Introduction

This proxy statement contains information relating to the annual meeting of shareholders of The Walt Disney Company to be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, beginning at 10:00 a.m. local time, at the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center, 138 West Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. On or about January 28, 2011, we began mailing a notice containing instructions on how to access this proxy statement and our annual report online and we began mailing a full set of the proxy materials to shareholders who had previously requested delivery of the materials in paper copy. For information on how to vote your shares, see the instructions included on the proxy card or instruction form and under “Information About Voting and the Meeting” on page 77.

Corporate Governance and Board Matters

There are currently 13 members of the Board of Directors:

The Board met eight times during fiscal 2010. Each Director other than Mr. Jobs attended at least 75% of all of the meetings of the Board and Committees on which he or she served. As was the case last year, Mr. Jobs’ ability to attend Board meetings was influenced by health considerations. All but one of our Directors attended the Company’s 2010 annual shareholders meeting. Under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, each Director is expected to dedicate sufficient time, energy and attention to ensure the diligent performance of his or her duties, including by attending annual and special meetings of the shareholders of the Company, the Board and Committees of which he or she is a member.

Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Ethics

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, which set forth a flexible framework within which the Board, assisted by its Committees, directs the affairs of the Company. The Guidelines address, among other things, the composition and functions of the Board of Directors, director independence, stock ownership by and compensation of Directors, management succession and review, Board Committees and selection of new Directors.

The Company has Standards of Business Conduct, which are applicable to all employees of the Company, including the principal executive officer, the principal financial officer and the principal accounting officer. The Board has a separate Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Directors, which contains provisions specifically applicable to Directors.

The Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Standards of Business Conduct and the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Directors are available on the Company’s Investor Relations website under the “Corporate Governance” heading at www.disney.com/investors and in print to any shareholder who requests them from the Company’s Secretary. If the Company amends or waives the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Directors, or the Standards of Business Conduct with respect to the chief executive officer, principal financial officer or principal accounting officer, it will post the amendment or waiver at the same location on its website.

Chairman of the Board

John Pepper became non-executive Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2007. The Chairman of the Board organizes Board activities to enable the Board to effectively provide guidance to and oversight and accountability of management.

To fulfill that role, the Chairman, among other things: creates and maintains an effective working relationship with the Chief Executive Officer and other members of management and with the other members of the Board; provides the Chief Executive Officer ongoing direction as to Board needs, interests and opinions; and assures that the Board agenda is appropriately directed to the matters of greatest importance to the Company. In carrying out his responsibilities, the Chairman preserves the distinction between management and oversight, maintaining the responsibility of management to develop corporate strategy and the responsibility of the Board to review and express its views on corporate strategy. The functions of the Chairman include:

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines specify that the Chairman of the Board will be an independent Director. The Board believes that this structure is appropriate in light of the current mix of Board members and the functioning of the Board at this time. If the Board determines that a different structure would better serve the best interests of the shareholders, the Board will disclose in the Company’s proxy statement the reasons for a different arrangement and appoint an independent director as lead director with duties and responsibilities detailed in the Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Committees

The Board of Directors has four standing committees: Audit, Governance and Nominating, Compensation and Executive. Information regarding these committees is provided below. The charters of the Audit, Governance and Nominating and Compensation Committees are available on the Company’s Investor Relations website under the “Corporate Governance” heading at www.disney.com/investors and in print to any shareholder who requests them from the Company’s Secretary.

The members of the Audit Committee are:

Monica C. Lozano

Robert W. Matschullat

John E. Pepper, Jr.

Orin C. Smith (Chair)

The functions of the Audit Committee are described below under the heading “Audit Committee Report.” The Audit Committee met nine times during fiscal 2010. All of the members of the Audit Committee are independent within the meaning of SEC regulations, the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Board has determined that Mr. Smith, the chair of the Committee, and Mr. Matschullat and Mr. Pepper are qualified as audit committee financial experts within the meaning of SEC regulations, and that they have accounting and related financial management expertise within the meaning of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, and that Ms. Lozano is financially literate within the meaning of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange.

The members of the Governance and Nominating Committee are:

Judith L. Estrin

Aylwin B. Lewis (Chair)

Robert W. Matschullat

John E. Pepper, Jr.

Sheryl K. Sandberg

The Governance and Nominating Committee is responsible for developing and implementing policies and practices relating to corporate governance, including reviewing and monitoring implementation of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. In addition, the Committee assists the Board in developing criteria for open Board positions, reviews background information on potential candidates and makes recommendations to the Board regarding such candidates. The Committee also reviews and approves transactions between the Company and Directors, officers, 5% stockholders and their affiliates under the Company’s Related Person Transaction Approval Policy, supervises the Board’s annual

review of Director independence and the Board’s annual self-evaluation, makes recommendations to the Board with respect to compensation of non-executive members of the Board of Directors (starting in fiscal 2011), makes recommendations to the Board with respect to Committee assignments and oversees the Board’s director education practices. The Committee met five times during fiscal 2010. All of the members of the Governance and Nominating Committee are independent within the meaning of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

The members of the Compensation Committee are:

Susan E. Arnold

John S. Chen

Fred H. Langhammer (Chair)

Aylwin B. Lewis

John E. Pepper, Jr.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the Company’s chief executive officer, evaluating the performance of the chief executive officer and, either as a committee or together with the other independent members of the Board, determining and approving the compensation level for the chief executive officer. The Committee is also responsible for making recommendations to the Board regarding the compensation of other executive officers and certain compensation plans, and the Board has also delegated to the Committee the responsibility for approving these arrangements. Additional information on the roles and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee is provided under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” below. In fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee met ten times and acted once by unanimous written consent. All of the members of the Committee are independent within the meaning of the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

The members of the Executive Committee are:

Robert A. Iger

John E. Pepper, Jr. (Chair)

The Executive Committee serves primarily as a means for taking action requiring Board approval between regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. The Executive Committee is authorized to act for the full Board on matters other than those specifically reserved by Delaware law to the Board. In practice, the Committee’s actions are generally limited to matters such as the authorization of transactions including corporate credit facilities and borrowings. In fiscal 2010, the Executive Committee held no meetings.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

As noted in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines the Board, acting directly or through Committees, is responsible for “assessing major risk factors relating to the Company and its performance” and “reviewing measures to address and mitigate such risks.” In discharging this responsibility, the Board, either directly or through its committees, assesses both the risks that inhere in the key economic and market assumptions that underpin the Company’s business plans and growth strategies and significant operational risks related to the conduct of the Company’s day-to-day operations.

Risks that relate to the market and economic assumptions that underpin each business unit’s growth plans are specifically addressed in connection with the Board’s annual review of the Company’s five-year plan. The Board also has the opportunity to address such risks at each Board meeting in connection with its regular review of significant business and financial developments. The Board reviews risks arising out of specific significant transactions when these transactions are presented to the Board for review or approval.

