UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number 811-21969
---------------
The Gabelli Global Deal Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
One Corporate Center
Rye, New York 10580-1422
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
Bruce N. Alpert
Gabelli Funds, LLC
One Corporate Center
Rye, New York 10580-1422
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name and address of agent for service)
registrant's telephone number, including area code: 1-800-422-3554
---------------
Date of fiscal year end: December 31
------------
Date of reporting period: December 31, 2006
------------------
Form N-CSR is to be used by management investment companies to file reports with
the Commission not later than 10 days after the transmission to stockholders of
any report that is required to be transmitted to stockholders under Rule 30e-1
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.30e-1). The Commission may
use the information provided on Form N-CSR in its regulatory, disclosure review,
inspection, and policymaking roles.
A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-CSR,
and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not
required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-CSR
unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the
information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the
burden to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under
the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. ss. 3507.
ITEM 1. REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS.
As of the close of the reporting period the Fund had not commenced operations;
therefore no report to shareholders is included.
ITEM 2. CODE OF ETHICS.
(a) The registrant, as of the end of the period covered by this report,
has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant's
principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal
accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar
functions, regardless of whether these individuals are employed by the
registrant or a third party.
(c) There have been no amendments, during the period covered by this
report, to a provision of the code of ethics that applies to the
registrant's principal executive officer, principal financial officer,
principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing
similar functions, regardless of whether these individuals are
employed by the registrant or a third party, and that relates to any
element of the code of ethics description.
(d) The registrant has not granted any waivers, including an implicit
waiver, from a provision of the code of ethics that applies to the
registrant's principal executive officer, principal financial officer,
principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing
similar functions, regardless of whether these individuals are
employed by the registrant or a third party, that relates to one or
more of the items set forth in paragraph (b) of this item's
instructions.
ITEM 3. AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.
As of the end of the period covered by the report, the registrant's Board of
Directors has determined that Salvatore J. Zizza is qualified to serve as an
audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee and that he is
"independent," as defined by Item 3 of Form N-CSR.
ITEM 4. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.
AUDIT FEES
(a) The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years for
professional services rendered by the principal accountant for the
audit of the registrant's annual financial statements or services that
are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory
and regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years are $0
for 2006 and $0 for 2005.
AUDIT-RELATED FEES
(b) The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for
assurance and related services by the principal accountant that are
reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant's
financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this
Item are $0 for 2006 and $0 for 2005.
TAX FEES
(c) The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for
professional services rendered by the principal accountant for tax
compliance, tax advice, and tax planning are $0 for 2006 and $0 for
2005.
ALL OTHER FEES
(d) The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for
products and services provided by the principal accountant, other than
the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item are
$0 for 2006 and $0 for 2005.
(e)(1) Disclose the audit committee's pre-approval policies and procedures
described in paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.
Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. The Audit Committee
("Committee") of the registrant is responsible for pre-approving (i)
all audit and permissible non-audit services to be provided by the
independent auditors to the registrant and (ii) all permissible
non-audit services to be provided by the independent auditors to the
Adviser, Gabelli Funds, LLC, and any affiliate of Gabelli Funds, LLC
("Gabelli") that provides services to the registrant (a "Covered
Services Provider") if the independent auditors' engagement related
directly to the operations and financial reporting of the registrant.
The Committee may delegate its responsibility to pre-approve any such
audit and permissible non-audit services to the Chairperson of the
Committee, and the Chairperson must report to the Committee, at its
next regularly scheduled meeting after the Chairperson's pre-approval
of such services, his or her decision(s). The Committee may also
establish detailed pre-approval policies and procedures for
pre-approval of such services in accordance with applicable laws,
including the delegation of some or all of the Committee's
pre-approval responsibilities to the other persons (other than Gabelli
or the registrant's officers). Pre-approval by the Committee of any
permissible non-audit services is not required so long as: (i) the
permissible non-audit services were not recognized by the registrant
at the time of the engagement to be non-audit services; and (ii) such
services are promptly brought to the attention of the Committee and
approved by the Committee or Chairperson prior to the completion of
the audit.
(e)(2) The percentage of services described in each of paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this Item that were approved by the audit committee
pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X are
as follows:
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.
(d) Not applicable.
