March 16, 2009

Dear Shareholders:

You are cordially invited to attend First Horizon National Corporation’s 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. We will hold the meeting on April 21, 2009, in the Auditorium, First Tennessee Building, 165 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, at 10:00 a.m. local time. We have attached the formal notice of the annual meeting, our 2009 proxy statement, and a form of proxy.

At the meeting, we will ask you to elect five directors, to ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent auditors for 2009 and to approve an advisory proposal on executive compensation. The attached proxy statement contains information about these matters.

Our annual report to shareholders, which contains detailed financial information relating to our activities and operating performance during 2008, is being delivered to you with our proxy statement but is not deemed to be “soliciting material” under SEC Regulation 14A.

Your vote is important. You may vote by telephone, over the Internet or by mail, or if you attend the meeting and want to vote your shares, then prior to the balloting you should request that your form of proxy be withheld from voting. We request that you vote by telephone or over the Internet or return your proxy card in the postage-paid envelope as soon as possible.

FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORPORATION
165 Madison Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

NOTICE OF ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS’ MEETING
April 21, 2009

The annual meeting of shareholders of First Horizon National Corporation will be held on April 21, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. local time in the Auditorium, First Tennessee Building, 165 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee.

The items of business are:

These items are described more fully in the following pages, which are made a part of this notice. The close of business on February 20, 2009 is the record date for the meeting. All shareholders of record at that time are entitled to vote at the meeting.

Management requests that you vote by telephone or over the Internet (following the instructions on the enclosed form of proxy) or that you sign and return the form of proxy promptly, so that if you are unable to attend the meeting your shares can nevertheless be voted. You may revoke a proxy at any time before it is exercised at the annual meeting in the manner described on page 1 of the proxy statement.

Memphis, Tennessee
March 16, 2009

PROXY STATEMENT
FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT
FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORPORATION
165 Madison Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

GENERAL MATTERS

This proxy statement is being mailed to shareholders beginning on or about March 16, 2009. The Board of Directors is soliciting proxies to be used at our annual meeting of shareholders to be held on April 21, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. local time in the Auditorium, First Tennessee Building, 165 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, and at any adjournment or adjournments thereof. In this proxy statement, First Horizon National Corporation will be referred to by the use of “we,” “us” or similar pronouns, or simply as “First Horizon,” and First Horizon and its consolidated subsidiaries will be referred to collectively as “the Corporation.”

The accompanying form of proxy is for use at the meeting if you will be unable to attend in person. To obtain directions to be able to attend the meeting and vote in person, contact our Community Relations office at 866-365-4313. You may revoke your proxy at any time before it is exercised by writing to the Corporate Secretary, by timely delivering a properly executed, later-dated proxy (including a telephone or Internet vote) or by voting by ballot at the meeting. All shares represented by valid proxies received pursuant to this solicitation, and not revoked before they are exercised, will be voted in the manner specified therein. If no specification is made, the proxies will be voted in favor of items 1, 2 and 3 below:

First Horizon recommends that you vote in favor of items 1, 2 and 3 listed above. We will bear the entire cost of soliciting the proxies. In following up the original solicitation of the proxies by mail, we may request brokers and others to send proxies and proxy material to the beneficial owners of the shares and may reimburse them for their expenses in so doing. If necessary, we may also use several of our regular employees to solicit proxies from the shareholders, either personally or by telephone or by special letter, for which they will receive no compensation in addition to their normal compensation. We have hired Morrow & Co., LLC, 470 West Ave., Stamford CT 06902 to aid us in the solicitation of proxies for a fee of $6,500 plus out-of-pocket expenses. An additional charge of $5.00 per holder will be incurred should we choose to have Morrow & Co. solicit individual holders of record.

Our common stock is the only class of voting securities. There were 205,544,682 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote as of February 20, 2009, the record date for the annual shareholders’ meeting. Each share is entitled to one vote. A quorum of the shares must be represented at the meeting to take action on any matter at the meeting. A majority of the votes entitled to be cast constitutes a quorum for purposes of the annual meeting. A plurality of the votes cast is required to elect the nominees as directors; however, we have adopted a director resignation policy that requires a director to tender his or her resignation upon receiving, in an uncontested election, a majority of the votes cast “withheld” from his or her election. (For additional information on our director resignation policy, see the summary of the policy in the “Corporate Governance and Board Matters—Introduction” section of this proxy statement beginning on page 3. The policy is also incorporated into our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area.) A majority of the votes cast is required to ratify the appointment of auditors and approve the advisory proposal on executive compensation. Both “abstentions” and broker “non-votes” will be considered present for quorum purposes, but will not otherwise have any effect on any of the vote items.

Some of our shareholders own their shares using multiple accounts registered in variations of the same name. If you have multiple accounts, we encourage you to consolidate your accounts by having all your shares registered in exactly the same name and address. You may do this by contacting our stock transfer agent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., by phone toll-free at 1-877-536-3558, or by mail to Shareowner Services, P.O. Box 64854, St. Paul, MN 55164-0854. Also, in some cases multiple members of the same family living in the same household have shares

1

registered in their names. In that case, prior to 2006 each family member received multiple copies of the annual report, proxy statement, and other mailings. Duplicate mailings in most cases are an unnecessary expenditure for us and inconvenient for you. As described below, we have taken steps to reduce them, and we encourage you to eliminate them whenever you can.

Currently, family members living in the same household generally receive only one copy per household of the annual report, proxy statement, and most other mailings. The only item which is separately mailed for each registered shareholder or account is a proxy card. If your household receives only one copy and if you wish to start receiving separate copies in your name, apart from others in your household, you must request that action by contacting our Stock Transfer Agent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., by phone toll-free at 1-877-602-7615 or by writing to it at Shareowner Services, Attn: Householding, P.O. Box 64854, St. Paul, MN 55164-0854. That request must be made by each person in the household who desires a separate copy. Within 30 days after your request is received we will start sending you separate mailings. If for any reason you and members of your household are receiving multiple copies and you want to eliminate the duplications, please request that action by contacting Wells Fargo using the contact information given in this paragraph above. In either case, in your communications, please refer to your account number and our company number (998). Please be aware that if you hold shares both in your own name and as a beneficial owner through a broker, bank or other nominee, it is not possible to eliminate duplications as between these two types of ownership.

If you and other members of your household are beneficial owners of shares, meaning that you own shares indirectly through a broker, bank, or other nominee, you may eliminate a duplication of mailings by contacting your broker, bank, or other nominee. If you have eliminated duplicate mailings but for any reason would like to resume them, you must contact your broker, bank, or other nominee.

If your household receives only a single copy of this proxy statement and our 2008 annual report and if you desire your own separate copies for the 2009 annual meeting, you may pick up copies in person at the meeting in April or download them from our website using the website address listed in the box below. If you would like additional copies mailed, we will mail them promptly if you request them from our Investor Relations department at our website, by phone toll-free at 1-800-410-4577, or by mail to Investor Relations, P.O. Box 84, Memphis, TN 38101. However, we cannot guarantee you will receive mailed copies before the 2009 annual meeting.

2

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD MATTERS

Introduction

First Horizon is dedicated to operating in accordance with sound corporate governance principles. We believe that these principles not only form the basis for our reputation of integrity in the marketplace but also are essential to our efficiency and overall success. Many of these principles have been committed to writing. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which were adopted by our Board of Directors in January 2004 but which incorporate long-standing corporate policies and practices, provide our directors with guidance as to their legal accountabilities, promote the functioning of the Board and its committees, and set forth a common set of expectations as to how the Board should perform its functions. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines (as revised to date) are available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Paper copies are also available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary.

We have also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which incorporates many of our long-standing policies and practices and sets forth the overarching principles that guide the conduct of every aspect of our business, and a Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, which promotes honest and ethical conduct, proper disclosure of financial information and compliance with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations by our senior financial officers and other employees who have financial responsibilities. These Codes are available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Paper copies are also available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary. Any waiver of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for an executive officer or director will be promptly disclosed to shareholders in any manner that is acceptable under the NYSE listing standards, including but not limited to distribution of a press release, disclosure on our website, or disclosure on Form 8-K. The Corporation intends to satisfy its disclosure obligations under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K related to amendments or waivers of the Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers by posting such information on the Corporation’s website. We have also adopted a policy on First Horizon’s Compliance and Ethics Program that highlights our commitment to having an effective compliance and ethics program by exercising due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct and otherwise by promoting an organizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law.

Our Board has adopted a director resignation policy that requires a director to tender his or her resignation upon receiving, in an uncontested election, a majority of the votes cast “withheld” from his or her election (a “majority withheld vote”). Under the policy, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee must promptly consider the resignation offer and a range of possible responses and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board will act on the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation within 90 days following certification of the shareholder vote. Thereafter, the Board will promptly disclose its decision regarding whether to accept the director’s resignation offer, including an explanation of the decision (or the reason(s) for rejecting the resignation offer, if applicable), in a Form 8-K (or other appropriate report) filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If any director’s resignation under the policy is not accepted by the Board, such director will serve the remainder of the term for which he or she was elected and until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified. Any director who tenders his or her resignation pursuant to the director resignation policy shall not participate in the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee recommendation or Board action regarding whether to accept the resignation offer. If a majority of the members of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee received a majority withheld vote at the same election, then all the directors who are “independent” under the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange and who did not receive a majority withheld vote shall appoint a committee amongst themselves to consider the resignation offers and recommend to the Board whether to accept them. The director resignation policy is incorporated into our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area.

The Board of Directors made several enhancements to First Horizon’s corporate governance policies and practices during 2008 and early 2009. Early in 2008, the Board formalized the role of the Chairperson of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee as the Company’s lead director and added a new section to the Corporate Governance Guidelines describing in detail the duties of the lead director, some of which are additions or modifications to duties previously held by the Chairperson under that committee’s charter. The Board also adopted an incentive compensation recoupment policy under which, in all appropriate cases, the Company will seek reimbursement of a portion of any incentive compensation paid or awarded to any executive officer for performance periods beginning on or after January 1, 2008 where: a) the payment or award was predicated upon

3

the achievement of certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a material restatement, b) the Board or an appropriate committee thereof concludes in good faith that the executive officer engaged in fraud or intentional misconduct that was a material cause of the need for the restatement, and c) a lower payment or award would have been made to the executive officer based upon the restated financial results. The recoupment policy is now included in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. Our 2002 Management Incentive Plan and 2003 Equity Compensation Plan were amended later in the year, first to incorporate the recoupment policy and later to expand it to give the Corporation the ability to claw back compensation received by any participant in those two plans in situations involving fraud or other intentional, knowing or willful misconduct that do not require a restatement of earnings. In addition, management proposed and our shareholders approved at the 2008 annual meeting amendments to our Charter to provide for declassification of our Board and annual election of directors, and the Board made conforming amendments to our Bylaws. During 2008, the Board met more frequently, holding a total of 15 meetings, in order to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving situation in the financial services industry. The Board also determined to include on its agenda an annual presentation by an outside professional on corporate governance developments. Finally, in early 2009, the Board amended the Corporation’s stock ownership guidelines to add a requirement that executive officers and directors retain 50% of the net shares received as a taxable distribution from our stock plans until the first trading window period following retirement (provided that executive officers over age 55 and directors over age 60 nearing retirement may sell shares held at least three years to diversify their portfolio) and to prohibit executive officers from buying our common stock on margin or using owned shares of our common stock as collateral for loans.