Significant operational risks that relate to on-going business operations are the

subject of regularly scheduled reports to either the full Board or one of its Committees. The Board has established a process to determine on an annual basis whether these reports appropriately cover the significant risks that the Company may then be facing.

Each of the Board’s committee’s addresses risks that fall within the committee’s areas of responsibility. For example, the Audit Committee reviews annually the audit plan of management audit, the international labor standards compliance program, the Company’s information technology risks and mitigation strategies, the tax function, treasury operations (including insurance) and the ethical standards program. In addition, the Audit Committee receives regular reports from: corporate controllership and the outside auditor on financial reporting matters; management audit about significant findings; and the general counsel regarding legal and regulatory risks. The Audit Committee reserves time at each meeting for private sessions with the chief financial officer, general counsel, head of management audit and outside auditors. The Compensation Committee addresses risks arising out of the Company’s executive compensation programs as described at page 23, below.

The Chairman of the Board promotes effective communication and consideration of matters presenting significant risks to the Company through his role in setting the Board’s agenda, advising committee chairs and communicating between independent directors and the chief executive officer, though the Board believes that in appropriate circumstances an independent lead director could also fulfill this role.

Director Independence

The provisions of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines regarding Director independence meet and in some areas exceed the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange. These provisions are included in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are available on the Company’s Investor

Relations website under the “Corporate Governance” heading at www.disney.com/investors.

Pursuant to the Guidelines, the Board undertook its annual review of Director independence in December 2010. During this review, the Board considered 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 considered whether there were any transactions or relationships between Directors or any member of their immediate family (or any entity of which a Director or an immediate family member is an executive officer, general partner or significant equity holder) and members of the Company’s senior management or their affiliates. As provided in the Guidelines, the purpose of this review was to determine whether any such relationships or transactions existed that were inconsistent with a determination that the Director is independent.

As a result of this review, the Board affirmatively determined that all of the Directors nominated for election at the annual meeting are independent of the Company and its management under the standards set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, with the exception of Robert Iger, John Bryson and Steven Jobs. Mr. Iger is considered an inside Director because of his employment as a senior executive of the Company. The Board determined that Mr. Bryson is not an independent Director as a result of past relationships between the Company, Lifetime Entertainment Television and Mr. Bryson’s wife. Until the end of fiscal year 2009, Lifetime was a joint venture that was 50% owned by the Company. Late in fiscal year 2009, Lifetime was merged into A&E Television Networks, a joint venture that is 42% owned by the Company. Ms. Bryson was an executive officer of Lifetime until 2008 and a consultant to Lifetime through April 2009. In addition, Lifetime acquired programming from and sold advertising time to Company subsidiaries while Ms. Bryson was affiliated with Lifetime in an aggregate amount that exceeded 2% of Lifetime’s total revenues during the applicable fiscal years.

Although the relationship between the Company, Lifetime and Ms. Bryson may not mandate disqualification from independence under the Company’s Guidelines, the Board determined that the relationship was sufficient to deem Mr. Bryson non-independent at this time. Mr. Jobs is considered a non-independent outside director because, during fiscal 2006, the Company acquired Pixar, of which Mr. Jobs was chairman and chief executive officer and the beneficial owner of 50.6% of the issued and outstanding equity.

In determining the independence of each Director, the Board considered the following relationships, which it determined were immaterial to the Directors’ independence. The Board considered that the Company and its subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business have, during the last three years, sold products and services to and/or purchased products and services from companies at which some of our Directors or their immediate family members were officers or employees during fiscal 2010. In each case, the amount paid to or received from these companies in each of the last three years did not approach the 2% of total revenue threshold in the Guidelines. The Board also considered employment relationships with immediate family members of Directors that involved compensation of less than the threshold of $120,000 in the Company’s Guidelines. The Board determined that none of the relationships it considered impaired the independence of the Directors.

Director Selection Process

Working closely with the full Board, the Governance and Nominating Committee develops criteria for open Board positions, taking into account such factors as it deems appropriate, which may include: the current composition of the Board; the range of talents, experiences and skills that would best complement those already represented on the Board; the balance of management and independent Directors; and the need for financial or other specialized expertise. Applying these criteria, the Committee considers candidates for Board membership suggested by its members and other Board members, as

well as management and shareholders. The Committee retains a third-party executive search firm to identify and review candidates upon request of the Committee from time to time.

Once the Committee has identified a prospective nominee—including prospective nominees recommended by shareholders—it makes an initial determination as to whether to conduct a full evaluation. In making this determination, the Committee takes into account the information provided to the Committee with the recommendation of the candidate, as well as the Committee’s own knowledge and information obtained through inquiries to third parties to the extent the Committee deems appropriate. The preliminary determination is based primarily on the need for additional Board members and the likelihood that the prospective nominee can satisfy the criteria that the Committee has established. If the Committee determines, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board and other Directors as appropriate, that additional consideration is warranted, it may request the third-party search firm to gather additional information about the prospective nominee’s background and experience and to report its findings to the Committee. The Committee then evaluates the prospective nominee against the specific criteria that it has established for the position, as well as the standards and qualifications set out in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, including:

If the Committee decides, on the basis of its preliminary review, to proceed with further consideration, members of the Committee, as well as other members of the Board as appropriate, interview the nominee. After completing this evaluation and interview, the Committee makes a recommendation to the full Board, which makes the final determination whether to nominate or appoint the new Director after considering the Committee’s report.

In selecting nominees for Director, the Board seeks to achieve a mix of members who together bring experience and personal backgrounds relevant to the Company’s strategic priorities and the scope and complexity of the Company’s business. In light of the Company’s current priorities, the Board seeks experience relevant to managing the creation of high-quality branded entertainment products and services, addressing the impact of rapidly changing technology and expanding business outside of the United States. The Board also seeks experience in large, diversified enterprises and demonstrated ability to manage complex issues that involve a balance of risk and reward and seeks directors who have expertise in specific areas such as consumer and cultural trends, business innovation, growth strategies and financial oversight. The background information on current nominees beginning on page 57 sets out how each of the current nominees contributes to the mix of experience and qualifications the Board seeks.

In making its recommendations with respect to the nomination for re-election of existing Directors at the annual shareholders meeting, the Committee assesses

the composition of the Board at the time and considers the extent to which the Board continues to reflect the criteria set forth above.

A shareholder who wishes to recommend a prospective nominee for the Board should notify the Company’s Secretary or any member of the Governance and Nominating Committee in writing with

whatever supporting material the shareholder considers appropriate. The Governance and Nominating Committee will also consider whether to nominate any person nominated by a shareholder pursuant to the provisions of the Company’s Bylaws relating to shareholder nominations as described in “Shareholder Communications” below.

Board Compensation

Under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, non-employee Director compensation is determined annually by the Board of Directors acting upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. Directors who are also employees of the Company receive no additional compensation for service as a Director. During Fiscal 2010, annual compensation for non-employee Directors was as follows:

Effective October 1, 2010, the Board eliminated the annual stock option grant, increased the annual deferred stock unit

grant by $56,000 and provided for a $56,000 annual deferred stock grant to the Board Chairman.

