends to count such shareholder as present for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting for the transaction of business. If you sign and return the enclosed proxy card, unless contrary instructions are indicated, the shares of Common Stock represented by such proxy will be voted FOR the election as directors of the nominees named in this proxy statement, FOR ratification of the selection of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, and FOR the advisory vote on executive compensation. Additionally, the Company intends to count broker “non-votes” as present for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business, but broker non-votes will have no effect on the outcome of any matter. A non-vote occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner votes on one proposal, but does not vote on another proposal because the nominee does not have discretionary voting power, and has not received instructions from the beneficial owner. Abstentions will have the effect of a vote against Proposals 2 and 3.

Neither management nor the Board knows of any other matters to be brought before the meeting. If other matters are presented properly to the shareholders for action at the meeting or postponements or adjournments thereof, then the proxy holders named in the proxy have advised they intend to vote in their discretion on all matters in which the shares of Common Stock represented by such proxy are entitled to vote.

Receipt of Multiple Proxy Cards

Many of our shareholders hold their shares in more than one account, and may receive separate proxy cards or voting instructions forms for each of those accounts. To ensure that all of your shares are represented at the annual meeting, we recommend that you vote every proxy card you receive.

Revocability of Proxies

Any proxy may be revoked at any time before it is voted by: (i) written notice to the Company’s Corporate Secretary; (ii) receipt of a proxy properly signed and dated subsequent to an earlier proxy; or (iii) by revoking in person at the meeting or voting in person at the meeting. If not revoked, the shares of Common Stock represented by a proxy will be voted according to the proxy.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the

Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 4, 2015

The proxy statement, proxy card, and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, are available on our website at www.stillwatermining.com under the heading “Investor Relations.” You may obtain directions to attend the annual meeting on our website at www.stillwatermining.com under the heading “Investor Relations.”

PROPOSAL 1:

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Board is elected by the shareholders to oversee their interest in the long-term viability and the overall success of the Company.

Election Process

The Company’s By-Laws provide for the annual election of Directors. The Company’s By-Laws also provide that the number of Directors shall be determined by the Board, which has set the number at seven (7) effective at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The seven (7) persons set forth below have been nominated to serve as Directors of the Company until the next annual meeting of shareholders, or until their respective successors are elected, and each person has consented to being named as a nominee. All of the nominees are currently Directors of the Company.

The Company’s By-laws provide that the election of any Director must be by a plurality of the votes cast by shareholders who are present in person or represented by proxy, and entitled to vote at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Brokers and other nominees will not have discretionary authority to vote your shares if you hold your shares in street name, and do not provide instruction as to how your shares should be voted on this proposal.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR all of the Board’s nominees.

It is anticipated that proxies will be voted for the nominees listed below, and the Board has no reason to believe any nominee will not continue to be a candidate, or will not be able to serve as a Director if elected. In the event that any nominee named below is unable to serve as a Director, the proxy holders named in the proxies have advised that they will vote for the election of such substitute or additional nominees as the Board may propose.

The name and age of each nominee, his or her principal occupation for at least the past five (5) years and certain additional information is set forth below. Such information is as of the date hereof, and is based upon information furnished to the Company by each nominee.

2

Director Qualifications

Directors are responsible for overseeing the Company’s business consistent with their fiduciary duty to shareholders. This significant responsibility requires highly-skilled individuals with various qualities, attributes and professional experience. The Board believes there are general requirements applicable to all Directors, and other skills and experience that should be represented on the Board as a whole, but not necessarily by each Director. The Board and the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee consider the qualifications of Directors and Director candidates individually and in the broader context of the Board’s overall composition and the Company’s current and future needs.

Board Tenure

The Company has adopted a Board Tenure Policy which states that a director’s maximum tenure shall be 9 years, or 72 years of age, at which time the director will not be re-nominated unless the Board determines that specific, exceptional circumstances warrant re-nomination, and which reasons will be publicly disclosed.

The following Directors have agreed to stand for election as Directors at this year’s annual meeting, and are proposed by the Nominating Committee of the Board.

Nominees for Election

George M. Bee
	Independent Director since:	November 24, 2012
	Age:	56
	Roles on the Board:	Health, Safety & Environmental (Chairman), Technical & Ore Reserve
	Other Public Company Boards:	Sandspring Resources Ltd., Jaguar Mining Inc.
	Share Ownership:	Common Stock: 23,794/DSUs: 5,069
	Location:	Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Industry Knowledge	Environmental, Health, & Safety Oversight
Risk Oversight	International Exposure

Mr. Bee is currently employed full-time as CEO and Director of Jaguar Mining Inc. Jaguar has three operating underground mines, two operating process facilities, an underground mine and process facility on care and maintenance, a large scale open pit development project and extensive land positions for exploration, all located in Brazil. Jaguar is a public company traded on the TSX.V exchange. Mr. Bee also served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Andina Minerals Inc. beginning 2009 until January 2013. From 2007 to 2009, he was Chief Operating Officer for Aurelian Resources, Inc. prior to its acquisition by Kinross Gold Corporation. Mr. Bee served in various senior management and operational positions at Barrick Gold Corporation during two terms of service with the company, first from 1989 to 1995, and then from 1998 to 2007. From 1996 to 1998, he was Manager of Planning and Evaluation at Kinross Gold Corporation. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Sandspring Resources Ltd. Mr. Bee served briefly on the Board of Directors of Peregrine Metals Ltd., which was acquired by Stillwater Mining Company in 2011.

He received a Bachelor of Science degree from the Camborne School of Mines in Cornwall, United Kingdom.

3

Michael J. McMullen
	Executive Director since:	December 3, 2013
	Independent Director:	From May 2, 2013 until December 3, 2013
	Age:	44
	Roles on the Board:	Technical & Ore Reserve, Health, Safety & Environmental
	Other Public Company Boards:	None
	Share Ownership:	Common Shares: 25,579/RSUs: 42,271/PSUs: 94,283
	Location:	Billings, Montana, U.S.

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Industry Knowledge	Executive Leadership
Risk Oversight	International Exposure

Michael J. McMullen was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of Stillwater Mining Company on December 3, 2013. He is also a member of the Board of Directors. Previously, Mr. McMullen served in a variety of senior executive and directorship positions, most recently as a Principal at MRI Advisory AG, a private company focusing on development of metal and minerals projects in the Americas, Europe and Africa. In 2007, he became Executive Chairman of Lachlan Star Limited, a post he held until January 2014. Lachlan Star Limited announced the appointment of voluntary insolvency administrators in February 2015. Over the course of his 22-year career, Mr. McMullen has been responsible for development of several large open pit and underground mines in Australia, Europe and Latin America. He has had detailed involvement in all aspects of the mining business, including exploration, permitting, mine development, financing, operations, product sales, and asset acquisition and divestments, as well as debt and equity markets. He has managed multiple operations across several jurisdictions, working with large work forces and unions in culturally diverse and environmentally sensitive areas. His experience covers a range of commodities including copper, gold, iron ore and PGMs.

Mr. McMullen holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Newcastle University in New South Wales, and pursued graduate studies in Mineral Economics at Western Australian School of Mines.

4

Patrice E. Merrin
	Independent Director since:	May 2, 2013
	Age:	66
	Roles on the Board:	Corporate Governance & Nominating (Chairman), Compensation, Audit
	Other Public Company Boards:	Glencore PLC, Novadaq Technologies Inc.
	Share Ownership:	Common Stock: 22,586/DSUs: 5,069
	Location:	Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Industry Knowledge	Executive Leadership
Risk Oversight	Government Affairs and Public Policy

Ms. Merrin is an international business executive and corporate director. She was Chairman of the Board of Directors of CML HealthCare Inc., a leading provider of private laboratory testing services, from 2011 until 2013, prior to which she had been a director since 2008. She served as a Director of Ornge, Ontario’s air ambulance service from 2012 to 2015, and was a Director of Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation, created to support Alberta’s initiatives on climate change and the reduction of emissions from 2009 to 2014. From October 2009 to June 2011, Ms. Merrin served as a Director of Enssolutions Group Inc. She also served as a Director of The NB Power Group, a company that generates and distributes electricity from nuclear, hydro, wind and oil, from 2007 to 2009, and as Chairman of the Environment, Health and Safety Committee from 2008 to 2009. From 2005 to 2006, Ms. Merrin served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Luscar Ltd., Canada’s largest producer of thermal coal, and as Executive Vice President from 2004 to 2005. During her tenure, Luscar was owned equally by Sherritt International and Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board. Before joining Luscar, from 1999 to 2004, Ms. Merrin was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Sherritt International, a diversified international natural resources company with assets in base metals mining and refining, thermal coal, oil, gas and power generation. Ms. Merrin was a member of the National Advisory Panel on Sustainable Energy Science & Technology from 2005 to 2006, and from 2003 to 2006, was a member of Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Ms. Merrin holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Queen’s University, and completed the Advanced Management Programme at INSEAD.

5

Michael S. Parrett
	Independent Director since:	May 7, 2009
	Age:	63
	Other Roles on the Board:	Audit (Chairman), Corporate Governance & Nominating, Compensation
	Other Public Company Boards:	Pengrowth Energy Corporation, Centerra Gold Inc.
	Share Ownership:	Common Stock: 29,053/DSUs: 5,069
	Location:	Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Financial Expertise	Executive Leadership
Industry Knowledge	International Exposure

Michael S. Parrett has been an independent consultant and corporate director since 2002. During 2002, 2003 and the first quarter of 2004, Mr. Parrett served as a financial consultant to Stillwater Mining Company. From 1990 to 2001, he was Chief Financial Officer, President of Rio Algom and Chief Executive of Billiton Base Metals. From 1983 to1989, Mr. Parrett performed various financial functions, including Controller, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Controller Marketing and Director of Internal Audit at Falconbridge Limited, which also had a recycling/custom feed business. He has been on the Board of Directors of Pengrowth Energy Corporation since 2004. Mr. Parrett was on the Board of Directors of Gabriel Resources Ltd. from 2003 to 2010, and was Chairman since December 2005. He was also a Trustee and on the Board of Directors of Fording Canadian Coal Trust from 2003-2008. Effective May 2014, Mr. Parrett joined the Board of Directors of Centerra Gold, Inc.

Mr. Parrett is a Chartered Professional Accountant, and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from York University.

6

Brian D. Schweitzer
	Independent Director since:	May 2, 2013
	Age:	59
	Roles on the Board:	Chairman; Corporate Governance & Nominating, Health, Safety & Environmental
	Other Public Company Boards:	None
	Share Ownership:	Common Stock: 39,703/DSUs: 5,069
	Location:	Anaconda, Montana, U.S.

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Executive Leadership	Geopolitical Expertise
International Exposure	Risk Oversight

Mr. Schweitzer became the Chairman of the Board on May 17, 2013. Mr. Schweitzer most recently served as Governor of Montana, from January 5, 2005 to January 7, 2013. As Governor, he was the chief regulator of water and air quality, fisheries and wildlife. As Governor, he served as Chair of the Western Governors’ Association, during 2009, and the Democratic Governors’ Association, during 2008. Mr. Schweitzer also served as the 2011 President of the Council of State Governments, during his tenure as Governor. Prior to his role as Governor of Montana, Mr. Schweitzer was a successful rancher and entrepreneur. He began his career as an international agricultural consultant and worked as an irrigation developer on projects in Africa, Asia, and South America. He spent several years working in Libya and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Schweitzer earned his Bachelor of Science degree in international agronomy from Colorado State University, and a Master of Science in soil science from Montana State University, Bozeman.

Gary A. Sugar
	Independent Director since:	August 29, 2012
	Age:	66
	Other Roles on the Board:	Audit, Compensation (Chairman), Technical & Ore Reserve (Chairman)
	Other Public Company Boards:	Romarco Minerals Inc.
	Share Ownership:	Common Stock: 11,703/DSUs: 5,069
	Location:	Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Industry Knowledge	Capital Markets Expertise
Risk Oversight	International Exposure

Mr. Sugar retired in 2011 from RBC Capital Markets after a distinguished 32-year career. He initially worked in the mining industry in exploration and corporate development for companies including Inco, Cominco, Rio Algom, and Imperial Oil (Exxon). Mr. Sugar joined a predecessor company to RBC Capital Markets in 1979. He specialized in the mining sector, particularly in equity and debt financings, mergers and acquisitions, and other advisory services for a wide range of Canadian and international mining companies. He was appointed a managing director in 1987, and led the mining practice for many years. From March 2012 until its acquisition in June, 2014, Mr. Sugar was a member of the Board of Directors of Osisko Gold. He is currently on the Board of Directors of Romarco Minerals Inc.

Mr. Sugar holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and an M.B.A. from the University of Toronto.

7

Lawrence Peter O’Hagan
	Independent Director since:	March 16, 2015
	Age:	52
	Other Roles on the Board:	Audit, Compensation
	Other Public Company	None
	Boards:
	Share Ownership:	DSUs: 747
	Location:	New York, New York

Specific Qualifications, Attributes, Skills, and Experience:

Industry Knowledge	Capital Markets Expertise
Risk Oversight	International Exposure

Peter O’Hagan was appointed to the Board of Directors of Stillwater Mining Company on March 16, 2015. He joined KKR in 2014 as an Executive in Residence of the Energy & Infrastructure group following almost 23 years working at Goldman Sachs where he most recently co-headed the global commodities business and served as head of origination and structuring. He began his career at Philipp Brothers in New York and Tokyo. He then joined Goldman Sachs in the Metals department in NY in 1991 as an associate. He became a managing director in 2000, and a partner in 2002. In 2008, Mr. O’Hagan became the founding CEO of Goldman Sachs Bank USA when Goldman became a federally regulated bank holding company (BHC). He led Goldman Sachs Bank, with $110 billion in assets, from its inception in October 2008 to March 2011. He returned to Global Commodities to co-head the business and lead sales and structuring again until the end of 2013.

Mr. O’Hagan, based in New York City, holds a B.A., International Relations from the University of Toronto and an

M.A. from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEES

The Board met eight (8) times during 2014. Each Director attended 97% or more of the total number of meetings of the Board and each committee on which he or she served in 2014. The independent Directors regularly met in executive session without management, and all Directors attended the annual shareholder meeting last year.

Attendance of Directors*

Director	Board Meetings Attended	Audit Committee Meetings Attended	Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee Meetings Attended	Compensation Committee Meetings Attended	Health, Safety & Environmental Committee Meetings Attended	Technical & Ore Reserve Committee Meetings Attended
George M. Bee	8 of 8	N/A	N/A	N/A	4 of 4	4 of 4
Charles R. Engles1	7 of 71	9 of 9	N/A	5 of 51	N/A	3 of 31
Michael (Mick) McMullen	8 of 8	N/A	N/A	N/A	4 of 4	3 of 4
Patrice E. Merrin	8 of 8	N/A2	5 of 5	7 of 7	N/A	N/A
Michael S. Parrett	8 of 8	9 of 9	5 of 5	2 of 21	N/A	N/A
Brian Schweitzer	8 of 8	N/A	5 of 5	N/A	4 of 4	N/A
Gary A. Sugar	8 of 8	9 of 9	N/A	7 of 7	N/A	4 of 4

* In person or by telephone.

(1) On November 4, 2014, Dr. Engles resigned from the Board of Directors, Compensation, Audit, and Technical & Ore Reserve Committees. Mr. Parrett then joined the Compensation Committee and Ms. Merrin joined the Audit Committee.

(2) No Audit Committee meetings took place after November 4, 2014.

8

Director Independence

The Board follows the standards set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Principles when determining director independence, which standards meet or exceed the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) with respect to director independence. These guidelines can be found on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Corporate Governance/Independence Criteria for Directors.” A copy may also be obtained upon request from the Company’s Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

These guidelines provide objective, as well as subjective, criteria that the Board will utilize in determining whether each Director meets the independence standards of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the NYSE applicable to the Company. Additionally, the Company complies with guidelines adopted pursuant to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).