Under our Bylaws, First Horizon is managed under the direction of and all corporate powers are exercised by or under the authority of our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors currently has eleven members. All of our directors are also directors of First Tennessee Bank National Association (the “Bank” or “FTB”). The Bank is our principal operating subsidiary. The Board has four standing committees: the Credit Policy & Executive Committee, the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, which are described in more detail beginning on page 7.

Independence and Categorical Standards

Independence. Our common stock is listed on the NYSE. The NYSE listing standards require a majority of our directors and all of the members of the Compensation Committee, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to be “independent.” Under these standards, our Board of Directors is required to determine affirmatively that a director has no material relationship with the Corporation for that director to qualify as independent. In order to assist in making independence determinations, the Board, as permitted by the NYSE standards and upon the recommendation of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, has adopted the categorical standards set forth below. In making its independence determinations, each of the Board and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee considered the relationships between each director and the Corporation, including those that fall within the categorical standards.

Based on its review and the application of the categorical standards, the Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, determined that all nine of the current non-employee directors (Messrs. Carter, Cooper, Emkes, Haslam, Martin, Reed, Sansom and Yancy and Ms. Palmer) are independent under the NYSE listing standards. One current non-employee director, William B. Sansom, received $2,400 in attendance fees during 2008 in connection with his service as a member of one of the Bank’s regional boards. These fees did not fit into one of our categorical standards at the time they were received and so were specifically considered by the Board and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee in connection with Mr. Sansom’s independence as required by the listing standards. The Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, determined that receipt of the regional board attendance fees in 2008 does not adversely affect Mr. Sansom’s independence. Mr. Sansom is no longer serving on a regional board. The Board also determined that First Horizon’s non-employee directors should be encouraged to become, where practicable, members of the Bank’s regional boards and that any fees received in connection with such membership in the future should be considered to be part of such directors’ compensation as directors of First Horizon and thus fit within our categorical standard for director compensation. Mr. Sansom was not independent in 2008 under the NYSE listing standards because interest and fees paid during 2005 in connection with loans made to a family limited partnership that he controls exceeded the $1 million/2% threshold set forth in the NYSE listing standards. In determining that Mr. Sansom is now independent, the Board noted that the three-year “lookback” period in the

4

NYSE listing standards has now passed and that therefore these loans no longer adversely affect Mr. Sansom’s independence under the listing standards.

The categorical standards established by the Board (as revised to date) are set forth below and are also available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area.

With respect to each director who is identified above as independent under the NYSE listing standards, the Board considered the following types or categories of transactions, relationships or arrangements in determining the director’s independence under the NYSE standards and our categorical standards.

Categorical Standards. Each of the following relationships between the Corporation and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and a director, an immediate family member of a director, or a company or other entity as to which the director or an immediate family member is a director, executive officer, employee or shareholder (or holds a similar position), on the other hand, will be deemed to be immaterial and therefore will not preclude a determination by the Board of Directors that the director is independent for purposes of the NYSE listing standards:

5

Excluded from relationships considered by the Board is any relationship (except contributions included in category 3) between the Corporation and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and a company or other entity as to which the director or an immediate family member is a director or, in the case of an immediate family member, an employee (but not an executive officer or significant shareholder), on the other hand.

The fact that a particular relationship or transaction is not addressed by these standards or exceeds the thresholds in these standards does not create a presumption that the director is or is not independent.

The following definitions apply to the categorical standards listed above:

“Corporation” means First Horizon National Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.

“Executive Officer” means an entity’s president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer (or, if there is no such accounting officer, the controller), any vice president of the entity in charge of a principal business unit, division or function, any other officer who performs a policy-making function, or any other person who performs similar policy-making functions for the entity.

“Immediate family members” of a director means the director’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares the director’s home.

“Significant shareholder” means a passive investor [meaning a person who is not in control of the entity] who beneficially owns more than 10% of the outstanding equity, partnership or membership interests of an entity. “Beneficial ownership” will be determined in accordance with Rule 13d-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

6

Composition of Board Committees

The Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee are each composed of directors who are independent, as defined in the previous section. The current membership of each of the Board’s standing committees is set forth in the table below. Membership continued during the entire period from January 1, 2008 until the filing of this proxy statement unless otherwise indicated in the notes to the table.

Directors who served on each of the Board’s standing committees for some portion of 2008 but who are no longer serving on such committees are as follows: Audit Committee—Mr. Reed; Compensation Committee—Robert C. Blattberg, who retired as a director on 11-19-08, and Mary F. Sammons, who resigned as a director on 11-19-08; and Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee—Dr. Blattberg and Ms. Sammons.

The Credit Policy & Executive Committee

The Credit Policy & Executive Committee was established by our Board of Directors and operates under a written charter. As a credit policy committee, the Committee monitors the quality, liquidity, and concentrations of credit extended by First Horizon and by its affiliates (with direct oversight responsibility with respect to the validation of credit quality as described below) and approves upon the recommendation of management such credit policy and controls as may be deemed necessary for the preservation of a sound loan portfolio consistent with overall corporate objectives, provided that any changes to credit policy made by the Committee must be reported to the Board of Directors. However, the Committee is not authorized to act in place of the Board with respect to matters specifically required by credit policy to be acted upon by the Board. The Committee’s charter was amended in January and April 2007 to strengthen the independence of the loan review function by providing that the Committee is to have direct oversight of this function, specifically including

As an executive committee, the Committee is authorized and empowered to exercise during the intervals between meetings of the Board all authority of the Board of Directors, except as prohibited by applicable law and

7

provided that it may not approve acquisitions, divestitures or the entry into definitive agreements (not in the ordinary course of business) where the purchase or sale price or transaction amount exceeds $100 million. Also, no authority has been delegated to the Committee in its charter to approve any acquisition involving the issuance of our stock. The charter is currently available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Paper copies are available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary.

The Audit Committee

In General. The Audit Committee was established by our Board of Directors and operates under a written charter that was last amended and restated in 2004. The charter is available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Paper copies are available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary.

Subject to the limitations and provisions of its charter, the Committee assists our Board in its oversight of our accounting and financial reporting principles and policies, internal audit controls and procedures, the integrity of our financial statements, our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent auditor’s qualifications and independence, and the performance of the independent auditor and our internal audit function. The Committee is directly responsible for the appointment (subject, if applicable, to shareholder ratification), retention, compensation and termination of the independent auditor as well as for overseeing the work of and evaluating the independent auditor and its independence. The members of the Committee are themselves independent, as that term is defined in the NYSE listing standards (described above), and meet the additional independence requirements prescribed by Section 10A(m)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules of the SEC promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that all the members of the Committee are financially literate as required by the NYSE listing standards. The Audit Committee’s Report is included below.

Audit Committee Financial Expert. The Board of Directors has determined that Vicki R. Palmer (chair of the Audit Committee) is an audit committee financial expert, as that term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of SEC Regulation S-K. After receiving her B.A. in economics and business administration from Rhodes College and her M.B.A. in finance from The University of Memphis, Ms. Palmer was employed as a commercial loan officer with the Bank, where she was trained in and worked daily in evaluating financial statements of corporate customers in connection with their credit applications. In 1978, she joined Federal Express Corporation as Manager of Corporate Finance, and her major areas of responsibility included debt financing, cash management and pension asset management. Ms. Palmer joined The Coca-Cola Company in 1983 as Manager of Pension Investments, thus becoming responsible for the company’s worldwide pension assets. Upon moving to Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (“CCE”) in 1986, she was involved at the inception of the company with the evaluation of company-wide financial results and the establishment of internal controls. Until January 2004, Ms. Palmer served as Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Special Assistant to the CEO. In this position, she was responsible for management of CCE’s $12 billion multi-currency debt portfolio; its $2.5 billion pension plan and 401(k) plan investments; currency management; global cash management; and commercial and investment banking relationships. Effective in January 2004, she became Executive Vice President, Financial Services and Administration, responsible for overseeing treasury, pension and retirement benefits, asset management, internal audit and risk management. Ms. Palmer also served for over ten years on CCE’s Financial Reporting Committee, which reviews the company’s financial statements and deals periodically with accounting issues, and she currently supervises the treasurer who serves on this committee. She is a member of CCE’s Risk Committee, which is charged with establishing policy and internal controls for hedging and financial and non-financial derivatives. In addition, she serves on CCE’s Senior Executive Committee and has oversight responsibility for CCE’s enterprise-wide risk assessment process. Ms. Palmer has announced her retirement as a CCE officer on April 1, 2009, after which she will provide consulting services to CCE. She was a member of our Audit Committee from January 1995 to April 1999 and chaired the Committee from April 1996 to April 1999, and she returned to that Committee as chairperson in April 2003. She is also a member of the audit committee of another public company, Haverty Furniture Companies Inc.

The Board of Directors also determined in 2006 that Colin V. Reed, who was a member of the Audit Committee until November 19, 2008 but who is no longer serving on the Audit Committee, was an audit committee financial expert. Mr. Reed spent several years early in his career as assistant chief accountant and chief accountant, respectively, at a life insurance and investment banking company and a large hotel in England. He

8

went on to spend eight years with Holiday Inns, initially as U.K. financial controller and ultimately as CFO for the company’s European, Middle East and African operations. He moved to the U.S. in the 1980s to assist with the leveraged recapitalization of that company that ended in the sale of Holiday Inns, the formation of Promus Companies and the subsequent split of Promus from Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. Mr. Reed then became CFO and a member of the three person executive committee of Harrah’s. He currently serves as CEO of Gaylord Entertainment Company. Mr. Reed is a fellow of the British Association of Hotel Accountants.