At Mr. Jobs’ request, the Board has excluded Mr. Jobs from receiving compensation as a Director.

The Company does not provide retirement benefits to any non-employee Directors who served during fiscal 2010.

Unless the Board exempts a Director, each Director is required to retain at all times stock representing no less than 50% of the after-tax value of exercised options and shares received upon distribution of deferred stock units until he or she leaves the Board. Effective October 1, 2010, the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines also encourage Directors to own, or acquire within three years of first becoming a Director, shares of common stock of the Company (including stock units received as Director compensation) having a market value of at least three times the amount of the annual Board retainer for the Director.

The following table identifies the compensation earned during fiscal 2010 by each person who is currently a non-employee Director. Information regarding the amounts in each column follows the table.

Fees Earned or Paid in Cash.    The annual Board retainer and annual committee and committee-chair retainers are payable in cash at the end of each quarter. The Company’s Amended and Restated 1997 Non-Employee Directors Stock and Deferred Compensation Plan allows non-employee Directors to elect each year to receive all or part of their retainers in Disney stock or to defer all or part of this compensation until after their service as a Director ends. Directors who elect to receive stock instead of cash but who do not defer their compensation are credited each quarter with a dollar amount equal to fees earned that quarter and receive shares after the end of each calendar year based on the average of the fair market value of shares of the Company’s common stock at the end of each quarter. Directors who elect to defer their compensation may also elect to receive cash or stock. Directors who elect to receive deferred compensation in cash receive a credit each quarter, and the balance in their deferred cash account earns interest at an annual rate equal to the Moody’s Average Corporate (Industrial) Bond Yield, adjusted quarterly. For fiscal 2010, the average interest rate was 5.62%. Interest earned on deferred amounts is included in the “All Other Compensation” column. Directors who elect to receive deferred compensation in stock receive stock units each

quarter and shares of stock are distributed with respect to these units after their service as a Director ends.

This column sets forth amounts payable in cash on a current basis, whether paid currently or deferred by the Director to be paid in cash or shares after their service ends. None of the Directors elected to receive stock on a current basis for fiscal 2010. This column does not include fees paid for service as Chairman of the Board, as those fees are required to be paid in the form of shares of stock distributed to the Chairman after the end of the calendar year in which they were earned and are therefore included in the “Stock Awards” column.

The following table identifies for each Director the dollar amount included in the “Fees Earned or Paid in Cash” column received in cash, the dollar amount deferred to be paid in cash, and the number and dollar value of stock units received as deferred compensation. The number of units awarded is equal to the dollar amount of fees accruing each quarter divided by the average over the last ten trading days of the quarter of the average of the high and low trading price for shares of Company common stock on each day in the ten-day period.

Stock Awards.    This column sets forth the grant date fair market value of awards for service in fiscal 2010 with respect to:

The grant date fair market value is equal to the market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the award times the number of shares underlying the units.

The number of shares awarded to each Director was calculated by dividing the amount payable with respect to a quarter by the average over the last ten trading days of the quarter of the average of the high and low trading price on each day. The following table identifies the number of stock units awarded to each Director during fiscal 2010.

One fourth of the annual deferred stock unit grant and annual retainer is awarded at the end of each quarter. Shares with respect to annual deferred stock unit grants are distributed to the Director on the second anniversary of the award date, whether or not the Director is still a Director on the date of distribution. Shares with respect to the annual retainer for the Chairman of the Board are distributed after the end of the calendar year in which they are earned.

At the end of any quarter in which dividends are distributed to shareholders, Directors receive additional stock units with a value (based on the average of the high and low trading prices of Disney stock averaged over the last ten trading days of the quarter) equal to the amount of dividends they would have received on all stock units held by them at the end of the prior quarter. Shares with respect to these additional units are distributed when the underlying units are distributed. Units awarded in respect of dividends are included in the fair value of the stock units when the units are initially awarded and therefore are not included in the tables above, but they are included in the total units held at the end of the fiscal year in the following table.

The following table sets forth all stock units held by each Director as of the end of fiscal 2010. All stock units are fully vested when granted, but shares are distributed with respect to the units only later, as described above. Stock units in this table are included in the share ownership table on page 79 except to the extent they may have been distributed as shares and sold prior to January 24, 2011.

Option Awards.    This column sets forth the grant date fair value with respect to options awarded to Directors in fiscal 2010. The fair value of the options on the date of their award is calculated using the

binomial model. The assumptions used in estimating the fair value of options are set forth in footnote 13 to the Company’s Audited Financial Statements for fiscal year 2010.

Each Director identified in the table above received an option for 6,143 shares on March 1, 2010, except for Mr. Jobs, who does not receive director compensation, and Ms. Sandberg, who was not a Director on March 1, 2010. The exercise price of the options granted in fiscal 2010 is $31.47 (the average of the high and low prices reported on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant; the closing price on that date was $31.54). The options vest in equal installments over four years and have a ten-year term. If a Director ends his or her service by reason of mandatory retirement pursuant to the Board’s retirement or tenure policy or permanent disability, the options continue to vest in accordance with their original schedule. If service ends by reason of death, the options vest immediately. In any of the foregoing cases, the options remain exercisable for five years following termination or until the original expiration date of the option, whichever is sooner. In all other cases, options cease to vest upon termination and all vested options must be exercised within three months of termination.

The following table sets forth the aggregate number of stock options outstanding for each Director at the end of fiscal 2010.

All Other Compensation.    To encourage Directors to experience the Company’s products, services and entertainment offerings personally, the Board has adopted a policy, that, subject to availability, entitles each non-employee Director (and his or her spouse, children and grandchildren) to use Company products, attend Company entertainment offerings and visit Company properties (including staying at resorts, visiting theme parks and participating in cruises) at the Company’s expense, up to a maximum of $15,000 in fair market value per calendar year plus reimbursement of associated tax liabilities. In addition, the Company reimburses Directors for the travel expenses of or provides transportation on Company aircraft for immediate family members of Directors if the family members are specifically invited to attend events for appropriate business purposes and allows family members (including domestic partners) to accompany Directors traveling on company aircraft for business purposes on a space-available basis. The value of these benefits is not included in the table as permitted by SEC rules because the aggregate incremental

cost to the Company of providing the benefits did not exceed $10,000 for any Director. The reimbursement of associated tax liabilities is included in the table above, which was less than $10,000 for each Director other than Mr. Matschullat and Mr. Pepper, for whom the reimbursement was $11,270 and $11,853, respectively. The column also includes interest earned on deferred cash compensation, which was less than $10,000 for each Director except for Ms. Lozano, for whom interest earned totaled $17,491.

Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions

The Board of Directors has adopted a written policy for review of transactions involving more than $120,000 in any fiscal year in which the Company is a participant and in which any Director, executive officer, holder of more than 5% of our outstanding shares or any immediate family member of any of these persons has a direct or indirect material interest. Directors, 5% shareholders and executive officers are required to inform the Company of any such transaction promptly after they become aware of it, and the Company collects information from Directors and executive officers about their affiliations and affiliations of their family members so the Company can search its records for any such transactions. Transactions are presented to the Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board (or to the Chairman of the Committee if the Committee delegates this responsibility) for approval before they are entered into or, if this is not possible, for ratification after the transaction has been entered into. The Committee approves or ratifies a transaction if it determines that the transaction is consistent with the best interests of the Company, including whether the transaction impairs independence of a Director. The policy does not require review of the following transactions:

During fiscal year 2010, Fidelity Management Trust Company (FMTC) served as trustee of the Company’s 401(k) plan and the Company paid FMTC approximately $294,315 in fees for this and ancillary services. Additionally, entities affiliated with FMTC benefit from fees incurred by plan participants on balances invested in mutual funds through the plan. FMTC and its affiliated entities are subsidiaries of FMR LLC, which was the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s outstanding shares during fiscal year 2010. This relationship has been in place since before FMR LLC was the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s outstanding shares, and the ongoing relationship was reviewed and approved

by the Governance and Nominating Committee under the Related Person Transaction Approval Policy in December 2010.

Shareholder Communications

Generally.    Shareholders may communicate with the Company through its Shareholder Services Department by writing to 500 South Buena Vista Street, MC 9722, Burbank, California 91521, by calling Shareholder Services at (818) 553-7200, or by sending an e-mail to investor.relations@disneyonline.com. Additional information about contacting the Company is available on the Company’s investor relations website (www.disney.com/investors) under “My Shareholder Account.”

Shareholders and other persons interested in communicating directly with the Chairman of the Board or with the non- management Directors as a group may do so by writing to the Chairman of the Board, The Walt Disney Company, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California 91521-1030. Under a process approved by the Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board for handling letters received by the Company and addressed to non-management members of the Board, the office of the Secretary of the Company reviews all such correspondence and forwards to Board members a summary and/or copies of any such correspondence that, in the opinion of the Secretary, deals with the functions of the Board or Committees thereof or that he otherwise determines requires their attention. Directors may at any time review a log of all correspondence received by the Company that is addressed to members of the Board and request copies of any such correspondence. Concerns relat-

ing to accounting, internal controls or auditing matters are immediately brought to the attention of the Company’s internal audit department and handled in accordance with procedures established by the Audit Committee with respect to such matters.

Shareholder Proposals for Inclusion in 2012 Proxy Statement.    To be eligible for inclusion in the proxy statement for our 2012 annual meeting, shareholder proposals must be received by the Company’s Secretary no later than the close of business on September 30, 2011. Proposals should be sent to the Secretary, The Walt Disney Company, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California 91521-1030 and follow the procedures required by SEC Rule 14a-8.

Shareholder Director Nominations and Other Shareholder Proposals for Presentation at the 2012 Annual Meeting.    Under our bylaws, written notice of shareholder nominations to the Board of Directors and any other business proposed by a shareholder that is not to be included in the proxy statement must be delivered to the Company’s Secretary not less than 90 nor more than 120 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting. Accordingly, any shareholder who wishes to have a nomination or other business considered at the 2012 annual meeting must deliver a written notice (containing the information specified in our bylaws regarding the shareholder and the proposed action) to the Company’s Secretary between November 23, 2011 and December 23, 2011. SEC rules permit management to vote proxies in its discretion with respect to such matters if we advise shareholders how management intends to vote.

Executive Compensation

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has:

Members of the Compensation Committee

Susan E. Arnold

John S. Chen

Fred H. Langhammer (Chair)

Aylwin B. Lewis

John E. Pepper, Jr.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview

Disney’s executive compensation program is designed to align the interests of senior management with shareholders by tying a significant portion of their compensation to the Company’s performance as measured by a variety of factors during the fiscal year in question, including financial returns, stock price performance and efforts to position the Company for long-term success.

Under the program, the portion of compensation guaranteed to the Company’s named executives at the beginning of any

fiscal year represents only a fraction of the total potential compensation. In the case of Mr. Iger, only about 10% of the value of his target annual compensation this fiscal year (excluding benefits and perquisites) was assured at the beginning of the year in the form of his base salary. The value of the remaining 90% of Mr. Iger’s target annual compensation, including performance-based bonus, stock awards and options, is linked directly to the Company’s performance. Although the percentages differ modestly for the other named executive officers and benefits and perquisites received during the year can increase the percentage of fixed compensation somewhat, more than 80% of all annual compensation awarded to the other two named executive officers who have held their same position throughout recent years was tied to the Company’s performance.

In making decisions on performance-based compensation in fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee considered the Company’s financial performance in the face of ongoing challenges of a recovering US and global economy and the importance of the Company continuing to invest in opportunities for future growth. In the face of these conditions, the Committee viewed the Company’s 14% growth in earnings per share, excluding the impact of items that affected comparability between the years,¹ and a 5% growth in revenues as exceptional performance for the year. This performance for the year was reflected in the Company’s total shareholder return, which increased 23.9%, compared to the total shareholder return for the S&P 500, which increased 14.1%.

Taking into account these circumstances, and driven primarily by the application of the financial performance measures described on page 29 in determining performance-based bonuses, total annual cash compensation increased for the

named executive officers this year compared to last year. We provide information on all six named executive officers in the Summary Compensation Table on page 33, but for comparability purposes, in discussing aggregate compensation for the previous three years, we only consider the information provided below for the three officers who held their current positions for all three years. For these three officers, total annual cash compensation (as set forth in the table below) was in the aggregate, 35.2% higher than in fiscal 2009, primarily due to an increase in performance-based bonuses. The grant date fair value of equity awards to these three officers increased by an aggregate

of 18%, driven primarily by the Committee’s determination to reward Mr. Iger for excellent management of the Company in a difficult economic environment and to reward Mr. Mayer for the critical role he played in completion of the acquisition of Marvel. In addition, Mr. Braverman received a special equity award pursuant to his employment agreement as a result of his assuming responsibility over governmental affairs at the beginning of the calendar year.

Overall, total annual compensation for these three named executive officers, including the grant date fair value of equity awards, increased by 27.7% in fiscal 2010.

Compensation Objectives and Program Design

The Company’s executive compensation program seeks to promote the creation of long-term shareholder value by:

We use five different types of compensation in pursuing these objectives:

This section discusses how we have designed our compensation program to address these objectives.

Specific compensation decisions relating to fiscal 2010 are discussed in the section titled “Fiscal 2010 Decisions.”

Roles and Responsibilities

The Compensation Committee determines the compensation, including related terms of employment agreements for those who have them, for each of the named executive officers.

The Committee also conducts reviews of the Company’s general executive compensation policies and strategies and oversees and evaluates the Company’s overall compensation structure and programs. The Committee’s responsibilities include:

In carrying out these responsibilities, the Committee: reviews the Company’s general executive compensation policies; determines salaries and bonuses for and equity awards to the named executive officers and such other officers as it determines appropriate; reviews benefit programs for the named executive officers; reviews and approves (or recommends approval to the Board where it deems appropriate) all incentive, performance-based and equity-based plans and any other benefit plans submitted to it by the chief executive officer; and reviews and approves all employment contracts with named executive officers and such other officers as it deems appropriate.