The Board undertook its annual review of Director transactions and relationships between each Director or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Board also examined transactions and relationships between Directors or their affiliates and members of the Company’s senior management or their affiliates.

The Board affirmatively determined that all of the Directors being nominated for election at the annual meeting are independent of the Company and the Company’s management under the standards set forth in the Corporate Governance Principles, with the exception of Michael (Mick) McMullen. Mr. McMullen is considered not independent because he serves as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

Committees

Audit Committee: The Company has a standing Audit Committee as defined in Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The Audit Committee held nine (9) meetings during 2014, which included four (4) meetings associated with a request for proposal for external audit services. The members of the Audit Committee in 2014 were Michael Parrett (Chairman), Gary Sugar, Charles Engles, and Patrice Merrin. On November 4, 2014, Dr. Engles resigned from his position on the Audit Committee, and Patrice Merrin was appointed as his replacement. Each of the Audit Committee members was “independent,” and satisfied the additional independence requirements of Section 303A.02 of the NYSE’s listing standards and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act and the NYSE requirements for audit committee members.

The Audit Committee reviews the accounting principles and procedures of the Company and its annual financial reports and statements, recommends to the Board the engagement of the Company’s independent auditors, reviews with the independent registered public accountants the plans and results of the auditing engagement, and considers the independence of the Company’s auditors. The Audit Committee is also responsible for reviewing the Company’s finance matters.

The Audit Committee is governed by a written charter which is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Corporate Governance/Committee Charters/Audit Committee.” Copies of the charter are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

The Audit Committee also follows a written Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy for services to be performed by the independent registered public accountants. Proposed services may be either (i) pre-approved without consideration of specific case-by-case services by the Audit Committee (“General Pre-Approval”), or (ii) require the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee (“Specific Pre-Approval”). The Audit Committee believes that the combination of these two approaches results in an effective and efficient procedure to pre-approve services performed by the independent auditor to ensure the auditor’s independence is not impaired. Unless a type of service has received General Pre-Approval, it requires Specific Pre-Approval by the Audit Committee if it is to be provided by the independent registered public accountants.

The Audit Committee considers whether such services are consistent with the rules of the SEC on auditor independence, whether the independent auditor is best positioned to provide the most effective and efficient service, and whether the service might enhance the Company’s ability to manage or control risk or improve audit quality.

9

This policy is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Governance Documents/Audit and Non-Audit Policy.” Copies of this policy are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

SEC rules and NYSE listing standards require the Board to determine whether a member of its Audit Committee is an “audit committee financial expert,” and disclose its determination. According to these requirements, an audit committee member can be designated an audit committee financial expert only when the audit committee member satisfies specified qualification requirements, such as experience (or “experience actively supervising” others engaged in) preparing, auditing, analyzing, or evaluating financial statements presenting a level of accounting complexity comparable to what is encountered in connection with the Company’s financial statements. SEC rules further require such qualifications to have been acquired through specified means of experience or education. The Board has determined that Michael S. Parrett qualifies as an audit committee financial expert under SEC rules. The Board believes that the current members of the Audit Committee are qualified to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Audit Committee.

Compensation Committee: The Company has a separate Compensation Committee as required under the NYSE’s listing standards. The Compensation Committee held seven (7) meetings during 2014. During 2014, the members of the Compensation Committee were Gary Sugar (Chairman), Patrice Merrin, Charles Engles, and Michael S. Parrett. On November 4, 2014, Dr. Engles resigned from his position on the Compensation Committee. Mr. Sugar was then appointed as Chairman, and Mr. Parrett was appointed to the Committee. The Board has determined that all members of the Compensation Committee are “independent” under the applicable NYSE listing standards. The principal responsibilities of the Compensation Committee are to establish policies and determine matters involving executive compensation, recommend changes in employee benefit programs, approve the grant of stock options and stock awards under the Company’s stock plans and provide assistance to management regarding key personnel selection. The Compensation Committee’s written charter is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Committee Charters/Compensation Committee.” Copies of the charter are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee: The Company has a Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee as required pursuant to Section 303A.04 of the NYSE’s listing standards. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee held five (5) meetings during 2014. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is composed of Patrice Merrin (Chairman), Michael Parrett, and Brian Schweitzer. The Board has determined that all of the members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are independent directors under the applicable NYSE listing standards. The Company complies with the requirement of the NYSE to have a Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee comprised entirely of independent directors.

The principal responsibilities of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are: (i) identifying and recommending to the Board individuals qualified to serve as directors of the Company and on committees of the Board; (ii) advising the Board as to the appropriate size, function and procedures of the committees of the Board; (iii) developing and recommending to the Board corporate governance principles; (iv) overseeing evaluation of the Board and the Company’s executive officers (v) to attend to any matter as may pertain to the scope of corporate governance in the corporation.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is governed by a written charter. The Board also follows written corporate governance guidelines for the Company and a written policy for shareholder nomination of directors. These documents set forth the criteria and methodology the Board uses when considering individuals as nominees to the Board. Current copies of these documents are available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the headings “Governance/Committee Charters/Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee,” “Governance/ Governance Principles” and “Governance/Governance Documents/Stockholder Nomination of Directors,” respectively. Copies of these documents are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

10

The Company has a Business Ethics and Code of Conduct policy applicable to its officers, directors, employees and agents, including the Chief Executive Officer and all senior financial officers, including our principal financial officer and controller. A current copy of this policy is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Governance Documents/Code of Conduct.” The purpose of this policy is to provide legal, ethical and moral standards for the conduct of the Company’s officers, directors, employees and agents. In addition, waivers from and amendments to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that apply to our directors and executive officers, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions, will be timely posted in the governance section of our website at www.stillwatermining.com. The Board has also adopted a written Code of Ethics for its Chief Executive and Senior Financial Officers which is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Governance Documents/Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers.” This document sets forth specific policies to guide the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Controller in the performance of their duties. Copies of these documents are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

Health, Safety & Environmental Committee: The Company has a Health, Safety and Environmental Committee with the principal responsibilities of: (i) reviewing the Company’s environmental and occupational health and safety policies and programs; (ii) overseeing the Company’s environmental and occupational health and safety performance; and (iii) monitoring current and future regulatory issues. During 2014, the Health, Safety and Environmental Committee consisted of George Bee (Chairman), Brian Schweitzer, and Mick McMullen. This committee held four (4) meetings in 2014.

The Health, Safety and Environmental Committee’s written charter is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Committee Charters/Health, Safety & Environmental Committee.” Copies of the charter are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

Technical & Ore Reserve Committee: The Company has a Technical & Ore Reserve Committee with principal responsibilities of: (i) advising the Board on the appropriateness, accuracy and completeness of the Company’s ore reserves; (ii) ensuring that management appropriately presents the Company’s ore reserves to regulatory agencies; and (iii) overseeing the Company’s technical and strategic position. During 2014, the Technical and Ore Reserve Committee was composed of Gary Sugar (Chairman), George Bee, Charles Engles, and Mick McMullen. Dr. Charles Engles resigned from his position on this Committee on November 4, 2014. This committee held four (4) meetings in 2014.

The Technical & Ore Reserve Committee’s written charter is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/Committee Charters/Technical & Ore Reserve Committee.” Copies of the charter are also available in print to shareholders upon request, addressed to the Corporate Secretary at Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102.

Candidate Selection Process

The minimum qualifications for serving as a director of the Company are that a nominee demonstrate, by significant accomplishment in his or her field, an ability to make a meaningful contribution to the Board’s oversight of the business and affairs of the Company. In addition, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee examines a candidate’s specific experiences and skills, time availability in light of other commitments, potential conflicts of interest and independence from management and the Company. While the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has not adopted a formal diversity policy with respect to the selection of director nominees, the committee seeks to have the Board represent a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. As part of this process, the committee evaluates how a particular candidate would strengthen and increase the diversity of the Board, and contribute to the Board’s overall balance of perspectives, backgrounds, knowledge, experience and expertise in areas relevant to the Company’s business. The committee assesses its achievement of diversity through review of Board composition as part of the Board’s annual self-assessment process.

11

Under the Company’s Corporate Governance Principles, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will present a list of candidates to the Board for nomination. The Chief Executive Officer will be included in the process on a non-voting basis. Taking into account the factors outlined above, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will make a recommendation to the Board, and the Board will determine which of the recommended candidates to approve for nomination.

Nomination Process

Nominations of persons for election as directors of the Company may be made at a meeting of shareholders, (a) by or at the direction of the Board, (b) by the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee or persons appointed by the Board, or (c) by any shareholder of the Company entitled to vote for the election of directors at the meeting who complies with the notice procedures set forth in Section 3.3 of the Company’s By-Laws. Such nominations, other than those made by or at the direction of the Board, shall be made pursuant to timely notice in writing to the Company’s Corporate Secretary. To be timely, a shareholder’s notice shall be delivered to or mailed and received at the principal executive office of the Company not less than fifty (50) days, nor more than seventy-five (75) days prior to the meeting; provided, however, that in the event that less than sixty (60) days’ notice or prior public disclosure of the date of the meeting is given or made to shareholders, notice by the shareholder to be timely must be so received not later than the close of business on the tenth day following the day on which such notice of the date of the meeting was mailed or such public disclosure was made, whichever first occurs. Such shareholder’s notice to the Company’s Corporate Secretary shall set forth: (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election or reelection as a director, (i) the name, age, business address and residence address of the person, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of the person, (iii) the class and number of shares of capital stock of the Company which are beneficially owned by the person, and (iv) any other information relating to the person that is required to be disclosed in solicitations for proxies for election of directors pursuant to the Exchange Act, as now or hereafter amended; and (b) as to the shareholder giving the notice, (i) the name and record address of such shareholder, and (ii) the class and number of shares of capital stock of the Company which are beneficially owned by such shareholder. The Company may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Company to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as a director of the Company. No person shall be eligible for election by the shareholders as a director of the Company unless nominated in accordance with the procedures set forth herein.

Board Oversight of Risk

The Board has responsibility for risk oversight, and its committees help oversee risk in areas over which they have responsibility. The Board receives regular updates related to various risks for both our company and our industry. The Audit Committee receives and discusses reports regularly from members of management who are involved in the risk assessment and risk management functions on a daily basis. In addition, the Compensation Committee annually reviews, with the assistance of management, the overall structure of the Company’s compensation program and policies for all employees as they relate to the Company’s risk management practices.

The Board oversees the management of risks inherent in the Company’s businesses, and the implementation of its strategic plan. The Board performs this oversight role by implementing multiple levels of review. In connection with reviews of the operations of the Company’s business units and corporate functions, the Board addresses the primary risks associated with those units and functions. In addition, the Board reviews the risks associated with the Company’s strategic plan at an annual strategic planning session and periodically throughout the year as part of its consideration of the strategic direction of the Company. The Board also considers other risk topics at its meetings, including risks associated with capital structure, strategic plan, business climate, industry changes, and development activities. Further, the Board is routinely informed by management of developments that could affect our risk profile. The Board’s current role in risk oversight is complemented by our leadership structure.

Each of the Board’s Committees also manages Company risks that fall within the Committee’s areas of responsibility. In performing this function, each Committee has full access to management, as well as the ability to engage advisors.

12

Review of Compensation Risk

As part of its oversight of the Company’s executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee, with the assistance of outside experts, annually assesses the Company’s compensation programs, and has concluded that these compensation policies and practices do not create risks reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Compensation Committee and Management spent considerable time and effort assessing the Company’s executive compensation and benefits programs over the past year to determine whether the programs’ provisions and operations create material, undesired or unintentional, risk to the Company. This risk assessment process included a review of policies and procedures; analysis of risk identification and controls; and determination of the balance of potential risk to potential reward.

The review of the programs and policies that apply to our named executive officers includes:

• analysis of how different elements of compensation may increase or mitigate risk-taking;

• analysis of performance metrics used for short-term and long-term incentive programs, and the relation of such incentives to the objectives of a particular position or business unit;

• analysis of whether the performance measurement periods for short-term and long-term incentive compensation are appropriate;

• analysis of the overall structure of compensation programs as related to business risks; and

• an annual review of the Company’s share ownership guidelines, including share ownership levels and retention practices.

Based on the foregoing, we believe our compensation policies and practices do not create inappropriate or unintended significant risk to the Company as a whole. We also believe our incentive compensation programs provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage significant risks; are compatible with effective internal controls and the risk-management practices of the Company; and are supported by the oversight and administration of the Compensation Committee with regard to executive compensation programs.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The members of the Compensation Committee are identified under “Committees” above. No member of the Compensation Committee was, at any time during 2014, an officer or employee, or a former officer, of the Company. Charles Engles served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from September 1994 until March 1997. Dr. Engles resigned from his position as director on November 4, 2014.

Shareholder Communication with Directors

The Board has a written policy on shareholder and interested party communications with directors, a copy of which is available on the Company’s corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com, under the heading “Governance/ Communication with Directors.”

Under the policy, shareholders and other interested parties may contact any member (or all members) of the Board (including, without limitation, the Chairman, Brian Schweitzer, or the independent directors as a group), any Board committee or any chair of any such committee by mail or email. To communicate with the Board, any individual director or any group or committee of directors, correspondence should be addressed to the Board or any such individual director or group or committee of directors by either name or title. All such correspondence should be sent to the Corporate Secretary, Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102. To communicate with any of our directors via email, shareholders should go to our corporate website at www.stillwatermining.com. Under the heading “Governance/Communication with Directors,” you will find an on-line form that may be used for writing an electronic message to the Board, any individual director, or any group or committee of directors. Please follow the instructions on our website to send your message.

13

Director Compensation

Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $55,250 which may be paid in cash or may be deferred in DSUs. In addition, the Company pays each non-employee director and committee member $2,125 per meeting of the Board attended and $1,275 per telephonic meeting in which he or she participated. The Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $60,000; the Audit Committee chairman receives an additional annual retainer of $17,000; the Compensation Committee chairman receives an additional $12,750 annual retainer, and the other Committee chairmen each receive additional annual retainers of $8,500. The Company reimburses all directors for reasonable travel expenses. The Company’s Stock Ownership Guidelines state that independent directors should own Common Stock (or a DSU equivalent) having a value of at least two times their annual retainer. Pursuant to these guidelines, each Director is asked to comply with this new guideline by the fifth anniversary of his or her election to the Board. All Directors are in compliance with this guideline.

On August 13, 2014, the Compensation Committee approved the adoption of the Independent Director Deferred Share Unit Plan (the “DSU Plan”) and suspended any further contributions to the 2005 Non-Employee Director’s Deferral Plan. The Compensation Committee approved an increase of the annual grant from $70,000 to $80,000 in recognition that the new DSU Plan does not include the 20% “matching” provision contained in the 2005 Non-Employee Director’s Deferral Plan.

Under the terms of the Plan, the Company’s non-employee directors receive a grant in the form of deferred share units (“DSUs”) on the date of each annual meeting of shareholders valued at $80,000, or an amount adjusted pro rata upon appointment to or separation from, the Board. Each director may also elect to defer up to 100% of their annual compensation in the form of DSUs credited to a DSU account maintained by the Company. Each DSU represents the right to receive a cash payment equal to the value of one share of the Company’s common stock on the applicable distribution date, and becomes payable following a director’s separation from service as a member of the Board. Should cash dividends or distributions be paid on shares during the period when DSUs are outstanding and prior to payment or settlement, each DSU account will be credited with additional DSUs. The additional DSUs to be credited will be calculated by dividing the aggregate dividends or distributions that would have been paid to the Director if the Director held the shares underlying the DSUs, by the fair market value of one share on the date which the dividends or distributions were paid.