Both Ms. Palmer and Mr. Reed meet in all respects the independence requirements of the NYSE and Section 10A(m)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules of the SEC promulgated thereunder.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of our previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate future filings by reference, including this proxy statement, in whole or in part, the following Audit Committee Report and the statements regarding members of the Committee who are not independent (if any) shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.

Audit Committee Report. The role of the Audit Committee (“Committee”) is (1) to assist First Horizon’s Board of Directors in its oversight of (a) the Corporation’s accounting and financial reporting principles and policies and internal audit controls and procedures, (b) the integrity of its financial statements, (c) its compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, (d) the independent auditor’s qualifications and independence, and (e) the performance of the independent auditor and internal audit function; and (2) to prepare this report to be included in First Horizon’s annual proxy statement pursuant to the proxy rules of the SEC. The Committee operates pursuant to a charter that was last amended and restated by the Board in 2004. As set forth in the Committee’s charter, management of First Horizon is responsible for preparation, presentation and integrity of the Corporation’s financial statements and for maintaining appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles and policies and internal controls and procedures to provide for compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations, and the internal auditor is responsible for testing such internal controls and procedures. The independent auditor is responsible for planning and carrying out a proper audit of the Corporation’s annual financial statements, reviews of the Corporation’s quarterly financial statements prior to the filing of each quarterly report on Form 10-Q, and other procedures, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting.

In the performance of its oversight function, the Committee has considered and discussed the audited financial statements with management and the independent auditors. The Committee has also discussed with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer their respective certifications that were included in First Horizon’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. The Committee has also discussed with the independent auditors the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees, as currently in effect. [Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61 has been replaced by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114, Communications with Those Charged with Governance.] Finally, the Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditors required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the audit committee concerning independence, has adopted an audit and non-audit services pre-approval policy and considered whether the provision of non-audit services by the independent auditors to First Horizon is compatible with maintaining the auditor’s independence and has discussed with the auditors the auditors’ independence.

While the Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee has the broad level of general financial experience required to serve on the Committee and that Ms. Palmer is an audit committee financial expert as that term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K, none of the members of the Committee currently devotes specific attention to the narrower fields of auditing or accounting or is professionally engaged in the practice of auditing or accounting, nor are they performing the functions of auditors or accountants, nor are they experts in respect of auditor independence. Members of the Committee rely without independent verification on the information provided to them and on the representations made by management and the independent auditors. Accordingly, the Committee’s oversight does not provide an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles or appropriate internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Committee’s considerations and discussions referred to above do not assure that the audit of First Horizon’s financial statements has been carried out in accordance with generally

9

accepted auditing standards, that the financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or that First Horizon’s auditors are in fact “independent.”

Based upon the reports and discussions described in this report, and subject to the limitations on the role and responsibilities of the Committee referred to above and in the Committee’s charter, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, to be filed with the SEC.

Submitted by the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee

In General. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee operates under a written charter that is available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area and that is also attached to this proxy statement at Appendix A. Paper copies are available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary. The charter was last amended in January 2009 to delete a reference to the classified board. The amendment to the Committee’s charter was made to reflect amendments to the Corporation’s Charter approved by our shareholders at the 2008 annual meeting to provide for declassification of the Board. The purposes of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee are (1) to identify and recommend to the Board individuals for nomination as members of the Board and its committees, (2) to develop and recommend to the Board a set of corporate governance principles applicable to the Corporation, and (3) to oversee the evaluation of the Board and management.

Nominations of Directors. With respect to the nominating process, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee discusses and evaluates possible candidates in detail and suggests individuals to explore in more depth. The Committee recommends new nominees for the position of independent director based on the following criteria:

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee does not set specific, minimum qualifications that nominees must meet in order for the Committee to recommend them to the Board of Directors, but rather believes that each nominee should be evaluated based on his or her individual merits, taking into account the needs of the Corporation and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Once a candidate is identified whom the Committee wants seriously to consider and move toward nomination, the Chairman of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other directors as the Committee determines will enter into a discussion with that nominee.

Shareholder Recommendations of Director Nominees. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee will consider individuals recommended by shareholders as director nominees, and any such individual is given appropriate consideration in the same manner as individuals recommended by the Committee. Shareholders who

10

wish to submit individuals for consideration by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee as director nominees may do so by submitting a notice in writing that gives such individuals’ names in compliance with the procedures and along with the other information required by our Bylaws (as described below), to the chairperson of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, in care of the Corporate Secretary. Our Bylaws require that to be timely, a shareholder’s notice must be delivered to or mailed and received at our principal executive offices not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days prior to the date of the meeting. However, if fewer than 100 days’ notice or prior public disclosure of the date of the meeting is given or made to shareholders, a notice by a shareholder to be timely must be so delivered or received not later than the close of business on the 10th day following the earlier of (i) the day on which such notice of the date of such meeting was mailed or (ii) the day on which such public disclosure was made. A shareholder’s notice must state:

The Compensation Committee

In General. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter that is available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Paper copies are available to shareholders upon request to the Corporate Secretary. The charter was last amended and restated by the Board of Directors in April 2007 to incorporate certain duties with respect to director compensation that were formerly carried out by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and to reflect the delegation in the Bylaws to the Corporation’s CEO and chief human resources officer of certain duties with respect to the appointment of and assignment of duties to certain officers of the Corporation.

The purposes of the Compensation Committee are (1) to discharge the Board’s responsibilities relating to the compensation of our executive officers, (2) to produce an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in our proxy statement, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC [the current report is set forth below], (3) to identify and recommend to the Board individuals for appointment as officers, (4) to evaluate our management, and (5) to carry out certain other duties as set forth in the Committee’s charter.

Most of our executive compensation plans specify that they will be administered by a committee. The Committee’s charter provides that the Committee will administer plan-committee functions under our various executive-level compensation plans. Under the charter, at least two members of the Committee must be “outside directors” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and at least two members of the Committee must be “non-employee directors” for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Many of our plans have similar provisions concerning their respective plan committees. The charter stipulates that if a Committee member is disqualified under one or the other of those tests, then that member must recuse him- or herself from participating in decisions impacted by the relevant test. In that situation, the remaining members would constitute the Committee for that action. On occasion, in connection with a specific action, a Committee member may feel that his or her qualification under one of those tests may be in doubt for some reason; in that case, the member may elect recusal to avoid any risk of possible disqualification.

Processes and Procedures Regarding Executive and Director Compensation. The charter of the Compensation Committee provides that the Committee has the authority to review and approve corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the CEO, evaluate the performance of the CEO in light of those goals and objectives, and set the CEO’s compensation level based on this evaluation and to fix the compensation, including bonus and other compensation and any severance or similar termination payments, of executive officers. The

11

Committee also has the authority, pursuant to its charter, to make recommendations to the Board concerning the adoption or amendment of employee benefit plans, management compensation plans, incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans, including plans applicable to executive officers, and to make recommendations to the Board concerning director compensation. The Committee may not delegate any of the authority described in this paragraph related to executive and director compensation to any other persons.

The Committee generally conducts a review of the Corporation’s director compensation program once every three years. The last comprehensive review took place during 2006 and was carried out by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, which at that time had responsibility for making recommendations on director compensation. Director compensation is reviewed and considered by management and recommended to the Committee, either as a short list of alternatives or as single-item recommendations. In general, management uses a consultant in formulating many of its recommendations, both for advice in designing director compensation and as a source of peer-company data. (Additional information on the use of consultants in compensation matters is provided below.) Management also prepares various presentations, analyses, and other tools for the Committee to use in considering director compensation decisions.

The Committee generally determines the CEO’s salary on an annual basis in executive session independent of management. That determination is based on a review of the CEO’s personal plan results for the prior year, along with peer CEO salary data provided by management’s compensation consultant and a summary of the impact that each alternative salary action would cause. The CEO is not involved in the determination of his own salary.

Our CEO recommends to the Committee salary levels for the executive officers other than himself and the Chairman of the Board. Other compensation matters (bonus, equity awards, etc.) involving executives are considered and reviewed by management, including the CEO, and recommended to the Committee, either as a short list of alternatives or as single-item recommendations. Management uses a consultant in formulating many of its recommendations, both for advice and as a source of peer-company data. Management also prepares various presentations, analyses, forecasts, and other tools for the Committee to use in considering compensation decisions during the year.

Management monitors and considers new or modified benefit programs used by other companies, or needed within our company, to attract and retain key employees. Recommendations are presented by management to the Committee for review and discussion. The CEO ultimately oversees these management processes. New benefit plans, or significant amendments to existing plans, typically are approved by the full Board based on recommendations from the Committee. Enrollment and other administrative actions associated with the benefit plans are handled mainly through third party vendors in accordance with the terms in the Board-approved plans. If executive-level exceptions are required for administration of the plans, such as approval of an early retirement, management generally reviews the facts of the situation and provides a recommendation to the Committee for approval.

Management uses national compensation consulting firms to provide advice with respect to executive and director compensation matters. Management also uses a number of other specialist firms to provide data relevant to specific needs such as funding for nonqualified deferred compensation and any special compensation arrangements that are unique to specific business units such as the capital markets industry. The consultants provide competitive data/trends, keep management informed of best practices and work with management to develop programs that permit the Corporation to attract and retain the talent needed. Management continued its engagement of Mercer Human Resource Consulting in 2008 as its primary advisor for executive and director compensation matters. Among other things, management directed Mercer to provide objective advice to management, the Committee and the Board on executive and director compensation, to provide expertise in executive and director compensation design, market practices in our industry and data to support recommendations, and to ensure timely reports to management and the Committee on all critical accounting, tax, securities law and market trends relating to executive and director compensation. In addition, management engages nationally-recognized law firms as appropriate to provide advice on compliance with new laws, administration of stock plans, and design of severance agreements.

In 2008, the Compensation Committee continued its engagement of Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. to provide it with independent analysis and advice on all compensation-related matters. Among other things, the independent consultant assists the Committee in its reviews of compensation program actions recommended by management, reviewing the chosen peer group and survey data for competitive comparisons and advising the Committee on best practices and ideas for board governance of executive compensation. The Cook firm was specifically directed to

12

undertake no work on behalf of management except at the request of the Committee chairperson on behalf of the Committee, and the firm has no other relationships with the Corporation or management.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of our previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate future filings by reference, including this proxy statement, in whole or in part, the following Compensation Committee Report shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.

Compensation Committee Report. The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors has reviewed and discussed with management, among other things, the section of this proxy statement captioned “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” beginning on page 21. Based on that review and discussion, the Compensation Committee has recommended to our Board that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section be included in this proxy statement.