(f) The percentage of hours expended on the principal accountant's
engagement to audit the registrant's financial statements for the most
recent fiscal year that were attributed to work performed by persons
other than the principal accountant's full-time, permanent employees
was 0%.
(g) The aggregate non-audit fees billed by the registrant's accountant for
services rendered to the registrant, and rendered to the registrant's
investment adviser (not including any sub-adviser whose role is
primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen
by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the adviser that provides ongoing
services to the registrant for each of the last two fiscal years of
the registrant was $0 for 2006 and $0 for 2005.
(h) Not applicable.
ITEM 5. AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.
The registrant has a separately designated audit committee consisting of the
following members: Vincent D. Enright, Clarence Davis and Salvatore J. Zizza.
ITEM 6. SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS.
Not applicable. As of the close of the reporting period, the Fund had not
commenced operations and therefore did not hold any securities of unaffiliated
issuers.
ITEM 7. DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END
MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
The Proxy Voting Policies are attached herewith.
THE VOTING OF PROXIES ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS
Rules 204(4)-2 and 204-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and
Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 require investment advisers
to adopt written policies and procedures governing the voting of proxies on
behalf of their clients.
These procedures will be used by GAMCO Asset Management Inc., Gabelli
Funds, LLC, Gabelli Securities, Inc., and Gabelli Advisers, Inc. (collectively,
the "Advisers") to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio
securities held by their clients, including the procedures that the Advisers use
when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of the shareholders of an
investment company managed by one of the Advisers, on the one hand, and those of
the Advisers; the principal underwriter; or any affiliated person of the
investment company, the Advisers, or the principal underwriter. These procedures
will not apply where the Advisers do not have voting discretion or where the
Advisers have agreed to with a client to vote the client's proxies in accordance
with specific guidelines or procedures supplied by the client (to the extent
permitted by ERISA).
I. PROXY VOTING COMMITTEE
The Proxy Voting Committee was originally formed in April 1989 for the purpose
of formulating guidelines and reviewing proxy statements within the parameters
set by the substantive proxy voting guidelines originally published by GAMCO
Investors, Inc. in 1988 and updated periodically, a copy of which are appended
as Exhibit A. The Committee will include representatives of Research,
Administration, Legal, and the Advisers. Additional or replacement members of
the Committee will be nominated by the Chairman and voted upon by the entire
Committee.
Meetings are held as needed basis to form views on the manner in which
the Advisers should vote proxies on behalf of their clients.
In general, the Director of Proxy Voting Services, using the Proxy
Guidelines, recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Corporate Governance
Service ("ISS"), other third-party services and the analysts of Gabelli &
Company, Inc., will determine how to vote on each issue. For non-controversial
matters, the Director of Proxy Voting Services may vote the proxy if the vote is
(1) consistent with the recommendations of the issuer's Board of Directors and
not contrary to the Proxy Guidelines; (2) consistent with the recommendations of
the issuer's Board of Directors and is a non-controversial issue not covered by
the Proxy Guidelines; or (3) the vote is contrary to the recommendations of the
Board of Directors but is consistent with the Proxy Guidelines. In those
instances, the Director of Proxy Voting Services or the Chairman of the
Committee may sign and date the proxy statement indicating how each issue will
be voted.
All matters identified by the Chairman of the Committee, the Director
of Proxy Voting Services or the Legal Department as controversial, taking into
account the recommendations of ISS or other third party services and the
analysts of Gabelli & Company, Inc., will be presented to the Proxy Voting
Committee. If the Chairman of the Committee, the Director of Proxy Voting
Services or the Legal Department has identified the matter as one that (1) is
controversial; (2) would benefit from deliberation by the Proxy Voting
Committee; or (3) may give rise to a conflict of interest between the Advisers
and their clients, the Chairman of the Committee will initially determine what
vote to recommend that the Advisers should cast and the matter will go before
the Committee.
A. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
THE ADVISERS HAVE IMPLEMENTED THESE PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES IN
ORDER TO PREVENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FROM INFLUENCING THEIR
PROXY VOTING DECISIONS. BY FOLLOWING THE PROXY GUIDELINES, AS
WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ISS, OTHER THIRD-PARTY SERVICES
AND THE ANALYSTS OF GABELLI & COMPANY, THE ADVISERS ARE ABLE TO
AVOID, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THE INFLUENCE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST. NEVERTHELESS, CIRCUMSTANCES MAY ARISE IN WHICH ONE OR
MORE OF THE ADVISERS ARE FACED WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THE
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH ITS VOTE.