The Compensation Committee determines the compensation of the chief executive officer without management input, but is assisted in this determination by its independent compensation consultant (described below) and reviews its determination with the Board of Directors (without members of management present) prior to its final determination.

In making determinations regarding compensation for other named executive officers, the Committee considers the recommendations of the chief executive officer and the input received from its independent compensation consultant. The chief executive officer recommends compensation, including the compensation provisions of employment agreements for those who have them, for named executive officers other than himself and all other officers whose compensation is determined by the Compensation Committee. In making this recommendation, the chief executive officer evaluates the performance of the executives, considers the executive’s responsibilities and compensation in relation to other officers of the Company, and considers publicly available information regarding the competitive market for talent and information provided to him by the Company and information provided to the Committee by the Committee’s independent consultant. As with the chief executive officer’s compensation, the Committee advises the full Board of its deliberations prior to making a final determination of annual

bonus and equity incentive awards for named executive officers and considers whatever input is provided by the full Board in making its final determination.

Management also provides data, analysis and recommendations for the Committee’s consideration regarding the Company’s executive compensation programs and policies, preparing materials for the information of and review by the Compensation Committee. Management also administers those programs and policies consistent with the direction of the Committee. Management provides an ongoing review of the effectiveness of the compensation programs, including competitiveness and alignment with the Company’s objectives, and recommends changes, if necessary to promote achievement of all program objectives.

The Committee meets regularly outside of the presence of management to discuss compensation decisions and matters relating to the design of compensation programs.

The Committee has retained the firm of Pay Governance LLC as its compensation consultant to assist in the continual development and evaluation of compensation policies and the Committee’s determinations of compensation awards. The Committee’s consultant attends Compensation Committee meetings, meets with the Committee without management present and provides third-party data, advice and expertise on proposed executive compensation and executive compensation plan designs. At the direction of the Committee, the consultant reviews briefing materials prepared by management and outside advisers to management and advises the Committee on the matters included in the materials, including the consistency of proposals with the Committee’s compensation philosophy and comparisons to programs at other companies. At the request of the Committee, the consultant also prepares its own analysis of compensation matters, including positioning of programs in the competitive market and the design of plans consistent with Committee’s compensation philosophy. The Committee considers these analyses as one factor in

making decisions with respect to compensation matters along with information and analyses it receives from management and its own judgment and experience. In particular, with respect to positioning of programs in the competitive market, the Committee considers the analyses in the context of the factors discussed under “Competitive Considerations,” below.

In October 2008, the Compensation Committee adopted a policy requiring its consultant to be independent of Company management. The policy provides that a consultant will be considered independent if: the firm does not receive from the Company fees for services or products provided to the Company in any fiscal year that exceed 1% of the firm’s annual gross revenues; the individual that advises the Committee does not participate directly or by collaboration with others in the firm in the provision of any services or products to the Company without the approval of the chair of the Compensation Committee unless the related fees are, in the aggregate, less than $100,000; the consultant does not provide any products or services to any executive officer of the Company; and the Committee pre-approves any specific engagement of the firm if the estimated cost of the engagement exceeds $500,000. The Committee performs an annual assessment of the consultant’s independence to determine whether the consultant is independent. The Committee completed this assessment in December 2010 and confirmed that its consultant is independent under the policy.

All of the Services provided by Pay Governance LLC during fiscal 2010 were to the Committee to provide advice or recommendations on the amount or form of executive and director compensation, and Pay Governance LLC did not provide any additional services to the Company during fiscal year 2010. Prior to February 1, 2010, the Committee’s independent consultant was Towers Watson, and Towers Watson (and its predecessor firms, Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt) provided additional services to the Company. Prior to February 1, 2010, Towers Watson and its

predecessor firms received fees of $164,227 to provide advice or recommendations on the amount or form of executive and director compensation and fees of $185,230 for additional services to the Company. Towers Watson also provided services to the Company after February 1, 2010, and received fees for such services of $1,183,516 for services provided from February 1, 2010 through the end of the Company’s fiscal year. Management of the Company made the decision to engage Towers Watson and its predecessors for the additional services, and the Compensation Committee was aware of the relationship with Towers Perrin as a result of its review of the independence of Towers Perrin prior to its merger with Watson Wyatt, though the Committee was not asked to specifically approve the engagement.

Compensation Mix

The Committee believes that a substantial portion of the total compensation of senior executives should be variable and tied to performance in order to align compensation with measures that correlate with creation of long-term shareholder value. This should offer an opportunity for gain in the event of successful performance, matched with the prospect of reduced compensation in the absence of success. The Committee also believes that compensation for more senior executive officers, including the named executive officers, should be more heavily weighted toward variable elements of compensation than is the case for less senior officers because the performance of these officers is more likely to have a strong and direct impact in achieving strategic and financial goals that are most likely to affect shareholder value.

At the same time, the Committee believes that the Company must attract and retain high-caliber executives, and therefore must offer a mixture of fixed and at-risk compensation, and that the levels and mix of these types of compensation must be attractive in light of the competitive market for senior executive talent.

The amounts shown for equity compensation above reflect the grant-date fair value of equity awards, but the actual value of these awards will depend directly on the performance of the Company’s stock price over the period during which restricted units vest and options can be exercised and, with respect to performance-based stock units, whether the performance tests for vesting of these units are met. The value realized by an executive for options and performance-based restricted stock unit awards could be as little as zero, which would occur with respect to options if the Company’s stock price were less than the exercise price of options and would occur with respect to performance-based restricted stock units if none of the performance tests were met (including tests to assure deductibility under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

Performance-based Compensation

The Company ties compensation to the achievement of performance that aligns with long-term shareholder value through:

Annual Performance-based Bonus.    The Company’s annual performance-based bonus compensates individuals based on the achievement of specific annual financial and other objectives that the Committee believes correlate closely with growth of long-term shareholder value. The process for determining the amount of this bonus for named executive officers involves four basic steps:

All bonus awards for named executive officers are also subject to a test specifically designed to assure that the awards are eligible for deductibility under Section 162(m), which is in addition to the performance measures described above.

The Committee has the discretion, in appropriate circumstances, to award a bonus less than the amount determined by the steps set out above, including discretion to award no bonus at all.

Equity-based Compensation.    The Company’s long-term incentive program provides for the award of restricted stock units and stock options to participating employees including the named executive officers. The program is designed to provide incentives to create and maintain shareholder value over a multi-year period by making annual awards whose value depends on and is directly related to sustained changes in the market price of the Company’s shares. For the named executive officers, each annual award is typically in the form of a mix of stock options and restricted stock units as follows:

Participants receive value from stock options only if and to the extent the market price of the Company’s common stock when a participant exercises an award exceeds the market price on the date of grant. Participants realize value on restricted stock units subject to performance tests only if and to the extent that the tests described below are met. The value participants receive on restricted stock units (whether or not subject to performance tests) varies directly with the market price of the Company’s common stock at the time the units vest.