The Corporation is a participant in the Capital Purchase Program portion of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. In compliance with TARP requirements, the Committee met in January 2009 with our chief risk officer and chief credit officer to review and assess the key business and other risks that the Corporation currently faces. The Committee reviewed the relationship of those risks, along with our risk management policies and practices, to the Corporation’s compensation arrangements in which the named executive officers participate, especially the incentive plans and programs. The primary goal of that review was to provide reasonable assurance that our arrangements do not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the Corporation. Based on that process, the Committee certifies that it has reviewed with senior risk officers the incentive compensation arrangements applicable to our senior executive officers and has made reasonable efforts to ensure that such arrangements do not encourage such officers to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the Corporation. The Committee will conduct similar reviews with input from appropriate senior risk officers on an annual basis as required for participation in the TARP.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Dr. Blattberg, Messrs. Emkes, Haslam, Martin, and Reed and Ms. Sammons, all non-employee directors, served as members of the Board of Director’s Compensation Committee during all or a portion of 2008. Refer to the table in “Corporate Governance and Board Matters—Composition of Board Committees” above for additional committee information. Mr. Reed, the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gaylord Entertainment Company, became a member and chairman of the Compensation Committee on November 19, 2008, and Mr. Rose, our Chairman of the Board, is a director of Gaylord Entertainment Company. The Compensation Committee had no meetings in 2008 after November 14.

Board and Committee Meeting Attendance

During 2008, the Board of Directors held 15 meetings (four of which were held over a two-day period). The Compensation Committee held seven meetings and took action by written consent once. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee held five meetings, the Audit Committee held nine meetings and the Credit Policy & Executive Committee held nine meetings. The average attendance at Board and committee meetings exceeded 93 percent. No director who served on our Board during 2008 attended fewer than 75 percent of the meetings of the Board and the committees of the Board on which he or she served. As set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our directors are expected to make every effort to attend every meeting of First Horizon’s shareholders. For the last 10 years, all of our directors have been in attendance at every annual meeting of shareholders, except for one director in 2004 and one director in 1999.

13

Executive Sessions

To ensure free and open discussion and communication among the non-management directors of the Board and its committees, our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the non-management directors will meet in regularly scheduled executive sessions and as often as the Board shall request, with no members of management present. During 2008, the non-management directors met nine times in executive session of the Board. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines also provide that if any non-management directors are not independent under NYSE listing standards, the independent, non-management directors will meet in executive session at least once a year. During 2008, our independent, non-management directors met in executive session nine times. The lead director, currently Mr. Martin, presides at the executive sessions of the Board.

Communication with the Board of Directors

A shareholder who desires to communicate with the Board of Directors on matters other than director nominations should submit his or her communication in writing to the lead director, c/o Corporate Secretary, First Horizon National Corporation, 165 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, and identify himself or herself as a shareholder. The Corporate Secretary will forward all communications to the lead director for a determination as to how to proceed. Other interested parties desiring to communicate with the Board of Directors should submit their communications in the same manner.

Procedures for the Approval, Monitoring, and Ratification of Related Party Transactions

The Audit Committee of the Board has adopted procedures for the approval, monitoring, and ratification of transactions between First Horizon, on the one hand, and our directors, executive officers or 5% shareholders, their immediate family members, their affiliated entities and their immediate family members’ affiliated entities, on the other hand. A copy of our procedures is available on our website at www.fhnc.com under the “Corporate Governance” heading in the “Investor Relations” area. Our procedures require management to submit any proposed “related party transaction” (defined as a transaction that is required to be disclosed in our proxy statement pursuant to the requirements of Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC) or amendment to an existing related party transaction to the Audit Committee for approval or ratification. In some cases, the matter may be determined by the chairperson of the Audit Committee. In considering whether to approve a given transaction, the Audit Committee (or chairperson) must consider:

Transactions with Related Persons

The Bank and its subsidiaries have entered into lending transactions in the ordinary course of business with our executive officers, directors, nominees, and their associates, and they expect to have such transactions in the future. Such transactions have been on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral on loans, as those prevailing at the same time for comparable transactions with others and have not involved more than the normal risk of collectibility or presented other unfavorable features. From time to time, the Bank and its broker-dealer subsidiaries (either as agent or as principal) may engage in securities transactions with, and the Bank and its subsidiaries have other banking transactions (including but not limited to deposit accounts and loan-related interest rate swaps) with, our executive officers, directors, nominees and their associates in the ordinary course of business on terms substantially similar to those available to members of the general public. Our executive officers and directors do not derive any special benefits from such transactions.

14

STOCK OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

As of December 31, 2008, there were 7,515 shareholders of record of our common stock. To our knowledge, no person owned beneficially, as that term is defined by Rule 13d-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, more than five percent (5%) of our common stock as of December 31, 2008. The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2008 concerning beneficial ownership of our common stock by each director and nominee, each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table, and the directors and executive officers as a group:

Security Ownership of Management

15

VOTE ITEM NO. 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Prior to the 2008 annual meeting, the Board of Directors was divided into three classes. At the 2008 annual meeting, the shareholders voted to amend our Charter to eliminate the classified board and decrease the term of office of each director from three years to one year; however, these changes did not shorten the term of any incumbent director. Therefore, the Board of Directors proposes the election of only five directors, Messrs. Emkes, Jordan, Martin and Sansom and Ms. Palmer, at the 2009 annual meeting to hold office until the 2010 annual meeting of shareholders or until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified. Messrs. Martin and Sansom and Ms. Palmer were formerly Class I directors whose three-year terms expire at this annual meeting. Messrs. Emkes and Jordan were elected by the Board of Directors during 2008, and their terms, under Tennessee law, expire at the next annual meeting of shareholders following their election by the Board. Mr. Emkes was recommended as a nominee for a position on our Board by a non-management director. The three-year terms of the directors formerly assigned to Class II and Class III expire at the 2010 and 2011 annual meetings, respectively. Thereafter, all directors will be elected to serve terms of one year or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. If any nominee proposed by the Board of Directors is unable to accept election, which the Board of Directors has no reason to anticipate, the persons named in the enclosed form of proxy will vote for the election of such other persons as directed by the Board, unless the Board decides to reduce the number of directors pursuant to the Bylaws.

We have provided below certain information about the nominees and directors (including age, current principal occupation, which has continued for at least five years unless otherwise indicated, name and principal business of the organization in which his or her occupation is carried on, directorships in other reporting companies, and year first elected to our Board). All of our directors are also directors of the Bank. Director committee appointments are disclosed in a table on page 7 in the “Corporate Governance and Board Matters—Composition of Board Committees” section of this proxy statement above.

NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR
Term Expiring at 2010 Annual Meeting

MARK A. EMKES (56) was elected as a director by the Board of Directors on November 19, 2008. Mr. Emkes is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and a director of its parent company, Tokyo-based Bridgestone Corporation, a worldwide tire and rubber manufacturer. He is a director of one other public company, Greif, Inc.

16

D. BRYAN JORDAN (47) was elected by the Board of Directors as the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of First Horizon and the Bank effective September 1, 2008. From May 1, 2007 to September 1, 2008, Mr. Jordan was the Chief Financial Officer of First Horizon and the Bank. Prior to May 1, 2007, Mr. Jordan was Chief Financial Officer of Regions Financial Corporation.

R. BRAD MARTIN (57) is the Chairman of RBM Venture Company, Memphis, Tennessee, a family office. He retired as Chairman of the Board of Saks Incorporated, Birmingham, Alabama, a retail merchandising company, in May 2007. Prior to January 2007, Mr. Martin was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Saks Incorporated. Mr. Martin is a director of four other public companies, Dillards, Inc., Gaylord Entertainment Company, lululemon athletica inc. and Ruby Tuesday, Inc. He has been a director since 1994.

VICKI R. PALMER (55) has been Executive Vice President, Financial Services and Administration, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (“CCE”), Atlanta, Georgia, a bottler of soft drink products, since February 2004. She has announced her retirement as a CCE officer on April 1, 2009, after which she will provide consulting services to CCE. Ms. Palmer is a director of one other public company, Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc. She has been a director since 1993.

WILLIAM B. SANSOM (67) is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of The H. T. Hackney Co., Knoxville, Tennessee, a wholesale food distribution firm serving the Southeast and Midwest. He is a director of three other public companies, Astec Industries, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. Sansom has been a director since 1984.

CONTINUING DIRECTORS
Term Expiring at the 2010 Annual Meeting

ROBERT B. CARTER (48) is Executive Vice President—FedEx Information Services and Chief Information Officer of FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”), a provider of transportation, e-commerce and business services. He was Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of FedEx from June 2000 to January 2007. Mr. Carter serves as a director of one other public company, Saks Incorporated. He was elected as a director of First Horizon in July 2007.

MICHAEL D. ROSE (67) was elected the Chairman of the Board of First Horizon and the Bank by the Board on January 29, 2007. He served as Chairman of Gaylord Entertainment Company from April 2001 to May 2005. Mr. Rose is a director of three other public companies, Gaylord Entertainment Company, Darden Restaurants, Inc., and General Mills, Inc. Mr. Rose has been a director since 1984.

LUKE YANCY III (59) is President and Chief Executive Officer of Mid-South Minority Business Council, Memphis, Tennessee, a nonprofit organization that promotes minority and women business enterprises. Mr. Yancy has been a director since 2001.

Term Expiring at the 2011 Annual Meeting

SIMON F. COOPER (63) is President and Chief Operating Officer of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. and an executive officer of its parent company, Marriott International, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, a worldwide operator and franchisor of hotels and related lodging facilities. Mr. Cooper has been a director of First Horizon since 2005.

JAMES A. HASLAM, III (55) is Chief Executive Officer of Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, a national operator of travel centers, and he is CEO of Pilot Corporation. Mr. Haslam is a director of two other public companies, Dillards, Inc. and Ruby Tuesday, Inc. Mr. Haslam has been a director since 1996.

COLIN V. REED (61) is the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gaylord Entertainment Company, Nashville, Tennessee, a diversified hospitality and entertainment company. Mr. Reed was elected Chairman of the Board in May 2005 and Chief Executive Officer in May 2001. Mr. Reed is a director of one other public company, Gaylord Entertainment Company. He has been a director since April 2006.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareholders vote for Item No. 1.