IN GENERAL, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY ARISE WHEN AN ADVISER
KNOWINGLY DOES BUSINESS WITH AN ISSUER, AND MAY APPEAR TO HAVE A
MATERIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ITS OWN INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF
THE SHAREHOLDERS OF AN INVESTMENT COMPANY MANAGED BY ONE OF THE
ADVISERS REGARDING HOW THE PROXY IS TO BE VOTED. A CONFLICT ALSO
MAY EXIST WHEN AN ADVISER HAS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF A MATERIAL
BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN AN ISSUER AND AN AFFILIATE OF THE
ADVISER.
IN PRACTICAL TERMS, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY ARISE, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN A PROXY IS VOTED FOR A COMPANY THAT IS A CLIENT OF
ONE OF THE ADVISERS, SUCH AS GAMCO ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. A
CONFLICT ALSO MAY ARISE WHEN A CLIENT OF ONE OF THE ADVISERS HAS
MADE A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL IN A PROXY TO BE VOTED UPON BY ONE OR
MORE OF THE ADVISERS. THE DIRECTOR OF PROXY VOTING SERVICES,
TOGETHER WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WILL SCRUTINIZE ALL PROXIES
FOR THESE OR OTHER SITUATIONS THAT MAY GIVE RISE TO A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO THE VOTING OF PROXIES.
A. OPERATION OF PROXY VOTING COMMITTEE.
For matters submitted to the Committee, each member of the
Committee will receive, prior to the meeting, a copy of the proxy
statement, any relevant third party research, a summary of any
views provided by the Chief Investment Officer and any
recommendations by Gabelli & Company, Inc. analysts. The Chief
Investment Officer or the Gabelli & Company, Inc. analysts may be
invited to present their viewpoints. IF THE DIRECTOR OF PROXY
VOTING SERVICES or the Legal Department believe that the matter
before the committee is one with respect to which a conflict of
interest may exist between the Advisers and their clients,
counsel will provide an opinion to the Committee concerning the
conflict. If the matter is one in which the interests of the
clients of one or more of Advisers may diverge, counsel will so
advise and the Committee may make different recommendations as to
different clients. For any matters where the recommendation may
trigger appraisal rights, counsel will provide an opinion
concerning the likely risks and merits of such an appraisal
action.
Each matter submitted to the Committee will be determined by the vote
of a majority of the members present at the meeting. Should the vote concerning
one or more recommendations be tied in a vote of the Committee, the Chairman of
the Committee will cast the deciding vote. The Committee will notify the proxy
department of its decisions and the proxies will be voted accordingly.
Although the Proxy Guidelines express the normal preferences for the
voting of any shares not covered by a contrary investment guideline provided by
the client, the Committee is not bound by the preferences set forth in the Proxy
Guidelines and will review each matter on its own merits. Written minutes of all
Proxy Voting Committee meetings will be maintained. The Advisers subscribe to
ISS, which supplies current information on companies, matters being voted on,
regulations, trends in proxy voting and information on corporate governance
issues.
If the vote cast either by the analyst or as a result of the
deliberations of the Proxy Voting Committee runs contrary to the recommendation
of the Board of Directors of the issuer, the matter will be referred to legal
counsel to determine whether an amendment to the most recently filed Schedule
13D is appropriate.
II. SOCIAL ISSUES AND OTHER CLIENT GUIDELINES
If a client has provided special instructions relating to the voting of
proxies, they should be noted in the client's account file and forwarded to the
proxy department. This is the responsibility of the investment professional or
sales assistant for the client. In accordance with Department of Labor
guidelines, the Advisers' policy is to vote on behalf of ERISA accounts in the
best interest of the plan participants with regard to social issues that carry
an economic impact. Where an account is not governed by ERISA, the Advisers will
vote shares held on behalf of the client in a manner consistent with any
individual investment/voting guidelines provided by the client. Otherwise the
Advisers will abstain with respect to those shares.
III. CLIENT RETENTION OF VOTING RIGHTS
If a client chooses to retain the right to vote proxies or if there is
any change in voting authority, the following should be notified by the
investment professional or sales assistant for the client.