The Committee has weighted the awards slightly more toward restricted stock units because these awards reflect both increases and decreases in stock price from the grant-date market price and thus tie compensation more closely to changes in shareholder value at all levels compared to options, whose intrinsic value changes with shareholder value only when the market price of shares is above the exercise price. In addition, the weighting toward restricted stock units allows the Committee to deliver equivalent value with use of fewer authorized shares. The Committee may in the future adjust this mix of award types or approve different award types, such as restricted stock, as part of the overall long-term incentive award. Awards made in connection with a new, extended or expanded employment relationship may involve a different mix of restricted stock units and options depending on the Compensation Committee’s assessment of the total compensation package being offered.

Stock options are generally scheduled to vest over four years after the awards are made and generally remain exercisable for seven years (for awards made in 2005 through 2009) or ten years (for all other awards) after the date of the award. Restricted stock units without performance tests (other than the test to ensure that the compensation is deductible pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)) awarded in fiscal 2010 vest 25% per year beginning on the first anniversary of the award date. Restricted stock units with performance tests awarded after 2009 vest three years after award. Restricted stock units with performance tests awarded before 2010 vested 50% in two years and 50% in four years; units that did not vest after two years because performance tests were not then met could vest after four years if the performance tests were met at that time. Options and restricted stock units awarded after December 2009 (and awarded at least one year before retirement), subject to the attainment of any applicable performance conditions, continue to vest for three years after retirement (and options remain exercisable until the earlier of three years after retirement and the original expiration date) if the participant was age 60 or greater and had at least ten years of service at the date of retirement, except that this does not apply for certain employees outside the United States.

The Committee adjusts performance tests for restricted stock units from time to time in response to changes in the competitive environment and to ensure that the program meets the objective of providing clear incentives tied to the creation of long-term shareholder value. Units subject to a performance test awarded in 2010 will be eligible for vesting three years after the award date. The number of units that vest is based on a target number of units and depends on the level of performance, with the number of units vesting ranging from 0% of the target to 150% of the target. Units will vest on the vesting date (assuming continued employment or extension of vesting as described in the preceding paragraph and satisfaction of the Section 162(m) test applicable to awards to executive officers) if (a) the

Company’s three-year total shareholder return (TSR in the table below) equals or exceeds the total three-year shareholder return of 25% of the companies in the S&P500 (based on market prices for the last 20 trading days of the period ending one month prior to the third anniversary of the award) or (b) the Company’s growth in earnings per share from continuing oper-

ations (EPS in the table below) for the 12 quarters reported on or before one month prior to the third anniversary equals or exceeds the growth in earnings per share from continuing operations of 50% of the companies in the S&P500 over the same period. The number of units that vest will be determined according to the following schedule:

EPS for the Company will be adjusted as the Committee deems appropriate in its sole discretion (i) to exclude the effect of extraordinary, unusual and/or nonrecurring items and (ii) to reflect such other factors as the Committee deems appropriate to fairly reflect earnings per share growth. Adjustments to the diluted EPS from continuing operations of S&P 500 companies will not normally be made.

Units that were awarded prior to 2010 had performance tests and other vesting provisions as described in our proxy statements for the years in which the awards were issued.

The Committee may impose different vesting conditions on awards of restricted stock units other than the annual award. Restricted stock units awarded upon commencement of employment or execution of a new employment agreement are generally subject to the Section 162(m) test and are generally not subject to any additional performance test, although restricted stock units awarded to Mr. Iger in connection with the execution of his employment agreement in 2005, all of which have now vested, were subject to a total shareholder return test based on total shareholder return from the date the agreement was originally entered into through the applicable vesting dates.

Equity awards are made by the Compensation Committee only on dates the Compensation Committee meets. Compensation Committee meetings are normally scheduled well in advance and are not scheduled with an eye to announcements of material information regarding the Company. The Committee may make an award with an effective date in the future contingent on commencement of employment, execution of a new employment agreement or some other subsequent event.

The Committee will not grant stock options with exercise prices below the fair market value of the Company’s stock on the date of grant. The Company defines fair market value as the average of the high and low stock prices on the date of grant, which may be higher or lower than the closing price on that day. The Committee believes that the average of high and low prices is a better representation of the fair market value on the date of grant and tends to be less volatile than the closing price. The Committee will not reduce the exercise price of stock options (except in connection with adjustments to reflect recapitalizations, stock or extraordinary dividends, stock splits, mergers, spin-offs and similar events permitted by the relevant plan) without shareholder approval.

Risk Management Considerations.    The Committee believes that the Company’s performance-based bonus and equity programs create incentives to create long-term shareholder value. Several elements of the program are designed to promote the creation of long-term value and thereby discourage behavior that leads to excessive risk:

Each of these elements of the compensation program other than the share retention requirements apply to all of the senior executives of the Company, and all but the share retention requirements and performance tests for equity awards apply to all participants in the program.

With the assistance of its independent consultant, the Committee has reviewed the Company’s policies and practices for its employees and determined that the risks arising from those policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Fixed Compensation

Two elements of compensation for executive officers are not performance-based: base salary and benefits and perquisites, including pension benefits. These elements are discussed below.

Base Salary.    Base salary provides fixed compensation to an individual that reflects his or her job responsibilities, experience, value to the Company, and demonstrated performance.

Salaries or minimum salaries for Mr. Iger, Mr. Rasulo, Mr. Braverman, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Parker and Mr. Staggs, are determined in their employment agreements. These salaries or minimum salaries and the amount of any increase over minimums are determined by the Compensation Committee based on its subjective evaluation of a variety of factors, including:

Where not specified by contract, salaries are generally reviewed annually.

Benefits and Perquisites.    Employment agreements with Mr. Iger, Mr. Rasulo, Mr. Braverman, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Parker and Mr. Staggs provide that each is entitled to participate in employee benefits and perquisites generally made available to senior executives of the Company. Thus named executive officers receive benefits the Company provides to its salaried employees, including health care coverage, life and disability insurance protection, reimbursement of certain educational expenses and access to favorably priced group insurance coverage. The Company provides these benefits to help alleviate the financial costs and loss of income arising from illness, disability or death, to encourage ongoing education in job-related areas and to allow employees to take advantage of reduced insurance rates available for group policies.