17

VOTE ITEM NO. 2—RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

Appointment of Auditors for 2009

KPMG LLP audited our annual financial statements for the year 2008. The Audit Committee has appointed KPMG LLP to be our auditors for the year 2009. Although not required by law, regulation or the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, the Board has determined, as a matter of good corporate governance and consistent with past practice, to submit to the shareholders as Vote Item No. 2 the ratification of KPMG LLP’s appointment as our auditors for the year 2009, with the recommendation that the shareholders vote for Item No. 2. Representatives of KPMG LLP are expected to be present at the annual meeting of shareholders with the opportunity to make a statement and to respond to appropriate questions. The 2008 engagement letter with KPMG LLP is subject to alternative dispute resolution procedures and an exclusion of punitive damages. If the shareholders do not vote to ratify KPMG LLP’s appointment as our auditors for the year 2009, the Board of Directors will consider what course of action would be appropriate.

Fees Billed to Us by Auditors During 2007 and 2008

The table below and the paragraphs following it provide information regarding the fees billed to us by KPMG LLP during 2007 and 2008 for services rendered in the categories of audit fees, audit-related fees, tax fees and all other fees.

Audit Fees. Represents the aggregate fees billed to us by KPMG LLP for professional services rendered for the audit of our financial statements, including the audit of internal controls over financial reporting, and review of the financial statements in our Form 10-Q’s or for services that are normally provided by KPMG LLP in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

Audit-Related Fees. Represents the aggregate fees billed to us by KPMG LLP for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements and that are not reported under “Audit Fees” above. The amount for both years consists of fees for ERISA audits, audits of subsidiaries, compliance attestation and other procedures and reports on controls placed in operation and tests of operating effectiveness.

Tax Fees. Represents the aggregate fees billed to us by KPMG LLP for professional services for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning. The amount for both years consists primarily of tax compliance fees.

All Other Fees. Represents the aggregate fees (if any) billed to us by KPMG LLP for products and services other than those reported under the three preceding paragraphs.

None of the services provided to us by KPMG LLP and described in the paragraphs entitled “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees” and “All Other Fees” above were approved pursuant to the de minimis exception of SEC Rule 2-01(c)(7)(ii)(C).

In July 2003, the Audit Committee adopted a policy providing for pre-approval of all audit and non-audit services to be performed by KPMG LLP, as the registered public accounting firm that performs the audit of our consolidated financial statements that are filed with the SEC. Services either may be approved in advance by the Audit Committee specifically on a case-by-case basis (“specific pre-approval”) or may be approved in advance (“advance pre-approval”). Advance pre-approval requires the Committee to identify in advance the specific types of service that may be provided and the fee limits applicable to such types of service, which limits may be expressed as a limit by type of service or by category of services. Unless the type of service to be provided by KPMG LLP has received advance pre-approval under the policy and the fee for such service is within the limit pre-approved, the service will require specific pre- approval by the Committee. The terms of and fee for the annual audit engagement must receive the specific pre-approval of the Committee. “Audit,” “Audit-related,” “Tax,” and “All Other” services, as those terms are defined in the policy, have the advance pre-approval of the Committee, but

18

only to the extent those services have been specified by the Committee and only in amounts that do not exceed the fee limits specified by the Committee. Such advance pre-approval shall be for a term of 12 months following the date of pre-approval unless the Committee specifically provides for a different term. Unless the Committee specifically determines otherwise, the aggregate amount of the fees pre-approved for All Other services for the fiscal year must not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the aggregate amount of the fees pre-approved for the fiscal year for Audit services, Audit-related services, and those types of Tax services that represent tax compliance or tax return preparation. The policy delegates the authority to pre-approve services to be provided by KPMG LLP, other than the annual audit engagement and any changes thereto, to the Chairperson of the Committee. The Chairperson may not, however, make a determination that causes the 75% limit described above to be exceeded. Any service pre-approved by the Chairperson will be reported to the Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareholders vote for Item No. 2.

VOTE ITEM NO. 3—ADVISORY PROPOSAL ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Our Board of Directors remains committed to linking pay to performance at the executive level. Since 2004, actual total pay for the CEO and other senior executive officers has been significantly below the competitive market as a result of this linkage of pay to performance. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 21 of this proxy statement provides a detailed discussion of 2008 compensation for our executive officers. We encourage you to review closely both that section and the tabular disclosure which follows it.

Section 111(e) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, requires that any participant in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) include in its proxy statement a non-binding shareholder advisory vote on the compensation of its named executive officers, as that compensation is disclosed in the proxy statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. As a participant in the TARP, we are including the resolution set forth below for a non-binding advisory vote by our shareholders in compliance with Section 111(e). This advisory vote, commonly known as a “say on pay” proposal, gives our shareholders the opportunity to endorse or not endorse our executive pay program.

“RESOLVED, that the holders of the common stock of First Horizon National Corporation (“Company”) approve the compensation of the Company’s executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table of the Company’s proxy statement for the 2009 annual meeting of shareholders, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the executive compensation tables and the related disclosure contained in the proxy statement.”

Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon the Board. However, the Compensation Committee will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation arrangements.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareholders vote for Item No. 3.

OTHER MATTERS

The Board of Directors, at the time of the preparation and printing of this proxy statement, knew of no other business to be brought before the meeting other than the matters described in this proxy statement. If any other business properly comes before the meeting, the persons named in the enclosed proxy will have discretionary authority to vote all proxies in accordance with their best judgment.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL AND NOMINATION DEADLINES

If you intend to present a shareholder proposal at the 2010 annual meeting, it must be received by the Corporate Secretary, First Horizon National Corporation, P. O. Box 84, Memphis, Tennessee, 38101, not later than November 16, 2009, for inclusion in the proxy statement and form of proxy relating to that meeting.

In addition, Sections 2.8 and 3.6 of our Bylaws provide that a shareholder who wishes to nominate a person for election to the Board or submit a proposal at a shareholders’ meeting must comply with certain procedures whether or not the matter is included in our proxy statement. These procedures require written notification to us, generally not less than 90 nor more than 120 days prior to the date of the shareholders’ meeting. If, however, we give fewer than 100 days’ notice or public disclosure of the shareholders’ meeting date to shareholders, then we must receive the shareholder notification not later than 10 days after the earlier of the date notice of the

19

shareholders’ meeting was mailed or publicly disclosed. Shareholder proposals must be submitted to the Corporate Secretary, and nominations for election to the Board must be submitted to the chairperson of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, in care of the Corporate Secretary. The shareholder must disclose certain information about the nominee or item proposed, the shareholder and any other shareholders known to support the nominee or proposal. Section 2.4 of our Bylaws provides that the date and time of the annual meeting will be the third Tuesday in April (or, if that day is a legal holiday, on the next succeeding business day that is not a legal holiday) at 10:00 a.m. Memphis time or such other date and/or such other time as our Board may fix by resolution. The meeting date for 2010, determined according to the Bylaws, is April 20, 2010. Thus, shareholder proposals and nominations submitted outside the process that permits them to be included in our proxy statement must be submitted to the Corporate Secretary between December 21, 2009 and January 20, 2010, or the proposals will be considered untimely. Untimely proposals may be excluded by the Chairman or our proxies may exercise their discretion and vote on these matters in a manner they determine to be appropriate.

20

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

The year 2008 was another tumultuous year for the financial services industry. Credit losses across the industry were up sharply, especially on real estate loans. Uncertainty concerning future losses, capital, and liquidity were major focal points of corporate and investor attention as some financial institutions failed during the year.

While operating in this challenging environment, our company made significant strategic progress in 2008. Over the course of the year, we completed a top-to-bottom examination, restructuring, and repositioning of our businesses, products, and distribution channels, including a comprehensive cost reduction program, resulting in substantial changes to our business strategy.

The new strategy focuses on our successful regional core banking and capital markets businesses. We have and continue to aggressively tackle credit issues. We significantly improved our liquidity position. We raised $690 million in common equity early in the year and the U.S. Treasury invested $866 million in our preferred stock and warrants through its Capital Purchase Program for banks, further strengthening our capital position. Our significant strategic progress in 2008 is summarized as follows:

Ability to Execute

Industry-Leading Strengths

Business Unit Performance

The success of the rebuilding of our company is dependent on the attraction and retention of key employees. During the past two years we have made significant changes in executive leadership. In 2008 Bryan Jordan, hired in 2007 as CFO, became CEO. Five of the executives on Mr. Jordan’s executive committee were hired within the past few years from outside the company, and five executives have recently taken on new roles. Six of the

21

executives named in our 2007 proxy statement have retired or left the company, including Jerry Baker who retired last year as President and CEO. We have also experienced substantial changes in our personnel at all other levels of the Corporation. By the end of 2008, we had reduced our number of employees by over 30% compared with the beginning of the year, and by approximately 50% since the beginning of 2007. While our core businesses remain much as they have been for decades, in many important respects we are a different company at the beginning of 2009 than we were at the beginning of 2007, with a much different focus for the future.

Although compensation tools and devices inevitably must be adjusted as conditions change, the Compensation Committee of the Board remains committed to linking pay to performance in substantial ways at the executive level. In 2008 our corporate earnings performance did not meet threshold requirements, and as a result incentive compensation based on corporate earnings did not pay out for the year. Specifically, no cash bonuses were paid under the Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”), the long-term incentive program (“LTIP”) award granted to executives three years ago covering the 2006-2008 performance period was not earned, and performance-accelerated vesting of certain restricted shares did not occur. Since 2004, actual total pay for the CEO and other senior executive officers has been significantly below the competitive market as a result of this linkage of pay to company results.

Discretionary bonuses with an average value of less than 50% of salary were made to certain executive officers (but not the CEO). These payments were made to recognize the following significant strategic achievements in 2008 (discussed in more detail above) which allowed the company to survive in the difficult environment and positioned us for future success:

In 2008, key elements of Mr. Jordan’s actual compensation were as follows:

Overall, Mr. Jordan’s compensation for 2008 was substantially less than his competitive ‘target’ as a result of the effects on compensation opportunities linked to corporate earnings performance that did not pay out.

Compensation Committee Administration

The Compensation Committee of the Board administers all plans and programs connected with the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”). Information concerning the Compensation Committee, its current members, and its charter is provided under the caption “The Compensation Committee” beginning on page 11 of this proxy statement.

Compensation Overview for Our Named Executive Officers

The principal components of total direct compensation for our named executives are salary, annual cash bonus, and equity-based incentive awards. Salary and bonus are inherently short-term compensation elements, while equity-based incentives are inherently long-term. In 2008, the Compensation Committee approved changes to the design and mix of long-term incentive awards. Prior to 2008, we granted a balanced mix of stock options and performance share units, but in 2008 we granted only performance restricted stock (“PRS”) awards. In addition,

22

selected executives, including one of the NEOs (but not the CEO), were awarded time-vested restricted shares to aid in his retention during these uncertain times.