- Operations
- Legal Department
- Proxy Department
- Investment professional assigned to the account
In the event that the Board of Directors (or a Committee thereof) of
one or more of the investment companies managed by one of the Advisers has
retained direct voting control over any security, the Proxy Voting Department
will provide each Board Member (or Committee member) with a copy of the proxy
statement together with any other relevant information including recommendations
of ISS or other third-party services.
IV. VOTING RECORDS
The Proxy Voting Department will retain a record of matters voted upon
by the Advisers for their clients. The Advisers' staff may request proxy-voting
records for use in presentations to current or prospective clients. Requests for
proxy voting records should be made at least ten days prior to client meetings.
If a client wishes to receive a proxy voting record on a quarterly,
semi-annual or annual basis, please notify the Proxy Voting Department. The
reports will be available for mailing approximately ten days after the quarter
end of the period. First quarter reports may be delayed since the end of the
quarter falls during the height of the proxy season.
A letter is sent to the custodians for all clients for which the
Advisers have voting responsibility instructing them to forward all proxy
materials to:
[Adviser name]
Attn: Proxy Voting Department
One Corporate Center
Rye, New York 10580-1433
The sales assistant sends the letters to the custodians along with the
trading/DTC instructions. Proxy voting records will be retained in compliance
with Rule 204-2 under the Investment Advisers Act.
V. VOTING PROCEDURES
1. Custodian banks, outside brokerage firms and Wexford Clearing Services
Corporation are responsible for forwarding proxies directly to GAMCO.
Proxies are received in one of two forms:
o Shareholder Vote Authorization Forms (VAFs) - Issued by ADP. VAFs must be
voted through the issuing institution causing a time lag. ADP is an outside
service contracted by the various institutions to issue proxy materials.
o Proxy cards which may be voted directly.
2. Upon receipt of the proxy, the number of shares each form represents is
logged into the proxy system according to security.
3. In the case of a discrepancy such as an incorrect number of shares, an
improperly signed or dated card, wrong class of security, etc., the issuing
custodian is notified by phone. A corrected proxy is requested. Any arrangements
are made to insure that a proper proxy is received in time to be voted
(overnight delivery, fax, etc.). When securities are out on loan on record date,
the custodian is requested to supply written verification.
4. Upon receipt of instructions from the proxy committee (see Administrative),
the votes are cast and recorded for each account on an individual basis.
Since January 1, 1992, records have been maintained on the Proxy Edge system.
The system is backed up regularly. From 1990 through 1991, records were
maintained on the PROXY VOTER system and in hardcopy format. Prior to 1990,
records were maintained on diskette and in hardcopy format.
PROXY EDGE records include:
Security Name and Cusip Number
Date and Type of Meeting (Annual, Special, Contest)
Client Name
Adviser or Fund Account Number
Directors' Recommendation
How GAMCO voted for the client on each issue
The rationale for the vote when it appropriate
Records prior to the institution of the PROXY EDGE system include:
Security name
Type of Meeting (Annual, Special, Contest)
Date of Meeting
Name of Custodian
Name of Client
Custodian Account Number
Adviser or Fund Account Number
Directors' recommendation
How the Adviser voted for the client on each issue
Date the proxy statement was received and by whom
Name of person posting the vote
Date and method by which the vote was cast
o From these records individual client proxy voting records are compiled. It
is our policy to provide institutional clients with a proxy voting record
during client reviews. In addition, we will supply a proxy voting record at
the request of the client on a quarterly, semi-annual or annual basis.
5. VAFs are kept alphabetically by security. Records for the current proxy
season are located in the Proxy Voting Department office. In preparation for the
upcoming season, files are transferred to an offsite storage facility during
January/February.
6. Shareholder Vote Authorization Forms issued by ADP are always sent directly
to a specific individual at ADP.
7. If a proxy card or VAF is received too late to be voted in the conventional
matter, every attempt is made to vote on one of the following manners:
o VAFs can be faxed to ADP up until the time of the meeting. This is followed
up by mailing the original form.
o When a solicitor has been retained, the solicitor is called. At the
solicitor's direction, the proxy is faxed.
8. In the case of a proxy contest, records are maintained for each opposing
entity.
9. Voting in Person
a) At times it may be necessary to vote the shares in person. In this case, a
"legal proxy" is obtained in the following manner:
o Banks and brokerage firms using the services at ADP:
The back of the VAF is stamped indicating that we wish to vote in person.