2014 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash(1) ($)		DSU Awards(2) ($)		Option Awards(3) ($)		All Other Compensation ($)		Total ($)
George M. Bee		97,125		80,000		—		—		177,125
Charles R. Engles4		97,233		80,000		—		—		177,233
Michael J. McMullen		—		—		—		—		—
Patrice E. Merrin		98,175		80,000		—		—		178,175
Michael S. Parrett		114,325		80,000		—		—		194,325
Brian Schweitzer		147,550		80,000		—		—		227,550
Gary Sugar5		117,402		80,000		—		—		197,402

(1) Amounts include fees deferred in the form of DSUs under the Non-Employee Director DSU Plan.

(2) Value is based on the closing price on the grant date.

(3) As of December 31, 2014 there were no option awards outstanding for any non-employee director.

(4) Charles Engles resigned from the Board of Directors on November 4, 2014.

(5) Gary Sugar’s fees include director’s fees for Stillwater Canada Inc.

14

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction and Organization

This compensation discussion and analysis describes the analysis and decisions we made and implemented in 2014 to align our compensation practices with our stated corporate goals. It further describes our 2014 executive compensation for our named executive officers (“NEOs”), who were:

• Michael J. McMullen, President and Chief Executive Officer

• Gregory A. Wing, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Through December 1, 2014)

• Christopher M. Bateman, Chief Financial Officer (beginning on December 1, 2014)

• Terrell I. Ackerman, Vice President, Corporate Development (Through October 14, 2014)

• Kevin G. Shiell, Vice President, General Manager, Montana Mining Operations (Through April 16, 2014)

• Brent R. Wadman, Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary

• Kristen K. Koss, Vice President, Human Resources and Safety

• Rhonda L. Ihde, Corporate Controller

The compensation discussion and analysis is divided into the following sections:

Part 1: The 2015 Compensation Program

Part 2: 2014 Compensation Program, Philosophy, Elements and Decisions

PART 1:

The 2015 Compensation Program

The Compensation Committee, with the assistance of compensation specialists, examined the following in 2014:

• Peer group selection

• Competitive assessment of compensation levels among peer companies, and a survey of mining companies (all executives)

• Competitive assessment of executive compensation program design, including structure, pay mix, and performance measures

• Pay and performance alignment

• Governance considerations, including stock ownership guidelines, clawback policy, and change-in-control arrangements

• Feedback from proxy advisor firms and shareholder concerns

Based on the Compensation Committee’s review of the executive pay programs, the Company made no material changes to its executive pay program for 2015. The program is summarized in the table below.

15

Summary of the 2015 Executive Compensation Program

Pay Design Element	Stillwater Mining Company Compensation Program
Pay Positioning	*  Total direct compensation (salary + annual incentive + long term incentive) targeted at median (50th percentile)
Peer Groups and Survey Sources	*  For pay purposes: Compensation Peer Group selection criteria revised *  For stock price/total shareholder return performance purposes: Performance Peer Group is subset of Compensation Peer Group, reducing proportion of gold producers and adding PGM and recycling producers *  PGM and recycling companies are too large and/or non-U.S./Canada domiciled; therefore not appropriate as Compensation Peer Group
Long-Term Incentive Mix	*  Two LTI measures Performance RSUs on prospective 3-year performance Time-vesting RSUs (provides tangible value in volatile industry) *  Weighting President/CEO, CFO = 70% Performance RSUs, 30% time-vesting RSUs Other NEOs/Officers = 60% Performance RSUs, 40% time-vesting RSUs
Incentive Plan Payout Leverage	*  Annual incentive payouts: Threshold of 50% and maximum of 200% For President/CEO only, amount of payout >114% of target delivered in time-vesting RSUs with additional 3-year ratable vesting *  Performance RSUs payouts: Threshold performance results in 25% of target payout Maximum performance results in 175% of target payout Performance below threshhold results in 0% payout
Annual Incentive Performance Measures	Key annual scorecard metrics: *  Safety *  EBITDA *  Mine Production *  Total Cost per Ounce *  Metallurgical Complex-Recycling (EBTDA, Production, Costs) *  Business Development *  Strategic Initiatives *  Individual Performance
LTI Performance Measures for Performance RSUs	Performance RSUs 3-year scorecard measures focus on ties to shareholder outcomes, financial measures, and long-term strategic measures and are separate and distinct from annual measures: *  40% Total Shareholder Return (peer relative, absolute, PGM price change relative) *  40% Net Book Value Per Share *  20% Free Cash Flow
Determining # of Shares to Grant	*60-trading day average stock price to convert LTI value to number of shares to grant
Risk Mitigators	*  Mix of production, development and capital measures for incentive plans *  Ownership guidelines maintained that refl     peer practices *  Clawback policy consistent with Dodd-Frank guidelines *  Anti-hedging policy remains in place
Change-in-Control	*  President/CEO has severance multiple of 2x salary and annual incentive with or without a change-in-control *  Change-in-control severance multiples for CFO other NEOs remain 1.5x salary and annual incentive *  President/CEO and CFO contracts without 280G tax gross-ups, per policy *  Double triggers required on equity grants as well as cash severance

For 2015, we maintained our compensation programs to continue to align our compensation practices with the Company’s short-term and long-term goals and taking into account our industry characteristics (e.g., commodity-priced mining product, capital intensive, long-term assets), current operational situation, and strategic alternatives as determined by our President/CEO and the management team. Accordingly, for 2015 incentive programs, we maintained our focus on financial performance measures and total shareholder return, a strong emphasis on key operational drivers of shareholder value (e.g., production and cost), and for specific strategic measures in the annual incentive that are key to driving the long-term success of Stillwater Mining Company.

16

2015 Pay Positioning Philosophy, Peer Group and Market Data

For 2015 pay decisions, the Compensation Committee adopted an approach to positioning overall target pay generally at the 50th percentile of competitive levels, with individual variation that reflects incumbent experience and responsibilities in the role. Competitive pay levels were benchmarked in comparison to the revised Compensation Peer Group established in the fourth quarter of 2014 and market surveys of executive compensation. The revised Compensation Peer Group reflects as closely as possible our relevant industry, business model and size, and the data from the compensation surveys is selected to be representative of our size of approximately $1 billion in revenue.

To determine appropriate competitive benchmarks, the Compensation Committee considered the following criteria for peer selection:

• GICS sub-industry classification of “Metals & Mining” (to include all potential companies with recycling operations) with revenue approximately between $500 million and $3 billion (roughly 0.5x to 3.0x Stillwater’s projected 2014 revenue)

• Consideration of market cap (qualitative assessment)

• U.S or Canadian domiciled company

• As similar a business model as possible, given the scarcity of PGM producing companies outside of South Africa and Russia

• Currently operating at least one mine or recycling facility

• Underground mining operations, where possible

• Harvesting metals for industrial end users

This assessment resulted in a revised Compensation Peer Group with revenue ranging from $251 million to $1.64 billion, with one outlier at $9.3 billion (see footnote of list below), with median revenue of approximately $645 million (based on latest available fiscal year end revenue through June 30, 2014), a figure lower than Stillwater’s 2014 revenue. The revised peer group included the following companies:

2014 Compensation Peer Group Used for 2015 Pay Decisions

Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd	Hecla Mining Co
Alamos Gold, Inc.	Horsehead Holding Corp
B2Gold Corp	HudBay Minerals, Inc.
Capstone Mining Corp	IAMGOLD Corp
Coeur Mining, Inc.	New Gold, Inc
Compass Minerals International Inc.	Pan American Silver Corp
Eldorado Gold Corp	Sims Metal Management Limited*
First Majestic Silver Corp	Thompson Creek Metals Co

* New addition to 2014 Compensation Peer Group; despite outsized revenues, added as a lower margin recycling business with market capitalization and earnings within peer range.

The following companies from the 2013 peer group were eliminated from the 2014 Compensation Peer Group because they did not meet the screening criteria, as follows:

Companies	Reasons for Elimination
Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Golden Star Resources, Ltd.	Too small, with revenue significantly less than the $500 million lower revenue screen, and not in line on qualitative measures
Osisko Mining Corp.	Acquired

In addition to the 2014 Compensation Peer Group, data from the 2013 Hay Mining Compensation Review was used for non-operational positions only.

17

The 2014 Compensation Peer Group was used along with survey data to benchmark 2015 pay for our President/Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, VP, Legal Affairs & Corporate Secretary and VP, HR & Safety. Peer data was weighted more heavily than survey data where available because the Compensation Peer Group’s composition was based on the Compensation Committee’s approved selection criteria, and there was greater control over analysis considerations for the Compensation Peer Group data than for the survey data. Survey data alone was used for NEOs whose positions were not well represented among the NEOs of the Compensation Peer Group.

Competitive Data Sources and Weighting to Benchmark 2014 Pay

Position	Compensation Peer Group			Hay Survey
President/Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer		75	%		25	%
Vice President Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary		50	%		50	%
Vice President of Human Resources and Safety & Health		0	%		100	%

As a result of this benchmarking and the general mining industry economic environment, base salaries and target annual incentives for some of our NEOs were increased for 2015. Further, since our new Chief Financial Officer was hired in December 2014, his salary and target annual incentive were determined at that time based on the 2014 Compensation Peer Group and the above-referenced surveys, and were intended as the pay level for 2015 as well.

2015 Performance Peer Group

For purposes of assessing TSR performance in comparison to peers, Stillwater has established a Performance Peer Group to be a better fit with Stillwater’s business characteristics (a PGM producer with smelting and recycling operations). The Performance Peer Group has ten of the same companies as the Compensation Peer Group, plus four other companies that are PGM producers and/or have recycling operations. These four other companies were too large and/or non-U.S./Canada domiciled to be an appropriate fit as members of the Compensation Peer Group. The reason for removing the other seven companies was to reduce the proportion of gold producers. This is important because PGM prices can move quite differently from gold prices, and thus distort relative TSR performance. Because of this factor, TSR measures also include absolute price performance and performance relative to PGM prices. The resulting composition of the Performance Peer Group reflects a more balanced exposure to various metals. The Performance Peer Group is shown below.

Performance Peer Group for Performance RSUs

Allied Nevada Gold Corp	IAMGOLD Corp
Capstone Mining Corp	Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd*
Coeur Mining, Inc.	Johnson Matthey plc*
Compass Minerals International Inc.	Pan American Silver Corp
First Majestic Silver Corp	Thompson Creek Metals Co
Hecla Mining Co	Umicore S.A.*
HudBay Minerals, Inc.	Yamana Gold, Inc.*

* Peers added for the Performance Peer Group only

18

2015 Incentive Program Design

For 2015, we are continuing the link between pay and performance in the incentive program design.

1. First, we maintain a mix in our long-term incentive vehicles to have two vehicles instead of one, continuing with performance RSUs that vest based on achievement of prospective three-year performance goals and adding a lesser proportion of time-vesting RSUs.

2. Second, the President/CEO’s annual incentive above-target payout requires that part of it be paid out in time-vesting RSUs, and adjusted the performance RSUs’ threshold and maximum payouts for all NEOs and officers to increase the tie to shareholder value changes.

3. Third, the weightings for our performance measures emphasize direct links to shareholder outcomes.

Long-Term Incentive Mix

We are continuing the structure of our long-term incentives for 2015 with performance RSUs that vest based on prospective three-year performance. The performance RSUs for 2015 are intended to be annual grants, generally granted in the first quarter of our fiscal year. The performance period for the performance RSUs will be three years, after which the shares will vest based on results, and a new performance cycle will start each year. Performance measures and goals will be set at the beginning of the performance period, and the number of units vesting will be based on achievement of those performance goals.

We also provide a time-vesting RSU component as part of the total LTI mix for 2015 that is proportionally smaller than the performance RSU component for our NEOs. Like the performance RSUs, the time-vesting RSUs are intended to be annual grants, generally granted in the first quarter of our fiscal year. The time-vesting RSUs will vest ratably over three years.

The performance RSUs going forward are intended to create a direct link to shareholder value outcomes and to reward management for long-term value creation. The time-vesting RSUs are intended to provide a tangible value in a volatile industry where management has little control over the pricing of its commodity product.

The 2015 LTI mix and vesting time horizon are consistent with typical peer practices, as most peers use a “portfolio approach” to LTI vehicles. The proportion of performance RSUs is aligned with the overall responsibility and ability to influence performance outcomes, with the largest proportion for the President/CEO. The following table summarizes the LTI mix:

Long-Term Incentive Mix

Long-Term Incentive Vehicle	Time Horizon	CEO, CFO			Other NEOs/Officers
Performance RSUs – Prospective 3-Year Performance	3-year prospective performance period, cliff vesting		70	%		60	%
Time-Vesting RSUs	3-year ratable vesting		30	%		40	%

Incentive Plan Payout Leverage

The 2015 annual incentive threshold and maximum payouts, at 50% and 200% of target payouts, respectively, are unchanged from 2014. The 2015 performance RSUs threshold and maximum payouts are also unchanged from 2014. For the 2014 performance RSUs, the threshold payout of 25% and the maximum payout of 175% are intended to further align pay and performance; performance below threshold results in a 0% payout. The 2015 annual incentive payout leverage and the 2015 payout leverage for the performance RSUs are consistent with typical peer practices.

19

Annual Incentive and Performance RSUs Plan Payout Leverage

	As % of Target Payout
Performance Achievement	Annual Incentive Payout			Performance RSUs Payouts
Maximum		200	%		175	%
Target		100	%		100	%
Threshold		50	%		25	%
Below Threshold		0	%		0	%

In addition, the 2015 annual incentive has a feature for the President/CEO only that fosters a stronger tie to shareholder outcomes for performance above target. For the President/CEO, if actual annual performance results in a payout above 114% of the President/CEO’s base pay, the amount up to 114% will be paid in cash and the amount above 114% will be paid in time-vesting RSUs that vest ratably over three years. This equity payout for part of the award is intended to ensure that any high annual incentive payouts to the President/CEO are linked to sustained performance and tied more directly to shareholder outcomes. For all other NEOs, annual incentive awards will continue to be paid entirely in cash.

20

Performance Measures

The Compensation Committee worked with management to determine the performance measures for both the annual incentive and performance RSUs. The overall objective was to strengthen the direct link to shareholder value outcomes and support Stillwater’s long-term business strategy.

For the 2015 annual incentive plan, this resulted in weightings as shown and described below.

Annual Incentive Performance Measures and Weightings

Rationale for Measures

*	Enhanced weighting on EBITDA to strengthen direct tie to shareholder outcomes
*	Reduced weighting on mine production volume to be in balance with mining costs
*	Mining cost measure to include total costs in support of business strategy cost control objectives
*	Metallurgical complex-recycling measures to emphasize earnings:
	– Directly via EBTDA (like EBITDA but including interest expense)
	– Indirectly through cost control; kept production volume measure
*	Short-term strategic measures focus management on initiatives that will drive growth and/or operational efficiency (assessment may be quantitative or discretionary based on guidelines or milestones)
*	Individual performance component to provide for some individual performance differentiation, where warranted
*	Mine production and cost measures are critical drivers of earnings and within management control (unlike revenue or earnings, which are directly subject to commodity price changes)
*	As with mine production, metallurgical complex-recycling production measure is critical driver of earnings when coupled with cost controls
*	Safety measure is the cornerstone of Stillwater’s social license, and it is key to long-term operational stability and employee well-being
*	Business development measure relates to optimizing future paths with Marathon and Altar projects

21

For the 2015 performance RSUs, the total shareholder return (TSR) measure is trifurcated into three components – comparison to the Performance Peer Group, comparison to an absolute growth goal, and comparison to the change in PGM prices. The starting stock price and ending stock price for TSR performance measurement will use a 60-trading day average stock price. The starting and ending PGM price will also use a 60-trading day average price. The financial measures are free cash flow and net book value per share, and both of these are different from the annual incentive financial measure.