Other indirect components of our compensation program include: retirement benefits, welfare and miscellaneous benefits, and change in control benefits. In addition, occasionally we provide special incentives or benefits related to substantial changes in employment status, including hiring, major promotion, restructuring, or retirement.

The following table presents an overview of the components of compensation in 2008 for our NEOs, the details of which are provided in later sections.

Compensation Components in 2008

23

Compensation Philosophies and Practices

Retention, Attraction, and Competition

Our compensation plans and programs are designed to attract and retain excellent employees. Our human resources are a significant and valuable asset. We recruit from a broad pool of talent, and our people in turn may be recruited by competitors and other financial services industry as well as general industry firms. Our total compensation opportunity at each level must be competitive. If it is not, then over the long term we risk losing our best people while hampering our ability to replace them.

Use of Peer Group Data

The Committee annually reviews the compensation practices of a peer group to ensure our pay programs remain competitive and allow for the hiring and retention of key talent. The Total Shareholder Return Performance Graph (“TSR graph”) that appears in our annual report to shareholders (see page 153 of that report) uses the 30 largest bank holding companies in the U.S. based on reported asset size as of December 31, 2008 (“Top 30”). We believe that the Top 30 is a good benchmark group with which to compare our total shareholder return, or TSR, which is stock price performance plus reinvested dividends, because we are one of the Top 30 bank holding companies.

For several years the Committee has also considered specific data for another group of peer companies (“Peer Banks”) in setting many of the compensation components for executives. The Peer Banks used in 2008 were 20 financial services companies selected by the Committee with the advice of, and using information provided by, management’s consultant, Mercer Human Resource Consulting (“Mercer”). Originally the Peer Banks were selected from the Top 30 and the banks just below that level in size, focusing on those institutions roughly similar to our Bank in size and business focus. The Peer Bank group is adjusted each year as the industry changes. To construct our Peer Banks group for 2008, we started with the 2007 Peer Banks and then eliminated companies which had announced they were merging or being bought (Commerce Bancorp, Mellon Financial Corp, TD Banknorth, and Compass Bancshares). The resulting median asset size of our Peer Banks was approximately $52 billion, with a range from $20 billion to $182 billion. For comparison, our asset size at the beginning of 2008 was approximately $38 billion. The 20 members of our 2008 Peer Banks group were:

Peer Banks Used for 2008 Awards

24

The Committee uses market data to help establish the size and terms of the components of direct compensation for executives. To ensure that the majority of each executive’s total compensation opportunity is earned through annual or long-term results, salaries are targeted at the median of the market for each position. Actual salaries may be higher or lower than median based on individual factors (performance, experience, skills, and tenure) or for our retention needs. Annual cash bonus opportunities and guideline equity-based incentive awards are targeted similarly: target-level compensation is intended to be paid for median performance, and maximum compensation is intended to be paid for top-quartile performance, based on projections of market performance.

The indirect components of our compensation program were established and are maintained so that the combination of benefits we offer remains generally competitive with other institutions in the financial services industry based on generally known practices and trends rather than upon statistical analyses or formal benchmarking to any specific group. Those components include retirement and tax-deferral programs and benefits, perquisites, and change in control severance agreements as well as change in control features in many plans.

For the special compensation components, including retention bonuses and individual retirement and severance arrangements, relevant market data is not available. In those cases the Committee relies on recommendations from management along with external advice from the Committee’s consultant to determine the types, amounts, or terms of such benefits that are reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances.

Relative Sizing & Mix of Direct Compensation Components

The relative sizing and mix of the individual components of executive compensation are based on the competitive market for each position and the individual’s experience and performance. The direct components are salary, annual cash bonus, and equity-based incentive awards. For 2008, after considering those factors, the Committee sized each direct component for the NEOs as a percentage of salary as shown in the table below. Other indirect components generally are not considered when the size of the direct components is determined. The CEO targets generally are higher than those of the other NEOs to be competitive and reflect the greater scope and responsibility of the CEO position. The annual cash bonus opportunity provides for threshold, target, and maximum performance levels and payouts. Ordinary salary increases affect the bonus and long-term targets since targets are a percent of salary. Certain benefits such as pensions are also related to salary levels. There is no other significant interdependence among the compensation elements.

Sizing of Direct Compensation Components in 2008 as a Percentage of Annual Salary

Annually, Mercer prepares a market analysis of direct pay components using the Peer Banks discussed above, which the Committee reviewed in establishing compensation opportunities for 2008. This analysis is also used by management and the Committee to determine if modifications to the bonus and long- term incentive targets are

25

needed. The Committee’s overall objective is to provide a competitive pay package and thus set competitive target and maximum opportunities. A key factor considered during the setting of targets relates to the appropriate mix of base pay versus pay at risk for performance, and the mix between short- and long- term compensation. The chart above shows that the CEO’s compensation package is more heavily weighted in favor of performance-based pay and also in favor of long-term vs. short-term incentives than the other NEOs, consistent with the greater responsibilities of this position, prevalent market practices among our Peer Banks, and our compensation philosophy which links a substantial portion of executive pay to performance.

After considering those factors as well as the economic condition of the banking industry, in early 2008 the Committee determined to replace the former program of making annual grants of performance share units and stock options with a simpler program of performance restricted stock, or PRS, awards. In the current business and stock market environment, the Committee believes that stock options are highly volatile and that such volatility is not driven primarily by executive performance. The performance criteria of the PRS awards was changed significantly from previous years, as discussed under the caption “Equity-Based Compensation” beginning on page 29 below.

In addition, the Committee awarded retention restricted stock having three- and four-year vesting periods to selected executives, including one NEO (not the CEO). That action modified the 2007 program of making selective one-year retention cash bonus awards. Those changes were implemented to strengthen the retention effect of the awards due to the longer retention period and the potential for stock value growth during that period.

In setting the size of the direct compensation components for 2008, the Committee considered the total compensation opportunity and pay mix at target payout levels. The target total mix of the direct components is summarized in the following table. As mentioned previously, actual bonuses paid for 2008 under the MIP program were $0, discretionary bonuses paid for 2008 were made in cash as described in the introduction of this section beginning on page 21, and the final payout values of the equity awards will not be known for several years. See “Summary Compensation Table” beginning on page 36 for additional information concerning amounts paid or earned in 2008.

2008 Mix of Direct Compensation Opportunity Components
Using Target Levels

Certain Actions Taken in 2009

Actions taken by the Committee in early 2009 that will impact compensation in 2009 included the following:

26

Deductibility of Compensation for Tax Purposes.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Tax Code”), generally disallows a tax deduction to public companies for compensation exceeding $1 million paid during the year to the CEO and the three other highest-paid executive officers at year-end (excluding the Chief Financial Officer). Certain performance-based compensation is not, however, subject to the deduction limit. Because we are a participant in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), deductibility is further limited to $500,000 per named executive officer each year regardless of whether or not the compensation is performance-based.

Compensation Committee Meetings

In 2008, the Committee met seven times and took action by written consent one time for the principal purposes of executing their responsibilities as outlined in the Committee’s charter. Every meeting was concluded with an executive session during which management was not present.

Additional information concerning director attendance at meetings and other related matters is set forth under the heading “Board and Committee Meeting Attendance” beginning on page 13.

Executive Compensation Risk Assessment

In compliance with TARP requirements, the Committee met in January 2009 with the company’s chief risk officer and chief credit officer to review and assess the key business and other risks that the company currently faces in relation to the company’s compensation arrangements in which the named executive officers participate, especially the incentive plans and programs. The Committee has certified in the Compensation Committee Report on page 13 of this proxy statement that it has completed that risk assessment process. Similar reviews will be conducted periodically while the company is a participant in the TARP. Our executive incentive plans continue to emphasize pay for performance. However, risk-controlling features include Committee discretion to adjust awards based on quality of earnings and other non-quantitative factors; use of performance metrics that benefit the company over the long run; use of reasonable financial goals; in recent years, sparing use of stock options; beginning in 2009, a requirement that executives hold a percentage of net gains received under stock plans until after retirement; and, for many years, an over-arching emphasis on long-term shareholder value creation.

Use of Compensation Consultants

Management uses Mercer, a national compensation consulting firm, as its primary advisor for executive compensation matters. In some cases, nationally-recognized law firms are engaged to provide advice on compliance with new laws, administration of stock plans, and design of severance agreements.

Mercer was initially engaged by the EVP, Human Resources over five years ago. The consulting arrangement was last reviewed and renewed in 2006 by the EVP, Human Resources, who has responsibility for initiating or terminating the contract. Mercer serves as a consultant to management on all executive compensation matters and is responsible for providing accurate and unbiased advice to the Compensation Committee, even though the Committee has engaged its own consultant. Mercer analyzes our prior peer group each year and recommends additions and deletions of companies based primarily on asset size and business similarities. The 2008 Peer Banks discussed above were used by Mercer to provide market analysis on the various alternatives presented for management and Committee review and approval. In addition, to competitive market analyses, Mercer presented to management emerging best practices in the areas of perquisites, change-in-control programs and pay mix, provided insight on performance metrics used by Peer Banks and recommended changes to the program for 2008 that included changes to the type and mix of executive equity-based awards, performance metrics, and target award levels. In addition, management consulted with Mercer on the design of the annual bonus program and metrics to use for 2008, a key transition year for the company, the design of the annual bonus program for the business line leaders, and the equity mix and target award levels for non-executive management equity awards.

In 2008, the Compensation Committee continued to engage a separate, independent consulting firm, Frederic W. Cook & Co. (“Cook”), to provide analysis and advice on all compensation-related matters (including assessment of peer groups, competitive market data, pay mix, and compensation design). Among other things, Cook assists the Committee in its reviews of compensation program actions recommended by management. Cook has no other relationships with the Corporation or management. Key engagement items for Cook in 2008 were:

27

During the year, Cook provided the Committee and management with updates on emerging market trends and executive compensation developments through the use of client advisory letters. In addition, Cook provided perspective on management’s recommendations related to the mix of equity vehicles for non- executive management level programs and the executive level program design and performance metrics.

Role of Management in Compensation Decisions

Management monitors the compensation programs used by other companies and considers whether new or amended compensation programs are needed within our company to attract and retain key employees. Recommendations are presented by management to the Committee for review and discussion. The CEO and the Chairman ultimately oversee the development of these management recommendations. New compensation plans, or significant amendments to existing plans, typically are approved by the full Board based on recommendations from the Committee. If executive-level exceptions are required for administration of the plans, such as approval of an executive’s early retirement, management generally reviews the facts of the situation and provides a recommendation to the CEO and the Chairman and, ultimately, to the Committee for approval.