The forms are then sent overnight to ADP. ADP issues individual legal proxies
and sends them back via overnight (or the Adviser can pay messenger charges). A
lead-time of at least two weeks prior to the meeting is needed to do this.
Alternatively, the procedures detailed below for banks not using ADP may be
implemented.
o Banks and brokerage firms issuing proxies directly:
The bank is called and/or faxed and a legal proxy is requested.
All legal proxies should appoint:
"REPRESENTATIVE OF [ADVISER NAME] WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION."
b) The legal proxies are given to the person attending the meeting along with
the following supplemental material:
o A limited Power of Attorney appointing the attendee an Adviser
representative.
o A list of all shares being voted by custodian only. Client names and
account numbers are not included. This list must be presented, along with
the proxies, to the Inspectors of Elections and/or tabulator at least
one-half hour prior to the scheduled start of the meeting. The tabulator
must "qualify" the votes (i.e. determine if the vote have previously been
cast, if the votes have been rescinded, etc. vote have previously been
cast, etc.).
o A sample ERISA and Individual contract.
o A sample of the annual authorization to vote proxies form.
o A copy of our most recent Schedule 13D filing (if applicable).
APPENDIX A
PROXY GUIDELINES
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of GAMCO INVESTORS, INC. to vote in the best economic interests
of our clients. As we state in our Magna Carta of Shareholders Rights,
established in May 1988, we are neither FOR nor AGAINST management. We are for
shareholders.
At our first proxy committee meeting in 1989, it was decided that each proxy
statement should be evaluated on its own merits within the framework first
established by our Magna Carta of Shareholders Rights. The attached guidelines
serve to enhance that broad framework.
We do not consider any issue routine. We take into consideration all of our
research on the company, its directors, and their short and long-term goals for
the company. In cases where issues that we generally do not approve of are
combined with other issues, the negative aspects of the issues will be factored
into the evaluation of the overall proposals but will not necessitate a vote in
opposition to the overall proposals.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The advisers do not consider the election of the Board of Directors a routine
issue. Each slate of directors is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Factors taken into consideration include:
o Historical responsiveness to shareholders
This may include such areas as:
-Paying greenmail
-Failure to adopt shareholder resolutions receiving a majority of
shareholder votes
o Qualifications
o Nominating committee in place
o Number of outside directors on the board
o Attendance at meetings
o Overall performance
SELECTION OF AUDITORS
In general, we support the Board of Directors' recommendation for audit
BLANK CHECK PREFERRED STOCK
We oppose the issuance of blank check preferred stock.
Blank check preferred stock allows the company to issue stock and establish
dividends, voting rights, etc. without further shareholder approval.
CLASSIFIED BOARD
A classified board is one where the directors are divided into classes with
overlapping terms. A different class is elected at each annual meeting.
While a classified board promotes continuity of directors facilitating long
range planning, we feel directors should be accountable to shareholders on an
annual basis. We will look at this proposal on a case-by-case basis taking into
consideration the board's historical responsiveness to the rights of
shareholders.
Where a classified board is in place we will generally not support attempts to
change to an annually elected board.
When an annually elected board is in place, we generally will not support
attempts to classify the board.
INCREASE AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK
The request to increase the amount of outstanding shares is considered on a
case-by-case basis.
Factors taken into consideration include:
o Future use of additional shares
-Stock split
-Stock option or other executive compensation plan
-Finance growth of company/strengthen balance sheet
-Aid in restructuring
-Improve credit rating
-Implement a poison pill or other takeover defense
o Amount of stock currently authorized but not yet issued or reserved for
stock option plans
o Amount of additional stock to be authorized and its dilutive effect
We will support this proposal if a detailed and verifiable plan for the use of
the additional shares is contained in the proxy statement.
CONFIDENTIAL BALLOT
We support the idea that a shareholder's identity and vote should be treated
with confidentiality.
However, we look at this issue on a case-by-case basis.
In order to promote confidentiality in the voting process, we endorse the use of
independent Inspectors of Election.
CUMULATIVE VOTING
In general, we support cumulative voting.
Cumulative voting is a process by which a shareholder may multiply the number of
directors being elected by the number of shares held on record date and cast the
total number for one candidate or allocate the voting among two or more
candidates.
Where cumulative voting is in place, we will vote against any proposal to
rescind this shareholder right.