Performance RSUs

Measures and Weightings

⁽¹⁾  TSR measured in three parts: 13.3% based on TSR compared to the Performance Peer Group, 13.3% based on TSR compared to an absolute TSR growth goal, and 13.3% based on TSR compared to changes in PGM prices

Rationale for Measures

* Enhanced weighting on TSR to strengthen the pay and performance alignment as well direct ties to shareholder outcomes; the three ways to measure TSR provide a holistic assessment of Stillwater stock price performance

– TSR vs. the Performance Peer Group measures how well Stillwater stock performs in comparison to other mining and smelting/recycling companies facing a similar economic environment and industry cycles

– Absolute TSR captures performance with respect to value returned directly to Stillwater shareholders

– TSR vs. PGM price changes measures how well Stillwater performs relative to changes in PGM prices, since Stillwater earnings are heavily influenced by PGM prices, and Stillwater’s stock price is correlated to PGM prices

* Free cash flow supports mine development and Company growth as well as shareholder returns

* Net book value per share measures the impact of sustained earnings over time and investment decisions

22

PART 2:

2014 COMPENSATION PROGRAM, PHILOSOPHY,

ELEMENTS AND DECISIONS

COMPANY PERFORMANCE FOR 2014

Highlights of the Company operating performance for 2014 include:

• Consolidated net income attributable to common stockholders of $70.3 million or $0.56 per diluted share

• $65.5 million growth in cash and liquid investments (excluding $30.0 million debt retirement), ending the year with $531.5 million total

• Continued AISC reduction, averaging at the low end of $780–$830/ounce guidance range at $784 per mined ounce

• Montana mines produced 517,700 PGM ounces, at mid-point of guidance range

• Processed 469,400 ounces of recycled palladium, platinum and rhodium

• Retired $30.0 million of 8% State of Montana exempt facility bonds

• Decreased Corporate overhead & exploration expense 35% to $37.8 million

• Replaced production and saw a modest increase in proven and probable ore reserves at Montana mines

For an explanation of All in Sustaining Costs (AISC) (a non-GAAP financial measure), and a reconciliation of ASIC to Consolidated Costs of Revenues (the most directly comparable GAAP measure), see Item 6 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SUMMARY OF 2014 COMPENSATION DECISIONS

The above highlights and other financial and operational outcomes were key to determining overall compensation for our President/Chief Executive Officer and other Named Executive Officers in 2014, summarized below. A substantial portion of the compensation of these individuals is based on performance goals and is not fixed, thus ensuring better alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives. NEO compensation outcomes for 2014 included the following:

• In 2014, the Compensation Committee reviewed a market analysis. The market analysis indicated that the base salaries of our NEOs were generally between the 25th percentile and 50th percentile. The Compensation Committee determined that while this rate of pay remains competitive for the market in which we compete for executive talent, there would be some salary increases for our NEOs in 2015,

• Annual cash incentive awards are generally structured to deliver pay that is consistent with market median levels for achievement of target performance on short-term objectives designed to drive operational and financial performance. During 2014, safety, mine production, mine costs, recycling operations, financing and business development were the key metrics for our NEOs’ annual cash incentive awards. The Company’s performance with respect to each of these metrics resulted in annual incentive payouts at approximately 140.84% of target levels; and

• Long-term awards in the form of Performance Restricted Stock Units granted in 2014 will vest contingent on the results of measured performance over a 3-year period ending December 31, 2016 on strategic objectives tied to TSR, Net Book Value per Share, and Free Cash Flow. Long-term awards in the form of Performance Restricted Stock Units granted in 2015 will vest contingent on the results of measured performance on the same objectives over a 3-year period ending December 31, 2017.

23

ELEMENTS OF 2014 TOTAL COMPENSATION

We utilized three main components established during 2014 for our executive compensation for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Element	Objective	Key Features & Terms
Base Salary	Provide our NEOs with a fixed rate of pay for performing day-to-day responsibilities and compensate them competitively based on their role in the organization.	*  Reviewed annually as part of the overall market assessment to ensure competitive positioning relative to the market. *  Base salary is set in the first quarter of each year for that calendar year. *  Paid to NEOs on a semi-monthly basis.
Annual Bonus	Reward NEOs’ achievement of yearly financial and operational objectives that align with longer term strategies.	*  Cash payment determined by the Committee and awarded to the NEO in the first quarter of the year following the performance year. *  Target award opportunities generally expressed as a percentage of base salary.
Long-Term Incentive	Provide long-term incentive based on achieving specific pre- determined performance goals that support the Company’s strategic objectives and to align executives’ interests with those of shareholders.	*  Equity-based performance awards determined by the Committee and awarded to the NEO in the first quarter of the year following the performance year. *  Target award generally expressed as a percentage of base salary. *  Time-vesting restricted stock units vest ratably over a three-year period.

Compensation and Performance Pay Reflective of Position and Responsibility

Compensation and accountability should generally grow with advances in position and increased responsibilities. Consistent with this philosophy, total target compensation is higher for individuals with greater responsibility and greater ability to influence the Company’s achievement of targeted results and strategic initiatives. In addition, as an executive advances and responsibilities are expanded, a greater portion of the NEO’s total compensation is performance-based pay contingent on the achievement of performance objectives. Finally, equity-based compensation is higher for NEOs with higher levels of responsibility, making a significant portion of their total compensation dependent on long-term stock appreciation. It should also be noted that the long-term incentive plans have a cap and a floor as to potential payouts, the former of which discourages unnecessary risk-taking that may adversely affect the Company’s sustainability. The compensation package of our CEO has the largest portion of pay at risk, with 76% of his targeted total direct compensation based on performance of the Company. Other NEOs range from 42% to 65% of targeted total direct compensation at risk for the 2014 performance year.

Compensation Decisions That Promote the Interests of Shareholders

Compensation should focus management on achieving strong short-term (annual) performance in a manner that supports and ensures the Company’s long-term success and profitability. The Annual Bonus Program creates incentives for meeting annual performance targets, while equity grants from our Long-term Incentive Program encourage the achievement of longer-term objectives and promote retention. Time-vesting Restricted Stock Units vest in thirds over a three-year period. Performance Restricted Stock Unit grants create long-term incentives that align the interest of management with our shareholders and cliff-vest at the end of a three-year period.

Compensation Should be Reasonable and Responsible

Compensation should be set at responsible levels. Our executive compensation programs are intended to be consistent with the Company’s primary focus on the safety of our employees, production, controlling costs, improving the state of development at the mines, continuing to grow the recycling business, and Company growth.

24

Compensation Structure

Pay Levels and Benchmarking

It is appropriate to establish compensation levels based primarily on benchmarking against similar companies, both in terms of compensation practices as well as levels of compensation. In this way, we can gauge if our compensation is competitive in the marketplace for our talent, as well as ensure that our compensation is reasonable.

The Compensation Committee reviews compensation levels for the NEOs against compensation levels at the “Compensation Peer Group,” which is developed by the Compensation Committee and reviewed by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Farient, who does no other work with the company. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Compensation Committee conducted an analysis of the Compensation Peer Group used in 2014, reviewed the criteria that were appropriate to be used in selecting a peer group and proposed a peer group of 16 companies, reflecting input from the Compensation Committee and Stillwater executive management. Further detail regarding this new Peer Group can be found above in the section titled “The 2015 Compensation Program.”

Utilizing the information described above, market compensation consensus numbers were developed for base salary, cash bonus and long-term incentive at the 25th percentile, 50th percentile and 75th percentile. Base salary and cash bonus were then targeted for each NEO at the 50th percentile level depending upon performance. Long-term incentive values were targeted for each NEO between the 50th and 75th percentiles when certain targeted levels of performance are achieved.

Pay Mix

By following a portfolio approach, we provide each executive a base level of compensation, while motivating the executive to focus on the business metrics that will produce a high level of performance and long-term value creation for the Company and the executive, as well as reducing the risk of loss of executive talent. The mix of metrics normally targeted for the short-term and long-term plans likewise provides an appropriate balance between short-term financial and operational performance and long-term financial performance and shareholder return.

For NEOs with greater levels of responsibility and thus greater ability to influence Company performance, the mix of compensation is weighted at target towards at-risk pay (annual incentives and long-term incentives). This pay mix fundamentally results in a pay-for-performance orientation for our executives, consistent with our compensation philosophy. We place great emphasis on variable performance-based compensation through our Short-Term Incentive Plan and Performance Restricted Stock Unit grants. In addition, long-term incentives, and particularly equity compensation, provide a very important motivational and retentive aspect to the compensation package of our key executives. The charts below show the breakdown between each element of compensation and fixed pay vs. performance-based pay at target for each NEO for fiscal year 2014:

		Percentage of Total Compensation at Target									Percentage of Fixed and Performance Based Pay at Target
Name	Title	Base Salary			Annual Bonus			Long-Term Awards			Fixed			Performance Based
Michael J. McMullen	Chief Executive Officer		24	%		22	%		54	%		24	%		76	%
Christopher M. Bateman(1)	Chief Financial Officer		32	%		17	%		51	%		32	%		68	%
Gregory A. Wing(2)	Vice President/Chief Financial Officer		35	%		17	%		48	%		35	%		65	%
Terrell I. Ackerman(3)	Vice President, Corporate Development		41	%		17	%		42	%		41	%		59	%
Kevin G. Shiell(4)	Vice President, Mining Operations		41	%		17	%		42	%		41	%		59	%
Brent R. Wadman	Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary		58	%		18	%		24	%		58	%		42	%
Kristen K. Koss	Vice President, Human Resources and Safety		58	%		18	%		24	%		58	%		42	%
Rhonda Ihde	Corporate Controller		58	%		18	%		24	%		58	%		42	%

⁽¹⁾  Christopher M. Bateman was named Chief Financial Officer on December 1, 2014.

⁽²⁾  Former CFO Gregory A. Wing retired from the Company on December 1, 2014.

⁽³⁾  Terrell Ackerman retired from the company on October 14, 2014.

⁽⁴⁾  Kevin Shiell resigned from the company on April 16, 2014.

25

Pay Elements – Overview

We utilize three main components of compensation:	CEO Target Pay Mix
•    Base Salary – fixed pay that takes into account an individual’s role and responsibilities, experience, expertise and individual performance.
•    Annual Bonus – variable cash compensation that is designed to reward attainment of annual business goals, with target award opportunities generally expressed as a percentage of base salary.
•    Long-Term Incentive Compensation – stock-based awards including Restricted Stock Units that only vest if certain pre-determined Company performance objectives have been achieved.

In addition, our NEOs participate in employee benefit plans generally available to all employees on the same terms as similarly situated employees, including life insurance. Other than use of a Company vehicle, which is needed for travel between business locations, the Company does not provide our NEOs with perquisites. The Company does not provide any other retirement benefits to our NEOs, other than eligibility to participate in our 401(k) Plan and the 409A Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan. The Company provides a match of up to 8% of the officers’ contributions into the 401(k) Plan (in the form of Company Stock) and 409A Deferred Compensation Plan, with the combined match not to exceed the lesser of 8% of the executive’s compensation or the executive’s contribution percentage.

Pay Elements – Details

Base Salary. Base salary provides our NEOs with a level of monthly income that ensures that the Company is able to attract and retain the caliber of executive talent needed to successfully operate the business. In determining base salaries, the Compensation Committee considers the executive’s qualifications and experience, scope of responsibilities within the organization and future potential, the goals and objectives established for the executive, the executive’s past performance, competitive salary practices at companies in the Compensation Peer Group (as discussed above in “Pay Levels and Benchmarking”), internal pay equity and the tax deductibility of base salary. Base salaries for new executives are determined by individual experience and performance, as well as planned responsibilities within the Company. The below table outlines our NEO base salaries for 2014 and 2015.

		2014		2015
Name	Title	Base Salary		Base Salary		Percentage of Increase
Michael J. McMullen	Chief Executive Officer		660,000		712,000		7.30	%
Christopher M. Bateman(1)	Chief Financial Officer		385,000		385,000		N/A
Gregory A. Wing(2)	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer		371,000		N/A		N/A
Terrell I. Ackerman(3)	Vice President of Corporate Development		315,000		N/A		N/A
Kevin G. Shiell(4)	Vice President of Mining Operations		310,000		N/A		N/A
Brent R. Wadman	Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary		225,000		235,000		4.26	%
Kristen K. Koss	Vice President, Human Resources and Safety		225,000		230,000		2.17	%
Rhonda L. Ihde	Corporate Controller		221,000		221,000		N/A

⁽¹⁾  Christopher M. Bateman was named Chief Financial Officer on December 1, 2014.

⁽²⁾ Former CFO Gregory A. Wing retired from the Company on December 1, 2014.

⁽³⁾ Terrell Ackerman retired from the company on October 14, 2014.

⁽⁴⁾ Kevin Shiell resigned from the company on April 16, 2014.

The Compensation Committee seeks to align our NEOs’ base salaries at approximately the median for our Compensation Peer Group. Adjustments to base salary are made annually based on individual performance or when substantive changes occur in the responsibilities of an executive. Base salaries are generally reviewed by the Compensation Committee in January each year. After the above adjustments, our incumbent NEOs are still within an acceptable range (+/- 15%) of the median of the revised Compensation Peer Group.

26

Annual Bonus Program. Annual cash bonuses are paid pursuant to our Short-Term Incentive Plan and are set each year relative to our annual business plan. For 2014, the total annual bonus was based upon a quantitative formula, with 8% based on the Compensation Committee’s discretionary evaluation of individual and group performance. For 2014, each NEO had a threshold, target (the median) and maximum annual bonus opportunity, expressed as a percentage of base salary (with linear interpolation between opportunity percentages), as follows:

Name	Executive Officer	Bonus at Threshold Performance Level	Bonus at Target Performance Level	Bonus at Maximum Performance Level
Michael J. McMullen	Chief Executive Officer	47.5%	95%	190%
Christopher M. Bateman(1)	Chief Financial Officer	27.5%	55%	110%
Brent R. Wadman	Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary	15%	30%	60%
Kristen K. Koss	Vice President, Human Resources and Safety	15%	30%	60%
Rhonda L. Ihde	Corporate Controller	15%	30%	60%

⁽¹⁾  Target in 2014 for Christopher M. Bateman, named CFO on December 1, 2014, was set to 1/12th of the annual target bonus amount per his employment agreement.

Performance targets are established at the beginning of each year. Each target has a minimum threshold, target and maximum goal, with a potential funding of between 0% and 100% of the maximum annual bonus amount. At minimum threshold performance, the annual bonus will be funded at 25% of the maximum performance level, with zero funding for performance below threshold. If performance is at the target level, the annual bonus will be funded at 50% of the maximum award.

For 2014, the performance measures underlying the annual bonus included the following:

	Weighting as Percentage of Total Annual Bonus
Safety & Environmental		10	%
Mine Production		15	%
Total Costs		15	%
Metallurgical Operations		10	%
Financial Metrics		20	%
Business Development		10	%
Strategic Initiatives		12	%
Subtotal		92	%
Individual Performance		8	%
Total		100	%

While the bonus award is based upon these measures, the achievement of these goals does not result in automatic payment, and instead provides context for the Committee to make a determination on payouts.