Early in 2008, our CEO at that time, Jerry Baker, recommended to the Committee new salary levels and other compensation actions (bonus, equity awards, etc.) for the executive officers other than himself and the Chairman of the Board. When formulating the salary level recommendations, management reviews market data relative to average merit increases in the financial services industry as well as general industry. This market data was used to develop the company-wide merit pool for 2008 and the recommended merit adjustments for each of the executive officers.

Components of Compensation Program

Base Salary

Consistent with our practices and our compensation philosophy, the Committee establishes our CEO’s base salary annually based on achievement of objectives in his individualized written personal plan and competitive practices within the industry. The CEO develops a personal plan each year that contains financial, quality and strategic goals. The CEO submits that plan to the Committee for review and approval. The Board of Directors also reviews the plan.

For executive officers other than our CEO and Chairman of the Board, the Committee approves base salaries each year taking the CEO’s recommendations into account. In the spring of 2008, salaries of the NEOs were increased about 3.4% over 2007 levels, which was the average increase for all other employees in the company for 2008.

In July 2008, Mr. Baker announced his retirement as President and CEO effective September 1. The Board promoted Mr. Jordan to become President and CEO on that date. At that time Mr. Jordan’s annual salary rate was increased to $800,000, which the Committee determined was commensurate with his new duties and in line with the salary paid to Mr. Baker in his first year when he was promoted into that position.

Annual Cash Bonus

The bonus opportunity offered to each executive officer for the year under our MIP is based on targets that are approved by the Committee early in that year. In general, each MIP bonus is based on achievement of company and/or business unit financial targets as well as individual personal plan objectives. In assessing achievement of financial targets, the Committee may determine to exclude certain items such as accounting changes and certain other non-recurring events. For some executives MIP bonuses can be based in part on

28

individual performance, and for all executives MIP bonuses can be reduced based on corporate or individual performance.

For 2008, the process for determining an annual bonus under the MIP for each of the NEOs began with establishing a maximum MIP bonus opportunity for each of the NEOs equal to 1% of consolidated 2008 pre-tax earnings. Within this maximum, individual bonuses were determined by applying a corporate rating to the individual target bonus levels for each executive. The corporate rating was based on budgeted pre-tax earnings as illustrated in the following table. The pre-tax earnings levels used to create the corporate rating grid were based on our budget for the year 2008, and were selected primarily to provide an incentive to achieve or exceed budget. The initial corporate rating could be reduced by the Committee based on two company-wide subjective factors: achievement of restructuring and other strategic objectives. For each executive, his or her calculated bonus amount was subject to further adjustment based on individual personal plan results. All calculated bonus amounts were subject to discretionary adjustment by the Committee, subject to the overall maximum. That discretion can be used, for example, to reduce an award if the Committee determines that inappropriate risks were taken to create the results. In all cases pre-tax earnings were adjusted for specific matters such as changes in accounting principles and certain unusual or non-recurring items, and for the corporate rating a further adjustment for reserve variances was required.

2008 MIP Bonus Calculation Grid

In 2008 our adjusted pre-tax earnings were less than the threshold level for payment and were negative for the year. Accordingly, no MIP bonuses were paid to any of the NEOs for 2008. However, the Committee may approve executive bonuses outside of the MIP. Non-MIP bonuses were awarded to certain executive officers in 2009 including 2 NEOs (not the CEO) to recognize their contributions in 2008 to the restructuring of the company and implementation of key strategies which will be important to the future success of the company as outlined in the “Introduction” discussion beginning on page 21 above. The bonus amounts were $250,000 for Mr. Adams and $200,000 for Mr. Tuggle.

Mr. Gusmus’s cash bonus for 2008 was paid under the Capital Markets Incentive Compensation Plan under an interim transitional arrangement made with him by management when he became interim president of that division in August, several months before the Board made his position permanent at the executive level. The arrangement provided, only for 2008, that Mr. Gusmus’ s bonus under that Plan would be $750,000. The arrangement was not modified when Mr. Gusmus permanently assumed the role of divisional President, and the Committee was aware of the arrangement when the Committee recommended Mr. Gusmus to the Board as an executive officer. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the capital markets division earned record pre-tax profits and the bonus was paid at the agreed level.

Equity-Based Compensation

Objectives of 2008 Equity-Based Awards

The primary objectives of all equity-based compensation awarded in 2008 were to:

29

In addition, PRS awards granted during 2008 created specific performance incentives that were expressly intended to motivate senior management to achieve an earnings per share goal, in addition to the more general objectives mentioned above, as described more fully below.

Overview of Equity-Based Awards in 2008

In 2008, to recognize the volatility in equity markets and the difficulty in predicting our stock price performance, the long-term incentive program was simplified. For the regular annual equity-based award we granted only one type to executives: PRS shares under our performance equity program. In 2008, the Committee looked at market data for each position and granted awards significantly below market levels for all executive officers because the stock price had recently declined significantly and some level of recovery was expected before the end of the performance period. The number of PRS shares granted to each person in 2008 was determined by dividing a projected $25 stock price into 80% of the guideline dollar value of the award. We supplemented the regular annual award with awards of time-vesting restricted stock to selected executive officers, including one of the NEOs, to create a retention incentive, but the value of total awards (measured at the grant date) remained below market levels. The CEO was awarded a promotion restricted stock grant in January 2009.

Overview of Performance Equity Program

Consistent with competitive practice, for many years the Committee has made annual grants of performance equity awards with a multi-year performance period. The financial goals are established at the beginning of each performance period are company-wide in focus and are uniform for all executives. Since the grants are annual, financial results in any given year can affect several outstanding awards. The Committee adjusts the performance goals each year based on the company’s objectives at that time, and often alters the type of the award based on competitive pressures.

The performance equity program provides an incentive for executives to achieve targeted financial results over a period longer than the annual bonus program and links a significant portion of each executive’s pay to overall corporate results irrespective of the business unit in which they work.

Performance Goal of PRS Awards

For the 2008 PRS grants, the Committee approved earnings per share as the key metric because of its correlation with delivery of shareholder value. Given the substantial challenges and uncertainties facing the company in 2008, in February the Committee determined that it would be best to make the financial goal simple: attain earnings per share of at least $2.00 per share in any of the four years 2008 through 2011. If the goal is attained, the PRS shares will serve a retention function, vesting 50% on each of the third and fourth anniversaries after grant if the executive remains with the company.

The earnings per share goal established in February is subject to adjustment for a variety of unusual events, including accounting changes, share repurchases or issuances, and significant other specified corporate events. In April, we announced that we would discontinue paying a cash dividend and instead would pay a quarterly stock dividend beginning in October. In May, we issued 69 million new common shares, raising about $660 million in net new regulatory capital. During the year we sold, closed, or discontinued our various national lending businesses. In August we sold our mortgage origination and servicing platforms. During the year we incurred substantial costs associated with our restructuring, repositioning, and efficiency initiatives.

Overall, at the present time the Committee has determined to adjust the 2008 PRS goal to be earnings per share of approximately $1.25. That adjustment reduced the original $2.00 goal in proportion to the dilutive effects of the 69 million share stock issuance and the stock dividends to date. Further adjustments may be made by the Committee in connection with future stock dividends or other specified events. No adjustment was made for our

30

sale of the mortgage business or our other business initiatives. The long-term impact of eliminating the mortgage and related national businesses from our earnings was anticipated by the Committee in setting the original $2.00 goal, so the Committee believed that no adjustment for this event was necessary.

We cannot predict the degree to which the 2008 PRS awards eventually will be earned nor their value if and when vested. Our actual three-year (2006-2008) performance did not achieve the performance standards established in 2006 with respect to long-term equity incentives granted in that year. Accordingly, the 2006 long-term incentives were forfeited early in 2009.

Retention Restricted Stock

In early 2008, the Committee approved a retention restricted stock (RRS) award to Mr. Burkett in addition to his regular annual equity awards. Retention restricted stock awards vest 50% on the 3rd and 4th anniversaries of grant, subject to continued employment. Cash dividends are retained by the company until vesting; stock dividend shares are issued subject to the same restrictions as the original RRS shares.

Management recommended to the Committee that retention awards be made to certain key employees, including certain executives. With the tumultuous business conditions we were facing, including the prospect of disposing of our national mortgage business along with several related businesses, Mr. Baker, who was our CEO at the time, felt it was imperative to provide a strong and long-term retention mechanism for key members of the leadership team. The size of the retention awards reflected the Committee’s judgment regarding what level would be appropriate to accomplish the purposes outlined above. Management consulted with Mercer about the size of the awards in formulating a recommendation to the Committee, but no formal statistical analysis or benchmarking was done.

Special One-Time Equity Grants

Over the past several years, special one-time grants of stock options, restricted stock, and performance awards have been made on a very selective basis. Such grants sometimes are made in the case of a new hire or a substantial promotion at the executive level where the Committee deems it appropriate to provide competitive compensation at that next level of management and to emphasize equity and long-term incentives rather than focusing only on an increase in base salary. Special grants are intended to reinforce the importance of increasing shareholder value and to recognize the impact of the new position on creating long-term value for the company. In 2008, none of the NEOs received such a grant. The CEO was awarded a promotion restricted stock grant in January 2009.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Our current guidelines require the CEO to maintain beneficial ownership over time of at least 150,000 shares, and each of the other executive officers is expected to maintain beneficial ownership over time of 25,000 to 50,000 shares. For this purpose, fully-owned shares, restricted stock, and shares held in tax-deferred plans are counted, but stock options are not counted. If sufficient shares are not owned to satisfy the ownership guideline, 75% of the net after-tax shares received from our stock option and other plans must be retained until the target ownership level is achieved. In 2008, one named executive officer (Mr. Gusmus) did not own sufficient shares to meet the required levels. Mr. Gusmus has short tenure in his current position, and he will be subject to the 75% retention requirement per the guidelines until he holds sufficient shares to meet the guidelines.

Beginning in 2009, even after they meet the prescribed ownership levels, executive officers will be required to hold 50% of the net after-tax shares received from our stock plans for the balance of their careers with the company and until the first trading window period following termination of employment. Executive officers who reach age 55 will generally be permitted to sell shares held at least three years to diversify their portfolio in preparation for retirement.

We intend for the combined emphasis on corporate performance in setting executive compensation and stock ownership to strongly link the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders.