Cumulative voting may result in a minority block of stock gaining representation
on the board. When a proposal is made to institute cumulative voting, the
proposal will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While we feel that each board
member should represent all shareholders, cumulative voting provides minority
shareholders an opportunity to have their views represented.
DIRECTOR LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
We support efforts to attract the best possible directors by limiting the
liability and increasing the indemnification of directors, except in the case of
insider dealing.
EQUAL ACCESS TO THE PROXY
The SEC's rules provide for shareholder resolutions. However, the resolutions
are limited in scope and there is a 500 word limit on proponents' written
arguments. Management has no such limitations. While we support equal access to
the proxy, we would look at such variables as length of time required to
respond, percentage of ownership, etc.
FAIR PRICE PROVISIONS
Charter provisions requiring a bidder to pay all shareholders a fair price are
intended to prevent two-tier tender offers that may be abusive. Typically, these
provisions do not apply to board-approved transactions.
We support fair price provisions because we feel all shareholders should be
entitled to receive the same benefits.
Reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
GOLDEN PARACHUTES
Golden parachutes are severance payments to top executives who are terminated or
demoted after a takeover.
We support any proposal that would assure management of its own welfare so that
they may continue to make decisions in the best interest of the company and
shareholders even if the decision results in them losing their job. We do not,
however, support excessive golden parachutes. Therefore, each proposal will be
decided on a case-by-case basis.
NOTE: CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED A TAX ON ANY PARACHUTE THAT IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES
THE EXECUTIVE'S AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION.
ANTI-GREENMAIL PROPOSALS
We do not support greenmail. An offer extended to one shareholder should be
extended to all shareholders equally across the board.
LIMIT SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS
We support the right of shareholders to call a special meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF NONFINANCIAL EFFECTS OF A MERGER
This proposal releases the directors from only looking at the financial effects
of a merger and allows them the opportunity to consider the merger's effects on
employees, the community, and consumers.
As a fiduciary, we are obligated to vote in the best economic interests of our
clients. In general, this proposal does not allow us to do that. Therefore, we
generally cannot support this proposal.
Reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
MERGERS, BUYOUTS, SPIN-OFFS, RESTRUCTURINGS
Each of the above is considered on a case-by-case basis. According to the
Department of Labor, we are not required to vote for a proposal simply because
the offering price is at a premium to the current market price. We may take into
consideration the long term interests of the shareholders.
MILITARY ISSUES
Shareholder proposals regarding military production must be evaluated on a
purely economic set of criteria for our ERISA clients. As such, decisions will
be made on a case-by-case basis.
In voting on this proposal for our non-ERISA clients, we will vote according to
the client's direction when applicable. Where no direction has been given, we
will vote in the best economic interests of our clients. It is not our duty to
impose our social judgment on others.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Shareholder proposals requesting the signing of the MacBride principles for the
purpose of countering the discrimination of Catholics in hiring practices must
be evaluated on a purely economic set of criteria for our ERISA clients. As
such, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In voting on this proposal for our non-ERISA clients, we will vote according to
client direction when applicable. Where no direction has been given, we will
vote in the best economic interests of our clients. It is not our duty to impose
our social judgment on others.
OPT OUT OF STATE ANTI-TAKEOVER LAW
This shareholder proposal requests that a company opt out of the coverage of the
state's takeover statutes. Example: Delaware law requires that a buyer must
acquire at least 85% of the company's stock before the buyer can exercise
control unless the board approves.
We consider this on a case-by-case basis. Our decision will be based on the
following:
o State of Incorporation
o Management history of responsiveness to shareholders
o Other mitigating factors
POISON PILL
In general, we do not endorse poison pills.
In certain cases where management has a history of being responsive to the needs
of shareholders and the stock is very liquid, we will reconsider this position.
REINCORPORATION
Generally, we support reincorporation for well-defined business reasons. We
oppose reincorporation if proposed solely for the purpose of reincorporating in
a state with more stringent anti-takeover statutes that may negatively impact
the value of the stock.
STOCK OPTION PLANS
Stock option plans are an excellent way to attract, hold and motivate directors
and employees. However, each stock option plan must be evaluated on its own
merits, taking into consideration the following:
o Dilution of voting power or earnings per share by more than 10%
o Kind of stock to be awarded, to whom, when and how much
o Method of payment
o Amount of stock already authorized but not yet issued under existing stock
option plans
SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS
Supermajority vote requirements in a company's charter or bylaws require a level
of voting approval in excess of a simple majority of the outstanding shares. In
general, we oppose supermajority-voting requirements. Supermajority requirements
often exceed the average level of shareholder participation. We support
proposals' approvals by a simple majority of the shares voting.