For 2014, the Compensation Committee utilized a “performance scorecard” with performance standards that relate to the Company’s annual business plan and current strategic priorities in order to determine payouts of annual bonuses under the Short-Term Incentive Plan. The achievement of those target goals will benefit the business and its shareholders. Achievement of the goals is subject to both management performance and external economic factors. The results for NEOs for 2014 are as follows:

27

2014 Performance Review

	Payout as Percentage of Total Annual Bonus
Safety & Environmental		2.50	%
Mine Production		15.83	%
Total Costs		30.00	%
Metallurgical Operations		9.51	%
Financial Metrics		40.00	%
Business Development		13.00	%
Strategic Initiatives		17.00	%
Individual Performance		13.00	%
Total		140.84	%

For the targets established for 2014, the management group achieved a result of 140.84% of target performance with respect to the quantitative component of the Short-Term Incentive Plan. With respect to the individual performance component, the Compensation Committee determines the appropriate annual bonus award if any, given the levels of performance. The quantitative score of 140.84% resulted in a payout for each NEO, as set forth below:

	Short Term Incentive Plan Target Annual Bonus *
	2014 Base Salary		Target Bonus %			Bonus Payout (%)			Bonus Payout ($)		Value Paid in Cash		Value Awarded in Time-Vesting RSUs
M. McMullen(1)		660,000		95	%		140.84	%	$	883,067	$	752,400	$	130,663
C. Bateman(2)		385,000		55	%		140.84	%	$	24,852
B. Wadman		225,000		30	%		140.84	%	$	95,067
K. Koss		225,000		30	%		140.84	%	$	95,067
R. Ihde		221,000		30	%		140.84	%	$	93,377

Multiplier is 1.4083936 of target, except as noted below.

⁽¹⁾  Per Mr. McMullen’s employment agreement, any payout exceeding 114% of his base pay will be paid out in RSUs vesting ratably over three years.

⁽²⁾  Per his employment agreement, Christopher M. Bateman’s bonus was prorated by 1/12th based on date of hire.

* Messrs. Wing, Ackerman and Shiell did not receive bonuses under the Short-Term Incentive Plan, as they received severance payments in lieu of such bonuses. See Footnote 5 to the Summary Compensation Table.

For 2015, each NEO will have a threshold, target (the median) and maximum annual bonus opportunity, expressed as a percentage of base salary (with linear interpolation between opportunity percentages), as follows:

Name	Executive Officer	Bonus at Threshold Performance Level			Bonus at Target Performance Level			Bonus Maximum Performance Level
Michael J. McMullen	Chief Executive Officer		52.5	%		105	%		210	%
Christopher M. Batemen	Chief Financial Officer		27.5	%		55	%		110	%
Brent R. Wadman	Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary		20	%		40	%		80	%
Kristen K. Koss	Vice President, Human Resources and Safety		27.5	%		55	%		110	%
Rhonda L. Ihde	Corporate Controller		15	%		30	%		60	%

Long-Term Incentive Compensation.

The Compensation Committee sets specific performance objectives under the long-term incentive plan at the beginning of each fiscal year. The number of Performance Restricted Stock Units granted with respect to each performance cycle depends on achievement of specific performance factors, which included Total Shareholder Return, Net Book Value per Share, and Free Cash Flow.

28

The LTI award:

• Rewards the executives for achievement of pre-determined business goals, as summarized in the long-term incentive scorecard (“LTI Scorecard”), which is outlined below.

• Aligns the interests of executives with those of our shareholders.

• Retains key executives, assists in compliance with the Company’s requirements for executive stock ownership, and focuses the management team on increasing value for the shareholders.

In determining the target value of Performance Restricted Stock Units to be granted to our NEOs, the Compensation Committee takes into account each individual’s:

(1) market competitive award levels for the position,

(2) scope of responsibility,

(3) ability to affect profits and shareholder value,

(4) historic and recent performance, and

(5) the value of Performance Restricted Stock Unit grants in relation to other elements of total compensation.

For 2014 and 2015, target Performance Restricted Stock Unit values for each of our NEOs ranged from 40% to 230% of annual base salary, as follows:

	Target Performance Restricted Stock Value Percentage of Base Salary
Name	2014			2015
Michael J. McMullen		230	%		230	%
Christopher M. Bateman(1)		160	%		160	%
Brent R. Wadman		40	%		60	%
Kristen K. Koss		40	%		50	%
Rhonda L. Ihde		40	%		40	%

⁽¹⁾  Per his employment agreement, for 2014, in lieu of an LTIP award, Mr. Bateman was awarded an additional amount to his 2015 target in the amount of 1/12th his annual LTIP target.

The 2014 Performance Restricted Stock Unit awards have threshold, target and maximum performance and payout opportunities. Threshold achievement of performance goals will yield 50% of the target opportunity, while maximum achievement of performance goals will yield 175% of the target opportunity. The number of Performance Restricted Stock Units is interpolated for achievement between threshold and target levels and between target and maximum award levels.

On February 23, 2015, the Board of Directors granted the following number of Performance Restricted Stock Units to the NEOs, determined by dividing the Performance Restricted Stock grant value by the 60 trading day average share price as of January 1, 2015:

	2015 Performance Restricted Stock Units Granted
Named Executive Officer	2015 Annual Salary		2015 LTI Target			Target Performance Restricted Unit Opportunity %			Target Performance Restricted Unit Opportunity $		Number of Performance Stock Units Granted in February 2015(1)
Michael J. McMullen	$	712,000		230	%		70	%	$	1,146,320		84,057
Christopher M. Bateman(2)		385,000		173	%		70	%		466,235		34,254
Brent R. Wadman		235,000		60	%		60	%		84,600		6,203
Kristen K. Koss		230,000		50	%		60	%		69,000		5,059
Rhonda L. Ihde		221,000		40	%		60	%		53,040		3,889

⁽¹⁾  This amount is determined using the 60 trading day average share price as of January 1, 2015, of $13.63730017.

⁽²⁾  Per his employment agreement, for 2014, in lieu of an LTIP award, Mr. Bateman was awarded an additional amount to his 2015 target in the amount of 1/12th his annual LTIP target.

29

These 2015 grant amounts (which are considered as part of the 2014 total compensation package) are not reflected in the 2014 Summary Compensation Table as they did not have a grant date fair value for fiscal year 2014. The threshold, target and maximum values of the Performance Restricted Stock Units that could have been earned with respect to 2014 performance are disclosed in the 2014 Grant of Plan Based Awards Table. The table below provides a three-year history of grant date Performance Restricted Stock Unit awards earned for performance against the annual LTI Scorecard.

Three-Year History of Performance Restricted Stock Unit Opportunity and Grant Value
Performance Period	Grant Year(1)		LTI Scorecard Result (% of Target)			Named Executive Officer	Target LTI Opportunity					Earned Value(2)					Grant Value(3)
							% Salary			$		$		% of Target
2014-2016		2014		N/A		M. McMullen(4)		230	%	$	1,518,000	$	—		—	%		1,928,761
						C. Bateman		160	%	$	—	$	—		—	%		—
						B. Wadman		60	%	$	135,000	$	—		—	%		114,345
						K. Koss		50	%	$	112,500	$	—		—	%		114,345
						R. Ihde		40	%	$	88,400	$	—		—	%		112,312
2013		2014		91.1	%	M. McMullen(4)		230	%	$	—	$	—		—	%		—
						G. Wing		140	%	$	519,400	$	473,173		91.1	%		485,598
						T. Ackerman		100	%	$	315,000	$	286,965		91.1	%		294,500
						K. Shiell		100	%	$	310,000	$	282,410		91.1	%		289,826
						B. Wadman		40	%	$	90,000	$	81,990		91.1	%		84,143
						K. Koss		40	%	$	90,000	$	81,990		91.1	%		84,143
2012		2013		120	%	F. McAllister		300	%	$	2,151,000	$	2,581,610		120	%		3,075,520
						G. Wing		140	%	$	490,000	$	588,091		120	%		700,603
						T. Ackerman		100	%	$	300,000	$	360,057		120	%		428,942
						K. Shiell		100	%	$	295,000	$	354,051		120	%		421,787
2011		2012		111	%	F. McAllister		400	%	$	2,732,000	$	3,032,516		111	%		3,600,712
						G. Wing		140	%	$	462,000	$	512,818		111	%		608,903
						J. Stark		150	%	$	547,500	$	607,723		111	%		721,591
						T. Ackerman		100	%	$	275,000	$	305,244		111	%		362,437
						K. Shiell		100	%	$	235,000	$	260,853		111	%		309,728

⁽¹⁾  Grants are made in February or March of each year and are subject to LTI scorecard results for the performance period.

⁽²⁾  90-day trailing average through the date the Compensation Committee approves the payout result. For grants made in 2014 or later, this result will be calculated at the end of the three-year performance period, thus no earned value is reported.

⁽³⁾  The grant date value is the actual compensation expense recognized by the Company based on the closing stock price on the grant date.

⁽⁴⁾  Per his employment agreement, for 2013, in lieu of an LTIP award, Mr. McMullen was awarded 23,000 restricted stock units that will vest ratably over three years.

30

2015 Performance Restricted Stock Units

In early 2015, the Compensation Committee established and communicated to our NEOs the threshold, target and maximum award opportunities for grants of Performance Restricted Stock Units under the new Long-Term Incentive Plan.

The table below illustrates the approximate threshold, target and maximum value of Performance Restricted Stock Units that the NEOs can earn based on new performance criteria through 2017:

			Performance Restricted Stock Units Opportunity for 2015 (Approximate calculation)
Named Executive Officer	2015 Base Salary		Threshold(1)		Target		Maximum(2)
Michael J. McMullen	$	712,000	$	573,160	$	1,146,320	$	2,006,060
Christopher M. Bateman	$	385,000	$	233,118	$	466,235	$	1,084,738
Brent R. Wadman	$	235,000	$	42,300	$	84,600	$	148,050
Kristen K. Koss	$	230,000	$	34,500	$	69,000	$	120,750
Rhonda L. Ihde	$	221,000	$	26,520	$	53,040	$	92,820

⁽¹⁾  Threshold value represents 25% of target value. These calculations do not include subsequent vesting of time-based incentive awards.

⁽²⁾  Maximum value represents 175% of target value. These calculations do not include subsequent vesting of time-based incentive awards.

The 2015 LTI Scorecard established by management and approved by the Compensation Committee includes the following performance measures and weights:

We note that the reporting of our LTI program will change pursuant to SEC disclosure rules.

Impact of Tax and Accounting

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time (the “Code”) generally disallows

a tax deduction to public corporations for non-qualifying compensation in excess of $1.0 million paid to the Company’s President/Chief Executive Officer and next three highest paid executives (other than the CFO). We review compensation plans in light of applicable tax provisions, including Section 162(m), and may revise compensation plans from time to time to maximize deductibility. However, we may approve compensation that does not qualify for deductibility when we deem it necessary to preserve needed flexibility in recognizing and rewarding desired performance and when it is in the best interests of the Company to do so. Our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan permits grants of stock options, restricted stock (time- or performance-based), restricted stock units and stock appreciation rights that may qualify for the performance based exception of Section 162(m), subject to other requirements.

As a general matter, we always take into account the various tax and accounting implications of compensation vehicles employed by the Company. When determining amounts of long-term incentive grants to executives and employees, the Compensation Committee examines the accounting cost associated with the grants. Under FASB ASC Topic 718, grants of stock options, restricted stock (time-based or performance-based), restricted stock units and other share-based payments result in an accounting charge for the Company. The accounting charge is equal to the fair value of the instruments being issued. For Performance Restricted Stock Units (our predominant instruments for executives), the value (per RSU) is determined on the date of grant using a Monte Carlo simulation valuation model times the number of shares or units granted. This expense is amortized over the requisite service period, or performance period of the instruments.

31

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Independent Directors Guidelines

In February 2013, the Board adopted stock ownership guidelines for Directors. These guidelines provide that, on or before December 31, 2017, all Directors are required to acquire (and thereafter maintain ownership of) a minimum number of shares of Common Stock with a value equal to two times the annual base cash retainer in place. In 2014, these guidelines were amended to allow for the inclusion of DSUs in the calculation of minimum ownership requirements.

In addition, within five years of their respective appointments, all newly-appointed Directors are required to acquire (and thereafter maintain ownership of) a minimum number of shares of Common Stock (or DSU equivalent) with a value equal to two times the annual base cash retainer payable to the independent Directors.

Named Executive Officers

Stock ownership guidelines for the NEOs are described in the table below:

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines
Executive	Salary Multiple
Chief Executive Officer		3 times base salary
Chief Financial Officer		1 times base salary
Vice Presidents of the Company		1 times base salary

Current executives and newly appointed officers in any of the above positions have five years to acquire the ownership required by the guidelines. In the event of an increase in an executive’s base salary, he or she will have one year from the time of the increase to acquire any additional shares needed to meet these guidelines. Shares counting toward the guidelines include:

• Shares owned jointly with, or separately, by the executive’s immediate family members

• Shares held in trust for the executive or immediate family member

• Shares held through any Stillwater-sponsored plan such as an employee stock purchase plan, a qualified retirement plan and/or a supplemental executive retirement plan

• 50% of unvested RSUs (after deduction of applicable federal and state taxes)

The stock price used to determine compliance with the ownership guidelines is either the greater of the then current market price or the closing price of a share of Stillwater’s common stock on the acquisition date.

As of February 17, 2015, all NEOs were in compliance with this policy.

Hedging Policy

The Company prohibits executives from holding Company securities in a margin account or pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan. An exception exists if the executive requests prior approval from the Company to pledge securities as collateral for a loan (but not for margin accounts) and the executive can demonstrate the financial capacity to repay the loan without resorting to the pledged securities. Currently, no executives have any Company securities pledged for such a loan.

Recoupment Policy

The Company adopted a claw-back policy in anticipation of the finalization of Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under the policy, in the event that the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the Company’s material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement, the Company may recover from any current or former NEO of the Company the amount of certain incentive-based compensation in excess of what would have been paid or granted to that NEO under the circumstances reflected by the accounting restatement. This policy applies to any incentive based compensation paid to a NEO within the three year period preceding the date of the restatement. When final rules under Section 954 are adopted, this policy will be amended to so comply, as needed.

32

Timing and Pricing of Equity Grants

Stillwater Mining Company has adopted a program wherein Performance Restricted Stock Units are granted with the following provisions relating to the timing of such grants:

• The grant date for all inducement grants is the date an officer becomes an employee.

• Stillwater Mining Company executives do not have any role in selecting the grant date.

• The 2014 Performance Restricted Stock Units vest in thirds over a three year period.

• Performance Restricted Stock Units are promptly announced on a Form 4.

We have utilized a 60 trading-day price stock averaging formula in determining annual equity grants of Performance Restricted Stock Units since 2014. The ending date of the 60-day average is January 1. This formula and the above timing and pricing considerations are subject to change given the adjustments to our executive Compensation programs going forward.

Consideration of Prior Amounts Realized

In accordance with the Company’s philosophy of rewarding executives for future superior performance, prior stock compensation gains are not considered in setting future compensation levels.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Stillwater Mining Company has reviewed and discussed with the Company’s management the section entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” to be included in the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting Proxy Statement. Based on the review and discussion referred to above, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors has approved, such section to be included in the Proxy Statement.