In addition to the benefits provided to salaried employees generally, executive officers receive benefits and perquisites that are substantially the same as those

offered to other officers of the Company at or above the level of vice president, including: the option of receiving an automobile supplied by the Company (including insurance, maintenance and fuel) or a monthly payment in lieu of the automobile benefit; relocation assistance; eligibility for reimbursement of up to $450 for health club membership or exercise equipment and reimbursement of up to $1,500 for an annual physical exam; complimentary access to the Company’s theme parks and some resort facilities and discounts on Company merchandise and resort facilities; and personal use of tickets acquired by the Company for business entertainment when they become available because no business use has been arranged. In addition to the benefits and perquisites provided to other employees at or above the vice president level, executive officers may be eligible to receive basic financial planning services, enhanced excess liability coverage, increased relocation assistance, and an increased automobile benefit. Of the named executive officers only Mr. Iger, Mr. Braverman and Mr. Staggs remain entitled to the Family Income Assurance Plan, as that program is being phased out and is available only to those whose current employment agreements provide the right to this benefit. The Company pays the cost of security services and equipment for the president and chief executive officer in an amount that the Board believes is reasonable in light of his security needs and, in the interest of security, requires the chief executive officer to use corporate aircraft for personal travel. Other senior executive officers are also permitted at times to use corporate aircraft for personal travel at the discretion of the chief executive officer.

Retirement Plans.    The Company maintains defined benefit and defined contribution retirement programs for its salaried employees in which the Company’s named executive officers participate. These programs aim to recruit and retain talent by helping provide financial security into retirement and rewarding and motivating tenure.

In addition to the Company’s tax-qualified defined benefit plans, the Company main-

tains non-qualified defined benefit plans in which the named executive officers participate. All tax-qualified defined benefit plans have a maximum compensation limit and a maximum annual benefit, which limit the benefit to participants whose compensation exceeds these limits. In order to provide retirement benefits commensurate with salary levels, the non-qualified plans provide benefits to key salaried employees, including the named executive officers, using the same formula for calculating benefits as is used under the tax-qualified plans but on compensation in excess of the compensation limitations and maximum benefit accruals for tax-qualified plans. Additional information regarding the terms of retirement programs for named executive officers is included in “Compensation Tables — Pension Benefits” beginning on page 44.

Competitive Considerations

In designing the Company’s compensation program, the Committee seeks to offer compensation that responds to the competitive market for executive talent in such a way that the Company can attract executives of the highest caliber. We consider the competitive landscape in determining the mix of compensation elements, the level of compensation and other specific terms of compensation packages, and we seek to promote attraction and retention of executives by offering the opportunity for compensation that is competitively desirable in the event of successful performance.

The Company is a complex organization that operates and recruits talent across diverse industries and markets and necessarily must make each compensation decision in the context of the particular situation, including the characteristics of the business or businesses in which the individual operates and the individual’s specific roles, responsibilities, qualifications and experience. The Company takes into account information about the competitive market for executive talent, but because of the complex mix of businesses in which the Company is engaged,

the Company believes that strict benchmarking against selected groups of companies does not provide a meaningful basis for establishing compensation. Therefore, the Committee does not attempt to maintain a specific target percentile with respect to a specific list of benchmark companies in determining compensation for named executive officers. Rather, the Committee reviews information regarding competitive conditions from a variety of sources in making compensation decisions. These sources include broad public company indexes such as Fortune 100 companies, the four U.S. public companies that are major, complex, diversified and publicly-held entertainment companies (CBS Corp., News Corp., Time Warner and Viacom), and a group of companies proposed by management, which the Committee believes are relevant to its determinations in a number of respects, including size, complexity, diversity and global presence. The Committee periodically revises this group, which, at the beginning of fiscal 2010, consisted of the following 29 companies:

By the end of the fiscal year, this list was revised to add Coca Cola (because it is deemed to be a comparably-sized business whose consumer-oriented focus was determined to be similar to that of the Company) and to delete Emerson Electric and SAP (because their revenues are significantly below the median revenue of the group and their consumer focus is indirect).

Other Considerations

Employment Agreements.    The Committee enters into employment agreements with senior officers when it determines that an employment agreement is desirable for the Company to obtain a measure of assurance as to the executive’s continued employment in light of prevailing market competition for the particular position held by the executive officer, or where the Committee determines that an employment agreement is necessary and appropriate to attract an executive in light of market conditions, the prior experience of the executive or practices at the Company with respect to other similarly situated employees. With respect to the named executive officers, the Company has entered into employment agreements with Mr. Iger (for a term through January 31, 2013), Mr. Rasulo (for a term through January 31, 2015), Mr. Braverman (for a term through September 30, 2013), Mr. Mayer (for a term through September 30, 2012), Ms. Parker (for a term through August 31, 2012) and Mr. Staggs (for a term through March 31, 2013).

Employment agreements with executive officers provide executive officers with certain benefits upon termination of their employment in various circumstances, as described under “Compensation Tables — Payments and Rights on Termination,” beginning on page 46. The termination provisions define the rights of the executives and the Company in various termination scenarios and serve a variety of purposes including providing benefits to the executive and his or her family in the event of the death or disability of the executive, defining when an executive can be terminated with cause and receive no further compensation, and clearly defining rights in the event of a termination in other circumstances.

The agreements specifically define benefits that are provided in the event of termination following a change in control, which are intended to motivate executive officers to remain with the Company despite the uncertainty and dislocation that arises in the context of change in control situations and to ensure that opportunities for change in control are evaluated in light of

shareholders’ long-term interests rather than any loss of prospective compensation the executive may suffer as a result of the change in control.

The termination provisions are also designed to align executives’ interests with long-term shareholder growth by providing that, in those circumstances in which bonus payments are made and equity awards vest after termination, the payments and awards are (except in the case of vesting of restricted stock units following termination due to death or disability) subject to the same performance measures (other than the test to assure deductibility under Section 162(m)) as apply if there is no termination.

Other material terms of the employment agreements with Mr. Iger, Mr. Rasulo, Mr. Braverman, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Parker and Mr. Staggs are described under “Fixed Compensation” above and “Fiscal 2010 Decisions” below.

Tax deductibility.    Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally disallows a tax deduction to public corporations for compensation over $1,000,000 paid for any fiscal year to the corporation’s chief executive officer and up to three other executive officers whose compensation must be included in this proxy statement because they are the most highly compensated executive officers. However, the statute exempts qualifying performance-based compensation from the deduction limit if certain requirements are met. The Committee has structured awards to executive officers under the Company’s annual performance-based bonus program and equity awards program to qualify for this exemption. However, the Committee believes that shareholder interests are best served if the Committee’s discretion and flexibility in awarding compensation is not restricted, even though some compensation awards may result in non-deductible compensation expenses. Therefore, the Committee has approved salaries for executive officers that were not fully deductible because of Section 162(m) at the time of approval and retains the right to authorize payments or take other actions that can result in the payment of compensation that is not deductible for income tax purposes.

Fiscal 2010 Decisions

The following is a discussion of specific decisions made by the Compensation Committee in fiscal year 2010 or with respect to fiscal year 2010 compensation for the named executive officers.