LIMIT SHAREHOLDERS RIGHT TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT
Written consent allows shareholders to initiate and carry on a shareholder
action without having to wait until the next annual meeting or to call a special
meeting. It permits action to be taken by the written consent of the same
percentage of the shares that would be required to effect proposed action at a
shareholder meeting.
Reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
ITEM 8. PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
PORTFOLIO MANAGER
-----------------
Mr. Mario J. Gabelli, CFA, is primarily responsible for the day-to-day
management of The Gabelli Global Deal Fund, (the Fund). Mr. Gabelli has served
as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Investment Officer -Value
Portfolios of GAMCO Investors, Inc. and its affiliates since their organization.
MANAGEMENT OF OTHER ACCOUNTS
----------------------------
The table below shows the number of other accounts managed by Mario J. Gabelli
and the total assets in each of the following categories: registered investment
companies, other paid investment vehicles and other accounts. For each category,
the table also shows the number of accounts and the total assets in the accounts
with respect to which the advisory fee is based on account performance.
------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------
Total Assets
No. of Accounts in Accounts
Name of Portfolio Total where Advisory where Advisory
Manager or Type of No. of Accounts Total Fee is Based on Fee is Based
Team Member Accounts Managed Assets Performance on Performance
----------- --------- ------- ------- ----------- --------------
------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------
1. Mario J. Gabelli Registered 21 $14B 6 $5.4B
Investment
Companies:
------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------
Other Pooled 17 $714.9M 16 $624.3M
Investment
Vehicles:
------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------
Other Accounts: 1818 $11.0B 6 $1.5B
------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
-------------------------------
As reflected above, Mr. Gabelli manages accounts in addition to the Fund. Actual
or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a Portfolio Manager also has
day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to one or more other
accounts. These potential conflicts include:
ALLOCATION OF LIMITED TIME AND ATTENTION. As indicated above, Mr. Gabelli
manages multiple accounts. As a result, he will not be able to devote all of his
time to management of the Fund. Mr. Gabelli, therefore, may not be able to
formulate as complete a strategy or identify equally attractive investment
opportunities for each of those accounts as might be the case if he were to
devote all of his attention to the management of only the Fund.
ALLOCATION OF LIMITED INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. As indicated above, Mr. Gabelli
manages managed accounts with investment strategies and/or policies that are
similar to the Fund. In these cases, if the he identifies an investment
opportunity that may be suitable for multiple accounts, a Fund may not be able
to take full advantage of that opportunity because the opportunity may be
allocated among all or many of these accounts or other accounts managed
primarily by other Portfolio Managers of the Adviser, and their affiliates. In
addition, in the event Mr. Gabelli determines to purchase a security for more
than one account in an aggregate amount that may influence the market price of
the security, accounts that purchased or sold the security first may receive a
more favorable price than accounts that made subsequent transactions.
SELECTION OF BROKER/DEALERS. Because of Mr. Gabelli's position with the
Distributor and his indirect majority ownership interest in the Distributor, he
may have an incentive to use the Distributor to execute portfolio transactions
for a Fund.
PURSUIT OF DIFFERING STRATEGIES. At times, Mr. Gabelli may determine that an
investment opportunity may be appropriate for only some of the accounts for
which he exercises investment responsibility, or may decide that certain of the
funds or accounts should take differing positions with respect to a particular
security. In these cases, he may execute differing or opposite transactions for
one or more accounts which may affect the market price of the security or the
execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment of one or more other
accounts.
VARIATION IN COMPENSATION. A conflict of interest may arise where the financial
or other benefits available to Mr. Gabelli differ among the accounts that he
manages. If the structure of the Adviser's management fee or the Portfolio
Manager's compensation differs among accounts (such as where certain accounts
pay higher management fees or performance-based management fees), the Portfolio
Manager may be motivated to favor certain accounts over others. The Portfolio
Manager also may be motivated to favor accounts in which he has an investment
interest, or in which the Adviser, or their affiliates have investment
interests. Similarly, the desire to maintain assets under management or to
enhance a Portfolio Manager's performance record or to derive other rewards,
financial or otherwise, could influence the Portfolio Manager in affording
preferential treatment to those accounts that could most significantly benefit
the Portfolio Manager. For example, as reflected above, if Mr. Gabelli manages
accounts which have performance fee arrangements, certain portions of his
compensation will depend on the achievement of performance milestones on those
accounts. Mr. Gabelli could be incented to afford preferential treatment to
those accounts and thereby by subject to a potential conflict of interest.