Gary A. Sugar, Chairman

Patrice E. Merrin

Michael S. Parrett

33

2014 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table sets forth the compensation earned by, awarded to or paid to each of our NEOs during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

Name and Principal Position	Year		Salary(1)(2) ($)		Bonus(3) ($)		Stock Awards(4) ($)		Option Awards ($)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation(3) ($)		All Other Compensation(5) ($)		Total ($)
Michael J. McMullen(6)		2014	$	660,000	$	—	$	1,928,761	$	—	$	883,063	$	72,239	$	3,546,263
Chief Executive Officer		2013	$	51,333	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	48,000	$	43,103	$	142,436
Christopher M. Bateman		2014	$	32,083	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	24,852	$	1,616	$	58,551
Chief Financial Officer
Gregory A. Wing		2014	$	341,115	$	—	$	1,199,046	$	—	$	—	$	1,443,775	$	2,983,936
Vice President and		2013	$	371,000	$	—	$	700,603	$	—	$	200,000	$	11,889	$	1,283,492
Chief Financial Officer		2012	$	350,000	$	26,266	$	608,903	$	—	$	222,734	$	10,055	$	1,217,958
Terrell I. Ackerman(7)		2014	$	249,376	$	—	$	727,170	$	—	$	—	$	1,173,932	$	2,150,478
Vice President of		2013	$	386,214	$	—	$	428,942	$	—	$	136,000	$	59,916	$	1,011,072
Corporate Development		2012	$	300,000	$	18,038	$	362,437	$	—	$	152,962	$	45,805	$	879,242
Kevin G. Shiell		2014	$	90,416	$	—	$	715,635	$	—	$	—	$	234,884	$	1,040,935
Vice President of		2013	$	310,000	$	—	$	421,787	$	—	$	134,000	$	58,939	$	924,726
Mining Operations		2012	$	295,000	$	17,722	$	309,728	$	—	$	150,278	$	48,850	$	821,578
Brent R. Wadman(8)		2014	$	225,000	$	—	$	207,761	$	—	$	95,067	$	24,847	$	552,675
Vice President of Legal Affairs		2013	$	183,839	$	55,458	$	47,426	$	—	$	—	$	24,348	$	311,071
and Corporate Secretary
Kristen K. Koss		2014	$	225,000	$	—	$	207,761	$	—	$	95,067	$	32,431	$	560,259
Vice President of		2013	$	225,000	$	—	$	120,104	$	—	$	73,000	$	38,879	$	456,983
Human Resources and Safety
Rhonda L. Ihde		2014	$	221,000	$	—	$	204,061	$	—	$	93,377	$	25,463	$	543,901
Corporate Controller

⁽¹⁾  Amounts include non-qualified plan deferrals of $656, $27,500, and $30,000 for Terrell I. Ackerman and $12,383, $0, and $5,900 for Kevin G. Shiell for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

⁽²⁾ Amounts include December deferrals not transferred until January of the following year of $1,146 and $1,250 for Terrell I. Ackerman and $0 and $246 for Kevin G. Shiell for 2012 and 2013 respectively.

⁽³⁾  Reflects amounts payable pursuant to our Short-Term Incentive Program, as discussed more fully in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above. The discretionary portion is reflected in the “Bonus” column, while the amounts reflected in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column are pursuant to the formula based portion. In 2012 a 15% discretionary portion was calculated, in 2013 there was no discretionary portion, and in 2014 a 13% discretionary portion was calculated. Payments made to Brent A. Wadman were made prior to his promotion to VP of Legal & Corporate Secretary on August 6, 2013 and thus were discretionary.

⁽⁴⁾ Represents the grant date fair value of performance restricted stock units awarded to each NEO in 2012, 2013, and 2014 in respect of performance in 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively, as well as prospective performance for the period of 2014-2016, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The assumptions used in the valuation of awards made in 2012, 2013, and 2014 are detailed in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

⁽⁵⁾ The amounts in the “All Other Compensation” column for 2014 are detailed below:

	Excess Life Insurance Premium		401(k) Match		409A Match		Vehicle		Retirement Payment		Relocation		Total
McMullen	$	1,524	$	20,800	$	33,640	$	10,695	$	—	$	5,580	$	72,239
Bateman	$	—	$	1,283	$	—	$	333	$	—	$	—	$	1,616
Wing	$	9,667	$	20,800	$	—	$	1,511	$	1,411,797	$	—	$	1,443,775
Ackerman	$	3,828	$	20,800	$	14,367	$	4,684	$	1,130,253	$	—	$	1,173,932
Shiell	$	980	$	16,983	$	970	$	3,993	$	211,958	$	—	$	234,884
Wadman	$	480	$	17,840	$	—	$	6,527	$	—	$	—	$	24,847
Koss	$	2,064	$	20,800	$	3,040	$	6,527	$	—	$	—	$	32,431
Ihde	$	2,023	$	20,493	$	2,947	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	25,463

34

⁽⁶⁾ Michael J. McMullen was named Chief Executive Officer on December 3, 2013, this table excludes compensation received as a Director.

⁽⁷⁾ Terrell I. Ackerman served as Interim Chief Executive Officer for the portion of 2013 subsequent to the retirement of Frank R. McAllister and received additional compensation for these duties.

⁽⁸⁾ Brent R. Wadman promoted to the position of VP of Legal and Corporate Secretary on August 6, 2013.

2014 GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS

The following table sets forth the grants of plan-based awards made in 2014 to each of our NEOs.

	Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)				Estimated Possible Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards(2)
Name	Grant Date(3)	Threshold ($)	Target ($)	Maximum ($)	Threshold ($)	Target ($)	Maximum ($)	All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(3)	Grant Date Fair Value of  Stock Awards ($)(4)
Michael J. McMullen(5)	3/5/2014	313,500	627,000	1,254,000	721,050	1,518,000	2,314,950	—	$	—
Christopher M. Bateman(6)		105,875	211,750	423,500	292,600	616,000	939,400	—	$	—
Gregory A. Wing	3/5/2014	92,750	185,500	371,000	246,715	519,400	792,085	39,151	$	539,109
Terrell I. Ackerman	3/5/2014	63,000	126,000	252,000	149,625	315,000	480,375	23,744	$	326,955
Kevin G. Shiell	3/5/2014	62,000	124,000	248,000	147,250	310,000	472,750	23,367	$	321,764
Brent R. Wadman	3/5/2014	33,750	67,500	135,000	49,500	90,000	130,500	6,784	$	93,416
Kristen K. Koss	3/5/2014	33,750	67,500	135,000	49,500	90,000	130,500	6,784	$	93,416
Rhonda L. Ihde	3/5/2014	33,150	66,300	132,600	48,620	88,400	128,180	6,663	$	91,750

⁽¹⁾  Reflects the range of possible payouts under the Short-Term Incentive Program to each NEO.

⁽²⁾ Represents the range of potential value of restricted stock units to be earned under the terms of the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Program by each NEO based upon performance in 2013, as discussed more fully in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The values represented in these columns reflect values communicated to participants in early 2013 as part of the Company’s incentive award plan.

⁽³⁾ Represents performance restricted stock units granted on March 4, 2014 under the terms of our previous Long-Term Incentive Compensation Program in respect of each NEO’s performance in 2013.

⁽⁴⁾ Represents the grant date fair value of performance restricted stock units granted in respect of each NEO’s performance in 2013, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.

⁽⁵⁾ Michael J. McMullen was named Chief Executive Officer on December 3, 2013. Per his employment agreement, for 2013, his Non-equity Incentive Plan Award was set at 100% of target and prorated based on date of hire, and in lieu of an LTIP award, Mr. McMullen was awarded 23,000 restricted stock units that will vest ratably over three years.

⁽⁶⁾ Christopher M. Bateman was hired on December 1, 2014 and per his employment agreement did not receive a plan-based award in that calendar year.

2014 OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END

The following table sets forth information with respect to the NEOs concerning the number and value of unexercised options and unvested performance restricted stock units held as of December 31, 2014.

35

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2014 FISCAL YEAR-END

	Option Awards				Stock Awards
Name	Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable	Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable	Option Exercise Price ($)	Option Expiration Date	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(1) (#)	Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(2) ($)
Michael J. McMullen	—	—	—	—	136,554	$	2,012,806
Christopher M. Bateman(3)	—	—	—	—	—	$	—
Gregory A. Wing	—	—	—	—	32,260	$	475,512
Terrell I. Ackerman	—	—	—	—	19,564	$	288,373
Kevin G. Shiell	—	—	—	—	19,254	$	283,804
Brent R. Wadman	10,000	—	19.05	11/29/2020	13,705	$	202,012
Kristen K. Koss	—	—	—	—	13,705	$	202,012
Rhonda L. Ihde	1,200	—	8.09	8/22/2015	13,461	$	198,415

⁽¹⁾  Amount includes 23,000 restricted stock units awarded to Michael J. McMullen upon being named Chief Executive Officer on December 3, 2013.

⁽²⁾ Fair Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾  Christopher M. Bateman was hired as CFO on December 1, 2014.

2014 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

The following table sets forth the performance restricted stock units that vested and options that were exercised during 2014 for each of our NEOs.

2014 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

	Option Awards				Stock Awards
Name	Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)		Value Realized on Exercise ($ )		Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)		Value Realized on Vesting(1) ($)
Michael J. McMullen		—	$	—		21,136	$	99,859
Christopher M. Bateman		—	$	—		—	$	—
Gregory A. Wing		30,000	$	447,027		52,976	$	696,634
Terrell I. Ackerman		—	$	—		32,128	$	437,905
Kevin G. Shiell		—	$	—		31,618	$	491,720
Brent R. Wadman		—	$	—		1,064	$	5,268
Kristen K. Koss		—	$	—		1,064	$	5,268
Rhonda L. Ihde		—	$	—		1,045	$	5,178

⁽¹⁾ Value realized is determined based on the market value of the underlying shares as of the vesting date.

PENSION BENEFITS

We do not sponsor or maintain a defined benefit pension plan for the benefit of the NEOs.

2014 NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth the non-qualified deferred compensation paid to the NEOs in 2014.

36

NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

	Executive		Registrant		Aggregate			Aggregate			Aggregate
	Contributions		Contributions		Earnings			Withdrawals/			Balance
	in Last FY(1)		in Last FY(2)		in Last FY			Distributions			at Last FYE
Name	($)		($ )		($)			($)			($ )
Michael J. McMullen	$	—	$	33,640	$	(47	)	$	—		$	33,593
Christopher M. Bateman	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Gregory A. Wing	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Terrell I. Ackerman	$	656	$	15,417	$	4,010		$	—		$	54,010
Kevin G. Shiell	$	12,383	$	2,003	$	2,369		$	(21	)	$	34,476
Brent R. Wadman	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Kristen K. Koss	$	—	$	3,040	$	305		$	—		$	7,381
Rhonda L. Ihde	$	—	$	2,947	$	(12	)	$	—		$	6,675

⁽¹⁾ Amounts have been previously reported in the “Salary” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Amounts have been previously reported in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

In February 2006, Stillwater Mining Company adopted the 409A Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, providing each executive officer an opportunity to make pre-tax deferrals to the plan of up to 60% of their base salary, up to 100% of their cash bonus, and up to 100% of any restricted stock unit awards granted. Deferral elections are irrevocable and effective for a full plan year. In addition, the Company will credit the executive officer with “matching” contributions of up to 8% of their compensation, offset by any match the officer has received from the Company and contributed to the qualified 401(k) plan on the executive officer’s behalf. The executive officer’s deferrals are always 100% vested, while the Company’s matching contributions are 100% vested after one year of service. Accounts are credited with earnings or losses equal to certain investment options available through the plan. Contributions may be, as selected by the officer, allocated to certain accounts and distributed upon:

• Retirement

• In-Service account date

• Separation from service (other than retirement, disability or death)

• Disability or death

• An unforeseeable emergency

• A change-in-control of the Company

The executive officer must elect the distribution method, either lump sum or annual installments, for each account (Retirement and In-Service accounts) at the time the account is first established. All other distributions are made in a lump-sum payment, and changes to the time and form of a payout election may only be made by making a re-deferral election pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 409A (“IRC 409A”).

This plan is intended to comply with IRC 409A and as such, all executive officer and company contributions remain assets of the Company and subject to creditors, until such time distribution is made to the executive officer.

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE-IN-CONTROL

The following tables quantify benefits to which each NEO would be entitled under certain termination or change in control (“CIC”) events, in each case as if the termination or CIC event occurred on December 31, 2014.

37

Michael J. McMullen

Executive Benefits and Payments Upon	Voluntary		For Cause		Early		Normal						CIC		Termination for Under- performance prior to CIC or more than 24 months after CIC, or		Termination with Good Reason prior to CIC or more than 24 months		Involuntary or Good Reason Termination upon or within 24 months
Termination	Termination		Termination		Retirement		Retirement		Disability		Death		(no termination)		Non-Renewal		after CIC		after CIC
Severance Payments
Base Salary		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		1,320,000		1,320,000		1,320,000
Short-Term Incentive		—		—		—		—		883,063		883,063		—		1,254,000		1,254,000		1,254,000
Pro-Rata Bonus(1)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Value of Unvested Equity Awards and Accelerated Options
Options		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Restricted Stock Units(2)		—		—		—		—		708,606		708,606		—		—		—		708,606
Performance Shares		—		—		—		—		1,389,731		1,389,731		—		—		—		1,389,731
Value of Perquisites and Benefits
Accrued Vacation		76,154		76,154		76,154		76,154		76,154		76,154		—		76,154		76,154		76,154
Health & Welfare Benefit Continuation		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		31,741		31,741		31,741
Payout of 401(k) Balance(3)		39,691		39,691		39,691		39,691		39,691		39,691		—		39,691		39,691		39,691
Payout of 409(A) Balance(3)		33,593		33,593		33,593		33,593		33,593		33,593		—		33,593		33,593		33,593
Death Benefit(4)		—		—		—		—		—		600,000		—		—		—		—
Relocation Return to Perth, Australia		48,598		48,598		48,598		48,598		48,598		48,598		—		48,598		48,598		48,598
280G Impact
Gross-Up		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
	$	198,036	$	198,036	$	198,036	$	198,036	$	3,179,436	$	3,779,436	$	—	$	2,803,777	$	2,803,777	$	4,902,114

⁽¹⁾ Assumes executive was terminated on December 31, 2014, and was fully entitled to 2014 bonus which is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾ Amounts include executive’s contributions and Company match and are or have been disclosed previously in our current Summary Compensation Table as well as prior year’s Summary Compensation Tables.

⁽⁴⁾ Effective January 1, 2012, the maximum AD&D benefit increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

Christopher M. Bateman

											Termination without
Executive Benefits and Payments Upon Termination	Voluntary Termination		For Cause Termination		Normal Retirement		Disability		Death		Cause or with Good Reason prior to CIC or more than 24 months after CIC or Non-Renewal
Severance Payments
Base Salary		—		—		—		—		—		770,000
Short-Term Incentive		—		—		—		24,852		24,852		423,500
Pro-Rata Bonus(1)		—		—		—		—		—
Value of Unvested Equity Awards and Accelerated
Options		—		—		—				—		—
Restricted Stock Units(2)		—		—		—		216,383		216,383		216,383
Performance Shares		—		—		—		504,904		504,904		504,904
Value of Perquisites and Benefits
Accrued Vacation		37,019		37,019		37,019		37,019		37,019		37,019
Health & Welfare Benefit Continuation		—		—		—		—		—		31,741
Payout of 401(k) Balance(3)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Payout of 409(A) Balance(3)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Death Benefit(4)		—		—		—		—		600,000		—
280G Impact
Gross-Up		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
	$	37,019	$	37,019	$	37,019	$	783,158	$	1,383,158	$	1,983,547

38

⁽¹⁾ Assumes executive was terminated on December 31, 2014, and was fully entitled to 2014 bonus which is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾ Amounts include executive’s contributions and Company match and are or have been disclosed previously in our current Summary Compensation Table as well as prior year’s Summary Compensation Tables.