Employment Agreements

During the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee approved the terms of a new employment agreement for Mr. Rasulo in connection with his becoming Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and approved an amendment to Mr. Staggs’ employment agreement in connection with his becoming Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide. The material terms for Mr. Rasulo’s and Mr. Staggs’ employment agreements are described under “Other Considerations — Employment Agreements” and “Fixed Compensation” above and “Compensation Tables — Payments and Rights on Termination,” beginning on page 46. On Mr. Iger’s recommendation, the Committee determined that the terms of Mr. Rasulo’s new employment agreement should be substantially similar to the terms of Mr. Staggs’ employment agreement when he served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, except that:

The amendment to Mr. Staggs’ employment agreement retained the substantive terms of his employment agreement, but made the following changes to conform the agreement to his new position: changed his duties to those of Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide;

assigned the employment relationship to Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide; and provided that Mr. Staggs’ bonus opportunity for fiscal 2011 and thereafter and equity awards and perquisites after the date of the amendment would be comparable to those offered the most senior officers of subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company rather than those offered to executive officers of The Walt Disney Company.

Consistent with past practice, the Committee has reviewed the practice of providing compensation for certain executives who are subject to excise taxes on compensation received on termination following a change in control. During fiscal 2009, the Committee determined that it would establish a cap on this reimbursement in connection with any renegotiation of material terms of, or renewal or replacement of, employment agreements with any executive officer. In light of additional feedback from the Company’s shareholder base and considering evolving market practices, the Compensation Committee, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2010, adopted a policy that it will not, without shareholder approval, include reimbursement for excise taxes payable by an executive upon termination following a change in control in any future agreements with executive officers or in any material amendments or extensions of existing agreements.

Base Salary

Employment agreements with Mr. Iger, Mr. Rasulo, Mr. Braverman, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Parker and Mr. Staggs provide for a base salary as follows:

Annual Performance Bonuses for Named Executive Officers

The Committee approved one change in the performance bonus program design during fiscal 2010. The program had previously provided that the maximum performance factor applied to the 70% portion of the annual award based on financial performance would be 200% for the President and Chief Executive Officer, the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and the Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel and 150% for other executive officers. Based on its experience in applying the terms of the program, the Committee determined that the maximum factor should be consistent among all executive officers, and therefore standardized the maximum financial performance factor at 200% for all named executive officers.

The Committee approved the following target bonuses for the named executive officers for fiscal 2010:

For each named executive officer, the targets were equal to the minimum amount set forth in their respective employment agreements.

In January 2010, the Committee also selected four financial performance measures to be used in making the determination with respect to the 70% portion of the target bonus based on financial performance measures. The Committee selected operating income, return on invested capital, after-tax free cash flow and earnings per share and established the performance ranges and weightings

shown in the table on the following page. The performance measures and relative weightings were the same as were used in fiscal 2009. The Committee selected the performance ranges based on recommendations of the chief executive officer and after reviewing the Company’s annual operating plan for fiscal 2010 and the long-term strategic plan. The Committee determined that performance below the threshold level of each range represented performance at a level that, in light of planned business operations and expected conditions for the year, represented marginal performance and that the maximum of each range represented exceptional performance in light of these conditions and expectations. In light of continuing economic uncertainty, the Committee established ranges that were narrower than those established for fiscal 2009 but broader than in years prior to 2009.

At the same time, the Committee also approved other Company-wide performance factors to be used in making the determination with respect to the 30% portion of the target bonus for each of the named executive officers. The Committee approved the following factors based on the recommendation of Mr. Iger and the strategic objectives of the Company:

In comparing actual performance for fiscal year 2010 to the performance ranges, the Committee adjusted the ranges to reflect the acquisition of Marvel and excluded the impacts of the following items in determining the adjusted actual performance: restructuring and impairment charges; gains on the sale of businesses; and a gain recorded in connection with the acquisition of Disney Store Japan. The amounts included in the table above reflect these adjustments.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

The Committee made regular annual equity awards to the named executive officers in January 2010. Consistent with the equity award policies described under “Performance-Based Compensation — Equity-Based Compensation” above, the Committee awarded restricted stock units and options, with 30% of the grant-date fair value of the award in the form of restricted stock units subject to performance vesting conditions in addition to the Section 162(m) test, 30% in the form of restricted stock units subject only to the Section 162(m) test and 40% in the form of options. Awards made to Mr. Staggs were not subject to the Section 162(m) test. The number of options and units awarded was determined by valuing stock unit awards at an amount equal to the dollar amount of the award allocated to stock units by the market price on the date of grant without taking into account any valuation adjustments related to achievement of performance tests. On this basis, the value of the award to Mr. Iger was $11,000,000. The value of the awards to Mr. Rasulo,

Mr. Braverman and Mr. Staggs were equal to $4,200,000, $2,200,000 and $4,200,000, respectively, which were equal to the minimum provided in their respective employment agreements. The values of the award to Mr. Mayer and Ms. Parker, neither of whom have contractually agreed minimums, were $1,700,000 and $1,200,000, respectively. In addition, Mr. Braverman assumed responsibility for governmental affairs at the beginning of the calendar year and he therefore received an award of 50,000 restricted stock units in January 2010, as provided by the terms of his employment agreement, which required the award of these units upon his assuming a significant increase in his responsibilities. The number of restricted stock units and options is reflected in the Fiscal 2010 Grants of Plan Based Awards table on page 36 below.

In determining the annual grants of restricted stock units and options for each executive officer, the Committee considered the minimums required by employment agreements, where applicable, and the Company’s overall long-term incentive guidelines for all executives, which

attempt to balance, in the context of the competitive market for executive talent, the benefits of incentive compensation tied to performance of the Company’s stock with the dilutive effect of equity compensation awards. The Committee also considered Mr. Iger’s recommendations, except in the case of Mr. Iger’s own agreement and award. In determining the size of the equity award for Mr. Iger, the Committee chose a value in excess of the minimum required by his contract to reward Mr. Iger’s excellent management of the Company in a difficult economic environment.

Benefits and Perquisites

The Committee did not make any changes in the Company’s policies with respect to benefits and perquisites during fiscal year 2010.

Deductibility of Compensation

Awards to executive officers under the Management Incentive Bonus Program and the long-term incentive program include a test specifically designed to ensure that the awards are fully deductible under Section 162(m). As required by Sec-

tion 162(m), the criterion established must not be certain of being achieved at the time it is set. The regulations under Section 162(m) specifically indicate that a test based on profitability is not assured of being attained. Accordingly, our bonus program and equity award program both use a test based on adjusted net income, which means net income adjusted, as appropriate, to exclude the following items or variances: change in accounting principles; acquisitions; dispositions of a business; asset impairments; restructuring charges; extraordinary, unusual or infrequent items; and extraordinary litigation costs and insurance recoveries. For the one-year period ending at the end of fiscal 2010, the adjusted net income target was $2.03 billion, and the Company achieved adjusted net income of $4.04 billion. Net income was adjusted by reducing it for the amount of gains on the sale of businesses ($75 million) and the amount of a gain recorded in connection with the acquisition of The Disney Store Japan ($21 million) and by increasing it to reflect restructuring and impairment charges ($169 million). Therefore, bonuses earned in fiscal 2010 and restricted stock units vesting in fiscal 2010 are deductible under Section 162(m).