The Adviser, and the Funds have adopted compliance policies and procedures that
are designed to address the various conflicts of interest that may arise for the
Adviser and their staff members. However, there is no guarantee that such
policies and procedures will be able to detect and prevent every situation in
which an actual or potential conflict may arise.
COMPENSATION STRUCTURE FOR MARIO J. GABELLI
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Gabelli receives incentive-based variable compensation based on a percentage
of net revenues received by the Adviser for managing the Fund. Net revenues are
determined by deducting from gross investment management fees the firm's
expenses (other than Mr. Gabelli's compensation) allocable to this Fund. Five
closed-end registered investment companies managed by Mr. Gabelli have
arrangements whereby the Adviser will only receive its investment advisory fee
attributable to the liquidation value of outstanding preferred stock (and Mr.
Gabelli would only receive his percentage of such advisory fee) if certain
performance levels are met. Additionally, he receives similar incentive based
variable compensation for managing other accounts within the firm and its
affiliates. This method of compensation is based on the premise that superior
long-term performance in managing a portfolio should be rewarded with higher
compensation as a result of growth of assets through appreciation and net
investment activity. The level of compensation is not determined with specific
reference to the performance of any account against any specific benchmark. One
of the other registered investment companies managed by Mr. Gabelli has a
performance (fulcrum) fee arrangement for which his compensation is adjusted up
or down based on the performance of the investment company relative to an index.
Mr. Gabelli manages other accounts with performance fees. Compensation for
managing these accounts has two components. One component is based on a
percentage of net revenues to the investment adviser for managing the account.
The second component is based on absolute performance of the account, with
respect to which a percentage of such performance fee is paid to Mr. Gabelli. As
an executive officer of the Adviser's parent company, GBL, Mr. Gabelli also
receives ten percent of the net operating profits of the parent company. He
receives no base salary, no annual bonus, and no stock options.
OWNERSHIP OF SHARES IN THE FUND
-------------------------------
Mario Gabelli owned 0 shares of the Fund as of December 31, 2006.
(B) Not applicable.
ITEM 9. PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT
COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.
Not applicable.
ITEM 10. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
There have been no material changes to the procedures by which the shareholders
may recommend nominees to the registrant's board of directors, where those
changes were implemented after the registrant last provided disclosure in
response to the requirements of Item 407(c)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-K (17 CFR
229.407) (as required by Item 22(b)(15) of Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101)),
or this Item.
ITEM 11. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
(a) The registrant's principal executive and principal financial officers,
or persons performing similar functions, have concluded that the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule
30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the
"1940 Act") (17 CFR 270.30a-3(c))) are effective, as of a date within
90 days of the filing date of the report that includes the disclosure
required by this paragraph, based on their evaluation of these
controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act
(17 CFR 270.30a-3(b)) and Rules 13a-15(b) or 15d-15(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (17 CFR 240.13a-15(b) or
240.15d-15(b)).
(b) There were no changes in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act
(17 CFR 270.30a-3(d)) that occurred during the registrant's second
fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 12. EXHIBITS.
(a)(1) Code of ethics, or any amendment thereto, that is the subject of
disclosure required by Item 2 is attached hereto.
(a)(2) Certifications pursuant to Rule 30a-2(a) under the 1940 Act and
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are attached hereto.
(a)(3) Not applicable.
(b) Certifications pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are attached hereto.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
(registrant) The Gabelli Global Deal Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By (Signature and Title)* /s/ Bruce N. Alpert
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce N. Alpert, Principal Executive Officer
Date March 6, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the
following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
By (Signature and Title)* /s/ Bruce N. Alpert
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce N. Alpert, Principal Executive Officer
Date March 6, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By (Signature and Title)* /s/ Agnes Mullady
-------------------------------------------------------
Agnes Mullady, Principal Financial Officer and
Treasurer
Date March 7, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Print the name and title of each signing officer under his or her signature.