⁽⁴⁾ Effective January 1, 2012, the maximum AD&D benefit increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

Brent R. Wadman

											Termination without
Executive Benefits and Payments Upon Termination	Voluntary Termination		For Cause Termination		Normal Retirement		Disability		Death		Cause or with Good Reason prior to CIC or more than 24 months after CIC or Non-Renewal
Severance Payments
Base Salary		—		—		—		—		—		470,000
Short-Term Incentive		—		—		—		95,067		95,067		135,000
Pro-Rata Bonus(1)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Value of Unvested Equity Awards and Accelerated
Options		—		—		—		—		—		—
Restricted Stock Units(2)		—		—		—		147,076		147,076		147,076
Performance Shares		—		—		—		70,619		70,619		70,619
Value of Perquisites and Benefits
Accrued Vacation		17,308		17,308		17,308		17,308		17,308		17,308
Health & Welfare Benefit Continuation		—		—		—		—		—		31,734
Payout of 401(k) Balance(3)		142,240		142,240		142,240		142,240		142,240		142,240
Payout of 409(A) Balance(3)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Death Benefit(4)		—		—		—		—		600,000		—
280G Impact
Gross-Up		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
	$	159,548	$	159,548	$	159,548	$	472,310	$	1,072,310	$	1,013,997

⁽¹⁾ Assumes executive was terminated on December 31, 2014, and was fully entitled to 2014 bonus which is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾ Amounts include executive’s contributions and Company match and are or have been disclosed previously in our current Summary Compensation Table as well as prior year’s Summary Compensation Tables.

⁽⁴⁾ Effective January 1, 2012, the maximum AD&D benefit increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

Kristen K. Koss

											Termination without
Executive Benefits and Payments Upon Termination	Voluntary Termination		For Cause Termination		Normal Retirement		Disability		Death		Cause or with Good Reason prior to CIC or more than 24 months after CIC or Non-Renewal
Severance Payments
Base Salary		—		—		—		—		—		450,000
Short-Term Incentive		—		—		—		95,067		95,067		140,500
Pro-Rata Bonus(1)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Value of Unvested Equity Awards and Accelerated
Options		—		—		—		—		—		—
Restricted Stock Units(2)		—		—		—		147,076		147,076		147,076
Performance Shares		—		—		—		70,619		70,619		70,619
Value of Perquisites and Benefits
Accrued Vacation		25,962		25,962		25,962		25,962		25,962		25,962
Health & Welfare Benefit Continuation		—		—		—		—		—		31,741
Payout of 401(k) Balance(3)		445,676		445,676		445,676		445,676		445,676		445,676
Payout of 409(A) Balance(3)		7,381		7,381		7,381		7,381		7,381		7,381
Death Benefit(4)		—		—		—		—		600,000		—
280G Impact
Gross-Up		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
	$	479,019	$	479,019	$	479,019	$	791,781	$	1,391,781	$	1,318,955

39

⁽¹⁾ Assumes executive was terminated on December 31, 2014, and was fully entitled to 2014 bonus which is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾ Amounts include executive’s contributions and Company match and are or have been disclosed previously in our current Summary Compensation Table as well as prior year’s Summary Compensation Tables.

⁽⁴⁾ Effective January 1, 2012, the maximum AD&D benefit increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

Rhonda L. Ihde

Executive Benefits and Payments Upon Termination	Voluntary Termination		For Cause Termination		Normal Retirement		Disability		Death		Termination without Cause or with Good Reason prior to CIC or more than 24 months after CIC or Non-Renewal
Severance Payments
Base Salary		—		—		—		—		—		442,000
Short-Term Incentive		—		—		—		93,377		93,377		138,300
Pro-Rata Bonus(1)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Value of Unvested Equity Awards and Accelerated
Options		—		—		—		—		—		—
Restricted Stock Units(2)		—		—		—		144,452		144,452		144,452
Performance Shares		—		—		—		69,366		69,366		69,366
Value of Perquisites and Benefits
Accrued Vacation		21,250		21,250		21,250		21,250		21,250		21,250
Health & Welfare Benefit Continuation		—		—		—		—		—		31,734
Payout of 401(k) Balance(3)		459,522		459,522		459,522		459,522		459,522		459,522
Payout of 409(A) Balance(3)		6,675		6,675		6,675		6,675		6,675		6,675
Death Benefit(4)		—		—		—		—		600,000		—
280G Impact
Gross-Up		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
	$	487,447	$	487,447	$	487,447	$	794,642	$	1,394,642	$	1,264,199

⁽¹⁾ Assumes executive was terminated on December 31, 2014, and was fully entitled to 2014 bonus which is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table.

⁽²⁾ Value is based on the December 31, 2014 closing price of $14.74.

⁽³⁾ Amounts include executive’s contributions and Company match and are or have been disclosed previously in our current Summary Compensation Table as well as prior year’s Summary Compensation Tables.

⁽⁴⁾ Effective January 1, 2012, the maximum AD&D benefit increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

40

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, OTHER COMPENSATION

AND POTENTIAL PAYMENTS INFORMATION

Employment Agreements

The Company has employment agreements with Michael J. McMullen, Christopher M. Bateman, Brent R. Wadman, Kristen K. Koss, and Rhonda L. Ihde.

Michael J. McMullen. The Company entered into an employment agreement with Michael J. McMullen which became effective on December 3, 2013. The agreement has an initial term ending December 31, 2016, which term is continued for subsequent one-year periods upon written agreement of both parties. Mr. McMullen’s agreement currently provides for, among other things:

* an annual base salary of $712,000.

* a performance-based cash bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 105% of base salary, a maximum of which is 180% of base salary and with no guaranteed minimum payment.

* a long term incentive bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 230% of base salary, a maximum of which is 170% of base salary.

If Mr. McMullen is terminated by the Company for under performance, or if he resigns voluntarily for good reason (as defined below), he is entitled, upon signing a release of claims against the Company, to the following:

* an amount equal to two times the average of his target and actual STIP award for the calendar year immediately preceding the resignation to be paid out in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid in full. In the event Employer terminates Executive’s employment for under performance or Executive resigns for Good Reason during 2014, Executive shall receive an amount equal to two times his target STIP bonus for 2014;

* an amount equal to two times his annual base salary as in effect as of the date of his termination, which amount will be paid in equal installments over 24 months commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date;

* an amount equal to 18 months of Executive’s cost to continue group medical coverage pursuant to the federal law commonly known as COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §1162, et seq., provided that Executive is eligible for and elects such continuation coverage, and provided that such amount will be subject to all required federal and state deductions and withholdings

The Company maintains customary directors’ and officers’ liability insurance covering its directors and officers.

41

Christopher M. Bateman. The Company entered into an employment agreement with Christopher M. Bateman which became effective on December 1, 2014 and remains in effect until terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The agreement has an initial term ending December 31, 2016, which term is continued for subsequent one-year periods upon written agreement of both parties. Mr. Bateman’s agreement provides for, among other things:

* an annual base salary of $385,000.

* a performance-based cash bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 55% of base salary, a maximum of which is 110% of base salary and with no guaranteed minimum payment.

* a long term incentive bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 160% of base salary.

If Mr. Bateman is terminated by the Company for under performance, or if he resigns voluntarily for good reason (as defined below), he is entitled upon signing a release of claims against the Company, to the following:

* an amount equal to two times the average of his target and actual STIP award for the calendar year immediately preceding the resignation to be paid out in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid in full. In the event Employer terminates Executive’s employment for under performance or Executive resigns for Good Reason;

* an amount equal to two times his annual base salary as in effect as of the date of his termination, which amount will be paid in equal installments over 24 months commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date;

* an amount equal to 18 months of Executive’s cost to continue group medical coverage pursuant to the federal law commonly known as COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §1162, et seq., provided that Executive is eligible for and elects such continuation coverage, and provided that such amount will be subject to all required federal and state deductions and withholdings.

Brent R. Wadman. The Company entered into an employment agreement with Brent R. Wadman which became effective on March 12, 2015. The agreement has an initial term ending March 12, 2016. Mr. Wadman’s agreement provides for, among other things:

* an annual base salary of $235,000.

* a performance-based cash bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 40% of base salary, a maximum of which is 80% of base salary and with no guaranteed minimum payment.

* a long term incentive bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 60% of base salary.

If Mr. Wadman is terminated by the Company for under performance, or if he resigns voluntarily for good reason (as defined below), he is entitled upon signing a release of claims against the Company, to the following:

* an amount equal to two times the average of his target and actual STIP award for the calendar year immediately preceding the resignation to be paid out in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid in full. In the event Employer terminates Executive’s employment for under performance or Executive resigns for Good Reason;

* an amount equal to two times his annual base salary as in effect as of the date of his termination, which amount will be paid in equal installments over 24 months commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date;

* an amount equal to 18 months of Executive’s cost to continue group medical coverage pursuant to the federal law commonly known as COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §1162, et seq., provided that Executive is eligible for and elects such continuation coverage, and provided that such amount will be subject to all required federal and state deductions and withholdings.

42

Kristen K. Koss. The Company entered into an employment agreement with Kristen K. Koss which became effective on March 12, 2015. The agreement has an initial term ending March 12, 2016. Ms. Koss’ agreement provides for, among other things:

* an annual base salary of $230,000.

* a performance-based cash bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 55% of base salary, a maximum of which is 110% of base salary and with no guaranteed minimum payment.

* a long term incentive bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 50% of base salary.

If Ms. Koss is terminated by the Company for under performance, or if she resigns voluntarily for good reason (as defined below), she is entitled upon signing a release of claims against the Company, to the following:

* an amount equal to two times the average of her target and actual STIP award for the calendar year immediately preceding the resignation to be paid out in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid in full. In the event Employer terminates Executive’s employment for under performance or Executive resigns for Good Reason;

* an amount equal to two times her annual base salary as in effect as of the date of her termination, which amount will be paid in equal installments over 24 months commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date;

* an amount equal to 18 months of Executive’s cost to continue group medical coverage pursuant to the federal law commonly known as COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §1162, et seq., provided that Executive is eligible for and elects such continuation coverage, and provided that such amount will be subject to all required federal and state deductions and withholdings.

Rhonda L. Ihde. The Company entered into an employment agreement with Rhonda L. Ihde which became effective on March 12, 2015. The agreement has an initial term ending March 12, 2016. Ms. Ihde’s agreement provides for, among other things:

* an annual base salary of $221,000.

* a performance-based cash bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 30% of base salary, a maximum of which is 60% of base salary and with no guaranteed minimum payment.

* a long term incentive bonus to be determined by the Board, with a target of 40% of base salary.

If Ms. Ihde is terminated by the Company for under performance, or if she resigns voluntarily for good reason (as defined below), she is entitled upon signing a release of claims against the Company, to the following:

* an amount equal to two times the average of her target and actual STIP award for the calendar year immediately preceding the resignation to be paid out in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid in full. In the event Employer terminates Executive’s employment for under performance or Executive resigns for Good Reason;

* an amount equal to two times her annual base salary as in effect as of the date of her termination, which amount will be paid in equal installments over 24 months commencing on the 1st day of the month following the 3 month anniversary of the termination date;

* an amount equal to 18 months of Executive’s cost to continue group medical coverage pursuant to the federal law commonly known as COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §1162, et seq., provided that Executive is eligible for and elects such continuation coverage, and provided that such amount will be subject to all required federal and state deductions and withholdings.

43

Equity Incentive Plans and Award Agreements

2012 Equity Incentive Plan

In April 2012, our shareholders approved the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2012 Plan”). To date, we have granted Performance Restricted Stock Units and Time Based Restricted Stock Unites to our executives under the 2012 Plan, subject to the terms of the 2012 Plan and the related award agreements.

Under the terms of each executive’s award agreements in respect of 2014 and prior years’ performance, upon termination of the executive’s employment by the Company without cause or by the executive for “good reason” (as defined in the 2012 Plan), all outstanding Time Based Restricted Stock Units will become fully vested and all restrictions on such awards will immediately lapse. Additionally, all Performance Restricted Stock Units will become fully vested and all restrictions on such awards will lapse on the vesting date as if the employee was still employed on the vesting date.

In addition, effective immediately upon the occurrence of a “change in control” (as defined below), all outstanding Performance Restricted Stock Units will become fully vested and all restrictions on such awards will immediately lapse.

For purposes of the 2012 Plan, “Change in Control” means the occurrence of the termination of employment of the employee and any of the following events: (i) any person is or becomes the beneficial owner of securities of the Company representing fifty percent or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securities; or (ii) during any period of two consecutive years, individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board, and any new director (other than a director whose initial assumption of office is in connection with an actual or threatened proxy contest, including a consent solicitation relating to an election of directors of the Company) whose election by the Board or nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the directors then still in office, cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board; or (iii) subject to certain exceptions, there is consummated a merger or consolidation of the Company or any subsidiary of the Company with any other corporation; or (iv) the shareholders of the Company approve a plan of complete liquidation or dissolution of the Company or there is consummated an agreement for the sale or disposition by the Company of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a “Change in Control” will not be deemed to have occurred (i) by virtue of the consummation of any transaction or series of integrated transactions immediately following which the record holders of the common stock of the Company immediately prior to such transaction or series of transactions continue to have substantially the same proportionate ownership in an entity which owns all or substantially all of the assets of the Company immediately following such transaction of series of transactions, or (ii) with respect to any award subject to Section 409A, unless the applicable event also constitutes a “Change in Control” in compliance with Section 409A.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers and persons who own 10% or more of a registered class of the Company’s equity securities to file with the SEC and the NYSE initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of Common Stock and other equity securities of the Company. Based solely on its review of copies of the Section 16(a) reports and written representations the Company has received, the Company believes that since January 1, 2014, all of its directors, executive officers and 10% shareholders have timely filed all required reports with the following exceptions:

Brent R. Wadman, Terrell I. Ackerman, Kristen K. Koss, Kevin G. Shiell, Rhonda L. Ihde, each filed a Form 5 on January 21, 2015 representing a grant date of March 5, 2014; and Michael McMullen filed a Form 5 on February 18, 2015 representing a grant date of March 5, 2014.

44

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

It is the Company’s policy to enter into or ratify related person transactions generally only when the Board of Directors, acting through the Audit Committee, determines that the related person transaction in question is in, or is not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The Company’s Policy and Procedures With Respect to Related Party Transactions, adopted by the Board in 2007, describes the Board’s policies and procedures for the review, approval, and ratification of related party transactions.

The policy provides that a “Related Person Transaction” is a transaction, arrangement or relationship (or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which the Company (including any of its subsidiaries) was, is or will be a participant, and the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in which any Related Person had, has or will have a direct or indirect material interest. For purposes of the policy, a “Related Person” means: (i) any person who is, or at any time since the beginning of the Company’s last fiscal year was, a director or executive officer of the Company or a nominee to become a director of the Company; (ii) any person who is known to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities; (iii) any immediate family member of any of the foregoing persons, which means any child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, spouse, sibling, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law of the director, executive officer, nominee or more than 5% beneficial owner, and any person (other than a tenant or employee) sharing the household of such director, executive officer, nominee or more than 5% beneficial owner; or (iv) any firm, corporation or other entity in which any of the foregoing persons is employed or is a partner or principal or in a similar position, or in which such person has a 5% or greater beneficial ownership interest.

Prior to entering into the Related Person Transaction, the Related Person who desires to engage in such transaction must notify the Vice President of Legal Affairs of the material facts and circumstances of the proposed Related Person Transaction, including such party’s relationship to the Company and interest in the transaction and the proposed aggregate value thereof. The Vice President of Legal Affairs will assess whether the proposed transaction is a Related Person Transaction for purposes of the policy. If the Vice President of Legal Affairs determines that the proposed transaction involves an amount in excess of $120,000, and is a Related Person Transaction, the proposed Related Person Transaction must be submitted to the Audit Committee for consideration.

The Audit Committee considers all of the relevant facts and circumstances available to the Audit Committee including, but not limited to, the benefits to the Company; the impact on a director’s independence in the event the Related Person is a director, an immediate family member of a director or an entity in which a director is a partner, shareholder or executive officer; the availability of other sources for comparable products or services; the terms of the transaction; and, the terms available to unrelated third parties or to employees generally. No member of the Audit Committee shall participate in any review, consideration or approval of any Related Person Transaction with respect to which such member or any of his or her immediate family members is the Related Person. The Audit Committee approves only those Related Person Transactions that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, as the Audit Committee determines in good faith. The Audit Committee or Audit Chair, as applicable, communicates the decision to the Vice President of Legal Affairs, who conveys the decision to the appropriate persons within the Company.

Since January 1, 2014, there have been no Related Person Transactions.

45

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

Management has primary responsibility for financial statements and the reporting process, including the system of internal accounting controls. The Audit Committee, in its oversight role, has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements with the Company’s management.

The Company’s Audit Committee (“Audit Committee”) is comprised of three independent directors, each of whom meets the independence and qualification standards for audit committee membership of the NYSE and the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, as determined by the Board, and additional, heightened independence criteria applicable to members of the Audit Committee under SEC and NYSE rules. The Audit Committee reviews the accounting principles and procedures of the Company and its annual financial reports and statements, recommends to the Board of Directors the engagement of the Company’s independent registered accounting firm, reviews with the independent registered accounting firm the plans and results of the auditing engagement, and considers the independence of the Company’s independent registered accounting firm.

The main function of the Audit Committee is to oversee that effective accounting policies are implemented, and internal controls are put in place to deter fraud, anticipate financial risks and promote accurate, high quality and timely disclosure of financial and other material information to the public markets, the Board and shareholders. The Audit Committee also reviews and recommends to the Board the approval of annual financial statements and provides a forum, independent of management, where the Company’s independent registered accounting firm can communicate any issues of concern.

The independent members of the Audit Committee believe the present composition of the Audit Committee accomplishes all of the necessary goals and functions of an audit committee as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees, and adopted by the U.S. stock exchanges and the Securities & Exchange Commission. The Audit Committee operates under a formal, written charter approved by the Board. The charter specifies the scope of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities and how it should carry out those responsibilities. The charter is available on the Company’s website.

During 2014, the Audit Committee met nine (9) times. The Audit Committee was advised, as contemplated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, of all critical accounting policies and practices of the Company. In performing its oversight function, the Audit Committee reviewed with the Company’s independent registered accounting firm such judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the Company’s accounting principles and such other matters as required to be discussed under the Audit Committee charter and generally accepted auditing standards, including Statement on Auditing Standard No. 16. In addition, the Audit Committee has discussed with the independent registered accounting firm such firm’s independence from management and the Company, and received the written disclosures and letter from the independent registered accounting firm required by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent registered accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence.

46

The Audit Committee discussed with the Company’s independent registered accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their audit. The Audit Committee met with the independent registered accounting firm, with and without management present, to discuss the results of such firm’s examination and evaluation of the Company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting.

The Company’s management, the Audit Committee and the Board are fully committed to the review and evaluation of the Company’s procedures and policies designed to assure effective internal control over financial reporting. All steps and disclosures relating to this matter have been, and will remain, subject to the oversight of the Audit Committee.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, and subject to the limitations on the role and responsibilities of the Audit Committee set forth in its charter, based on review of the Company’s financial statements, accounting system and its accounting policies and procedures and discussions with the Company’s independent registered accounting firm for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Audit Committee also approved the selection of the Company’s independent registered accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015.

As set forth in the Audit Committee charter, one of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities is to benchmark, no less than every five (5) years, the services provided by the Company’s independent registered accounting firm alongside similarly qualified firms. In 2014, the Audit Committee conducted a thorough review of the independent registered accounting firm services and interviewed multiple accounting firms in response to a request for proposal for the independent registered accounting firm services. After due deliberation, the Audit Committee concluded to recommend retaining the services of the incumbent firm, KPMG LLP.

Members of the Audit Committee rely, without independent verification, on the information provided to them, and on the representations made by management and the independent registered accounting firm. Accordingly, the Audit Committee’s oversight does not provide an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and firm reporting principles or appropriate internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Audit Committee’s considerations and discussions referred to above do not assure that the audit of the Company’s financial statements has been carried out in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, that the financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or that the Company’s independent registered accounting firm is in fact “independent.”

Michael Parrett, Chairman

Gary Sugar

Patrice Merrin

47

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table includes information available to the Company as of March 9, 2015, concerning the beneficial ownership of Common Stock by (i) shareholders known to the Company to beneficially own more than 5% of the Common Stock; (ii) each person that in the past fiscal year was a director or executive officer of the Company; and (iii) all directors and executive officers of the Company as a group. Unless otherwise indicated, all beneficial owners have sole voting and investment power over the shares held.

Name of Beneficial Owner	Total Amount		Percent of Class
Platinum Investment Management Ltd.1		13,840,461		11.5	%
Blackrock Inc.2		10,742,772		8.9	%
Standard Life Investments LTD3		10,702,776		8.9	%
The Vanguard Group, Inc.4		10,227,662		8.5	%
Wing, Gregory A.5		249,114			*
McMullen, Michael J.6		25,579			*
Ackerman, Terrell I.7		130,033			*
Ihde, Rhonda L.8		20,871			*
Schweitzer, Brian D.		39,703			*
Parrett, Michael S.		29,053			*
Bee, George M.		23,794			*
Engles, Charles R.9		8,715			*
Koss, Kristen K.10		12,922			*
Merrin, Patrice E.		22,586			*
Shiell, Kevin G.11		1,027			*
Sugar, Gary A.		11,703			*
Wadman, Brent R.12		6,730			*
GRAND TOTAL		46,095,501
All directors and executive officers as a group		581,830			*

* Indicates ownership of less than 1%

⁽¹⁾  Information is based on the Schedule 13G filed by Platinum Investment Management Limited with the SEC on February 13, 2015. The address of Platinum Investment Management Limited is Level 8, 7 Macquarie Place, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia.

⁽²⁾  Information is based on the Schedule 13G filed by BlackRock, Inc. with the SEC on January 22, 2015, by BlackRock, Inc. on behalf of itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Ireland Limited, BlackRock Fund Advisors, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd, BlackRock Investment Management, LLC. Each of such other persons and entities, through its ownership and/or control of BlackRock, Inc., may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of the shares. The address of BlackRock, Inc. is 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022.

⁽³⁾  Information is based on the Schedule 13G filed by Standard Life Investments LTD with the SEC on February 17, 2015. The address of Standard Life Investments LTD is One George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2LL, United Kingdom.

⁽⁴⁾  Information is based on the Schedule 13G filed by The Vanguard Group – 23-1945930 with the SEC on February 12, 2015. The address of The Vanguard Group – 23-1945930 is 100 Vanguard Blvd, Malvern, PA 19355.

⁽⁵⁾  Includes 1,408 shares maintained in a 401(k) account.

⁽⁶⁾  Includes 2,904 shares maintained in a 401(k) account.

⁽⁷⁾  Terrell I. Ackerman retired from the Company on October 14, 2014.

⁽⁸⁾  Includes 7,008 shares maintained in a 401(k) account.

⁽⁹⁾  Charles R. Engles resigned from the Board of Directors on November 4, 2014.

⁽¹⁰⁾  Includes 1,985 shares maintained in a 401(k) account.

⁽¹¹⁾  Kevin G. Shiell retired from the Company on April 16, 2014.

⁽¹²⁾  Includes 4,492 shares maintained in a 401(k) account.

48

PROPOSAL 2:

RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Unless otherwise directed by the shareholders, shares represented by proxy at the meeting will be voted in favor of ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2015. A representative of KPMG LLP is expected to be present at the meeting, and will be given an opportunity to make a statement if so desired, and to respond to appropriate questions.

The ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP is being submitted to the shareholders because the Board believes this to be a good corporate practice. Should the shareholders fail to ratify this appointment, the Board will review the matter.

The affirmative vote of a majority of shares having voting power and present in person or by proxy is required for approval of Proposal 2. If you hold your shares in “street name,” your broker or other nominee will have discretionary authority to vote your shares on this proposal if you do not provide instructions as to how your shares should be voted.

Audit and Non-Audit Fees. The following table presents fees for professional attestation services rendered by KPMG LLP for the audit of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements and reviews of the quarterly consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013, and 2014, and all other fees billed for other professional services rendered by KPMG LLP.

	2013		2014
Audit Fees(1)	$	1,085,633	$	843,738
Tax Fees(2)	$	185,072	$	32,697
All Other Fees(3)	$	2,250	$	2,550

⁽¹⁾  Report on the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, including timely reviews of interim financial information – 3 quarters, for each year.

⁽²⁾  Tax fees consisted of fees for tax consultation and tax compliance services.

⁽³⁾  All other fees consisted of fees for subscription to an on-line accounting research tool.

The Audit Committee of the Board pre-approved all of the fees mentioned above, and determined that such fees are compatible with maintaining KPMG LLP’s independence. For more information on the Audit Committee’s Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy see “Committees – Audit Committee” above.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR Proposal 2.

PROPOSAL 3:

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

The Dodd-Frank Act enables Stillwater shareholders to vote, on an advisory or non-binding basis, on whether to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers. Shareholders must be allowed an advisory vote on the frequency of that executive compensation vote once every six (6) years. The Company’s 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders included the required vote on the frequency, and the Board approved an annual advisory vote on executive compensation. The Company now seeks a non-binding advisory vote from its shareholders to approve the compensation of its Named Executive Officers.

At the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders, 93.3% of shareholder votes were cast in favor of the compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers. While this vote was non-binding, the Board and the Company took this result seriously and undertook a significant review of the Company’s compensation practices. The result of this review is the Company’s new compensation philosophy and structure as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section beginning on page 18.

49

Brokers and other nominees will not have discretionary authority to vote your shares if you hold your shares in “street name,” and do not provide instructions as to how your shares should be voted on this proposal. The Board of Directors is asking shareholders to cast a non-binding advisory vote on the following resolution:

“RESOLVED that the shareholders of Stillwater Mining Company (“Stillwater”) approve the compensation of the Stillwater executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table, as disclosed in this proxy statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (which disclosure includes the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the executive compensation tables and the related footnotes and narrative accompanying the tables).”

As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, our executive compensation program embodies a pay-for-performance philosophy that supports Stillwater’s business strategy, and aligns the interests of our executives with our shareholders. The Board believes this link between compensation and the achievement of our business goals will drive performance. At the same time, we believe our program is designed to discourage excessive risk-taking. The compensation actions taken in 2014 reflect Stillwater’s commitment to responsibly producing profitable ounces and increasing shareholder value.

For these reasons, the Board asks shareholders to support this proposal. The Compensation Committee and the Board value the views of our shareholders, and will take into account the outcome of this vote when considering future compensation decisions for our named executive officers.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR Proposal 3.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

Shareholders may present proper proposals for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement pursuant to Rule 14a-8, and for consideration at the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders, by submitting their proposals in writing to the Company’s Corporate Secretary at the Company’s principal executive offices in a timely manner. For a shareholder proposal to be considered for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders pursuant to Rule 14a-8, the written proposal must be received by the Company at its principal executive offices no later than December 4, 2015. In addition, shareholder proposals must otherwise comply with the SEC and Exchange Act rules for inclusion of shareholder proposals in the Company’s proxy statement, including requirements that such proposals be consistent with applicable law, pertain to matters appropriate for shareholder action and are not properly omitted by Company action in accordance with proxy rules.

If shareholders wish to submit proposals outside of the process of Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act, the Company’s By-Laws require that proposals of shareholders made outside of Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act, and shareholder nomination of directors, must be submitted, in accordance with the requirements of our By-Laws, no later than March 15, 2016, and no earlier than February 18, 2016, assuming an May 4, 2016 annual meeting date.

Cost of Solicitation

In addition to mail and e-mail, proxies may be solicited personally, via the internet or by telephone or facsimile, by a few of our regular employees without additional compensation. We will reimburse brokers and other persons holding stock in their names, or in the names of nominees, for their expenses for forwarding proxy materials to principals and beneficial owners and obtaining their proxies. Additional fees may include those of outside counsel and other advisors to advise the Company in connection with the solicitation of proxies; increased mailing costs, such as the costs of additional mailings of solicitation material to shareholders, including printing costs, mailing costs and the reimbursement of reasonable expenses of banks, brokerage houses and other agents incurred in forwarding solicitation materials to beneficial owners of our common stock, as described above; and possibly the costs of retaining an independent inspector of election.

50

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Company may satisfy SEC rules regarding delivery of proxy statements and annual reports by delivering a single proxy statement and annual report to an address shared by two or more Company shareholders. This delivery method is referred to as “householding,” and can result in meaningful cost savings for the Company. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, the Company has delivered only one proxy statement and annual report to multiple shareholders who share an address, unless contrary instructions were received from impacted shareholders prior to the mailing date. We undertake to deliver promptly upon written or oral request a separate copy of the proxy statement and/or annual report, as requested, to a shareholder at a shared address to which a single copy of these documents was delivered. If you hold stock as a registered shareholder, and prefer to receive separate copies of a proxy statement or annual report either now or in the future, contact the Company at 1-406-373-8700, or send a written request to Stillwater Mining Company, 1321 Discovery Drive, Billings, Montana 59102, Attention: Secretary. If your stock is held through a broker or bank, and you prefer to receive separate copies of a proxy statement or annual report either now or in the future, please contact such broker or bank. If you are currently a shareholder sharing an address with another shareholder, and wish to receive only one copy of future notices or annual meeting materials for your household, please contact the Company at the above phone number or address.

GENERAL

The Board knows of no matters, other than the foregoing, to be brought before the meeting. The enclosed proxy, however, gives discretionary authority to the named proxies in the event that any additional matters should be presented.

By Order of the Board,

Brent R. Wadman

Vice President, Legal Affairs & Corporate Secretary

51

Stillwater Mining Company

1321 Discovery Drive

Billings, Montana 59102

				IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE SHAREHOLDER
				MEETING TO BE HELD ON 05/04/15 FOR STILLWATER MINING COMPANY THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.PROXYVOTE.COM        ** E **
STILLWATER MINING COMPANY ANNUAL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 05/04/15 AT 02:00 P.M. MDT				2 -I			-S
FOR HOLDERS AS OF 03/09/15	* ISSUER  CONFIRMATION COPY - INFO ONLY *
8                  1-0001	THIS FORM IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT USE IT FOR VOTING PURPOSES.							X
86074Q102				FOR ALL NOMINEES
DIRECTORS RECOMMEND: A VOTE FOR ELECTION OF THE FOLLOWING NOMINEES		0010100		WITHHOLD ALL NOMINEES
1. -  01-GEORGE M. BEE, 02-MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, 03-PATRICE E. MERRIN, 04-MICHAEL S. PARRETT, 05-BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, 06-GARY A. SUGAR, 07-LAWRENCE PETER O’HAGAN				WITHHOLD AUTHORITY TO VOTE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL NOMINEE WRITE NUMBER(S) OF NOMINEE(S) BELOW.
				USE NUMBER ONLY
				FOR	AGN	ABS
2. -  TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF KPMG LLP AS THE COMPANY’S ------>>> INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2015.		FOR    ----->>> 0010200	2.	¨	¨	¨	2
				FOR	AGN	ABS	86074Q102
3. *- AN ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION. ------->>>		FOR    ----->>>	3.	¨	¨	¨
		0029440
							PLACE “X” HERE IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND AND VOTE YOUR SHARES AT THE MEETING
*NOTE* SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE MEETING OR ANY ADJOURNMENT THEREOF.
									8
							51 MERCEDES WAY     EDGEWOOD NY 11717		8
	MATERIALS ELECTION						STILLWATER MINING COMPANY 1321 DISCOVERY DR. BILLINGS, MT 59102 USA
					FOR
As of July 1, 2007, SEC rules permit companies to send you a Notice indicating that their proxy materials are available on the internet and how you can request a mailed copy. Check the box to the right if you want to receive future proxy materials by mail at no cost to you. Even if you do not check the box, you will still have the right to request a free set of proxy materials upon receipt of a Notice.		------>>>			¨
VIF11H