31

Deferral Plans and Programs

Objectives, Scope, and Practices

For many years we have offered many employees and directors the means to manage their personal tax obligations associated with their compensation from the company through various nonqualified deferral plans and programs. Personal tax management is our primary objective in providing this benefit. An important secondary objective is to encourage our senior personnel to save for retirement. We also provide this benefit in order to remain competitive in retaining talent and seeking new talent to join us.

During 2008, the plan under which the NEOs and our directors could elect to defer receipt and immediate taxation of earned cash compensation was the First Horizon National Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan. For executives, the types of compensation that could be deferred included salary and annual bonus. Amounts deferred under this plan earn at-market returns indexed to the performance of certain mutual funds selected by the participant.

Directors’ and Executives’ Deferred Compensation Plan (1985 D&E Plan)

From 1985 to 1995, directors and executive officers were able to defer fees, salary, and annual bonus under the 1985 D&E Plan. New deferrals last occurred in 1995. Interest continues to accrue on older accounts. The 1985 D&E Plan in the past accrued interest at rates ranging from 17% to 22% annually. In 2007 that rate was reduced to 13% (and later was further reduced to 12.5% effective January 1, 2009), except for participants who retired before 2004 with a contractually fixed rate. For those retiring after 2004, tax rules require that whatever rate is in effect for a person at retirement cannot be changed after retirement. Certain directors and two NEOs, Mr. Adams and Mr. Gusmus, have old accounts under the 1985 D&E Plan and received interest accruals under it in 2008.

The 1985 D&E Plan rates are considered above-market in 2008 under SEC proxy disclosure rules, and the above-market portion of earnings under the Plan is so reported in the Summary Compensation Table beginning on page 36 for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gusmus. The 1985 D&E Plan’s above-market interest motivates participating executives to remain with the company until normal retirement (or until early retirement with the Committee’s permission), and to refrain from joining a competitor after retirement because each account is subject to retroactive re-calculation of the account balance using a guaranteed rate based on 10-year Treasury obligations if an executive terminates service prior to a change in control for a reason other than death, disability or retirement, or if an executive joins a competitor after leaving First Horizon. In most cases, any such re-calculation would result in a complete elimination of the account’s current value. For Mr. Gusmus, the re-calculation provision has been modified. Additional information is provided under the heading “Special Retention Agreement with Mr. Gusmus” beginning on page 54 of this proxy statement.

Other Compensation

Broad-Based Plans and Programs (Other than Retirement)

We provide a broad-based welfare benefit package in line with competitors as described below. This allows all employees to receive certain benefits such as healthcare which are not readily available to individuals except through their employer and allows employees to receive a certain benefit on a pre-tax basis.

Other Benefits and Perquisites

We also provide additional benefits in line with those offered to other executives in our industry to remain competitive in retaining talent and seeking new talent to join us. The following additional benefits are provided executives:

32

Retirement Benefits

We provide retirement plan benefits, discussed in this section below, that we believe are customary in our industry. We provide them to remain competitive in retaining talent and seeking new talent to join us.

401(k) Savings Plan

We provide all qualifying full-time employees with the opportunity to participate in our tax-qualified 401(k) savings plan. The plan allows employees to defer receipt of earned salary, up to tax law limits, on a tax-advantaged basis. Accounts may be invested in a wide range of mutual funds and in our common stock. Up to tax law limits, we provide a 50% match for the first 6% of salary each participant with at least one year of service elects to defer into the plan. Matched contributions are initially invested in company stock, but can be re-invested in other available mutual funds at the participant’s election.

Our 401(k) plan was established many years ago. No substantial changes to the match or basic plan structure were made in 2008.

Pension Plan

Our Pension Plan is a traditional broad-based pension plan that provides for a defined benefit to be paid to eligible employees upon retirement. In 2007, the plan was closed and employees hired after August 31, 2007 are not eligible to participate. The benefit is based upon a participant’s average base salary for the highest 60 consecutive months of the last 120 months of service, years of credited service, and social security benefits (under an offset formula). Benefits are normally payable in monthly installments after age 65. Tax laws limit the qualifying salary that can be used, and thus the benefit that can be paid, under the Pension Plan to a dollar amount that is adjusted each year for inflation. The formula works in a traditional manner so that longevity with the company is rewarded.

No substantial changes to the basic plan structure were made in 2008.

Pension Restoration Plan

Our Pension Plan is subject to certain dollar limitations on qualifying compensation and benefits imposed by the tax laws. Our pension restoration plan provides a restorative benefit to all of the executive officers who participate in the Pension Plan, including all of the named executive officers, and other employees approved by the CEO on a case by case basis so that the combined pension and restoration benefit is calculated as if those tax limitations did not exist. The pension and pension restoration plans thus generally operate as a single plan in terms of defining the pension benefit payable to executives. This plan is provided in response to the IRS caps on qualified pension plan benefits.

Other Post-Employment Benefits

Change in Control Benefits Generally

Over the past 20 years the financial services industry has experienced an extraordinary period of consolidation as old legal barriers, which prevented multi-state banking and restricted the business lines in which bank holding companies could engage, have been relaxed or eliminated. Although the new legal environment has created substantial business opportunities for us and many of our competitors, it has also created substantial personal uncertainties for executive officers and employees at all levels. Our CIC severance agreements and CIC plan features were first put in place a number of years ago in response to these uncertainties.

33

Our CIC potential costs are reviewed annually, and our CIC program is reviewed every three years (most recently in late 2006 and early 2007). In that review, the Compensation Committee’s consultant, Cook, provided information and advice concerning industry practices, including best practices and emerging trends. Legal counsel was also engaged. Industry information for this purpose is not limited to the Peer Banks used for bonuses and long-term incentives, since we seek to follow general industry best practices. As a result of that review, several substantive agreement provisions and plan features were altered in 2007. The discussion that follows reflects those changes. In 2008 the program was changed to exclude excise tax gross-ups in future CIC agreements.

While we are participating in the U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program (CPP), active executives named in our proxy statement most recently prior to the CIC event are not eligible for CIC payments under our plans and agreements. The CIC payments that cannot be paid while we are participating in the CPP are determined in accordance with detailed tax regulations, and in very general terms are those payments or awards, or portions of payments or awards, that are paid, vested, or accelerated because the CIC event occurs.

Change in Control Severance Agreements

We have CIC severance agreements with all of our active executive officers. These are not employment agreements. The CIC severance agreements provide significant benefits if employment is terminated in connection with a CIC event. As stated above, NEOs are not eligible for these benefits while we are participating in the CPP. Additional information about these contracts is provided under the caption “Change in Control Severance Agreements” in the “Change in Control” section beginning on page 55 of this proxy statement.

The primary objectives of our severance agreements are: to allow us to compete for executive talent during normal times and, if a CIC situation were to arise, to motivate our executive team to remain with the company, focused on corporate objectives, during the pursuit, closing, and transition periods that accompany nearly every CIC transaction in our industry.

Change in Control Features Under Other Plans and Programs

Under many of our plans and programs, a CIC event will cause benefits to vest, be paid, or be calculated and paid at target or maximum levels. The main objective of these features is to allow us to offer competitive compensation packages so as to attract and retain top talent in an industry where consolidation continues at a robust pace. In 2007, after a review of all CIC features in our plans and programs, we amended our plans to provide a double-trigger standard, which means that in order for the applicable benefit to be paid a CIC event must occur and the officer must be terminated or experience a significant job reduction. The 2007 amendments were applied only to new equity awards granted after the amendments, and outstanding equity awards generally were not amended due to legal, tax, and accounting concerns.

Those plans and programs that have CIC features typically provide for the acceleration of vesting or payment of an award when a CIC event occurs resulting in termination of employment. Performance awards generally are paid on the assumption that performance would have occurred at target since the performance period cannot be completed as planned. In addition to the overarching reasons for CIC provisions stated above, we believe these special CIC outcomes are appropriate for these awards because: (i) it is unfair for the executive to give up stock-based awards when all shareholders are receiving the benefit of the CIC transaction in relation to their stock holdings; (ii) it is unfair for the executive to forfeit awards based on service when he or she has provided the company with those services that were needed but are not any longer; and (iii) in most cases there will be no fair way to honor our commitment to pay awards based on company performance because there will be no appropriate way to measure our performance when the performance period ends.

Special Retirement and Severance Agreements

On selective occasions, the Compensation Committee will approve special severance arrangements with departing executive officers. These agreements are negotiated with each individual and may vary considerably based on the individual circumstances of each termination. In the past, such terminations have often involved executive officers as to whom the company desires a non-competition/non-solicitation covenant and other legal restrictions. Those restrictive covenants typically have had two- to three-year terms. In order to induce a departing officer to agree to those restrictions, the company generally offers certain benefits which the officer normally would not receive. In the recent past, those benefits have included pro-rata vesting of conventional and PARSAP

34

restricted stock that otherwise would be forfeited, partial retention of long-term equity-based incentive awards that normally would be forfeited in full, waiver of up to five years of the age discount when determining nonqualified pension benefits, cash payments, and certain perquisites. The long-term incentive awards typically are prorated based on the years of the applicable performance period that the officer worked, but remain subject to satisfaction of all applicable performance requirements. Cash payments typically are a specified number of months of salary, a percentage of bonus target or a retention of bonus opportunity, and/or some other severance-oriented amount. The primary perquisite has been post-retirement office space and administrative assistance. This perquisite has in the past been provided to certain retired CEOs and, in one instance, to a retired business line head, but will not be provided to future senior executives upon retirement.

Except for Mr. Gusmus, our executives do not have employment agreements, and we have no obligation to provide anyone with a special severance arrangement. When such an agreement or arrangement is provided, the terms vary with the circumstances. We believe such an arrangement can be a useful tool in those situations where a non-competition covenant or other legal restriction is desirable, or in recognition of long and valued service to the company, or to provide an incentive related to a transitional situation, and we intend to consider using them in the future in those situations that are appropriate. For additional information on Mr. Gusmus’s agreement, see “Special Retention Agreement with Mr. Gusmus” beginning on page 54.

Special Retirement Agreements with Mr. Baker

In 2008, we entered into a special retirement agreement with our former CEO, Mr. Baker, who stepped down from that position on September 1 and retired completely at year-end. Our primary objective for entering into Mr. Baker’s agreement was to recognize his service to the company and to promote an orderly management succession process. Additional information concerning the terms of Mr. Baker’s 2008 agreement is provided under the heading “Special Retirement Agreement with Mr. Baker” beginning on page 55 of this proxy statement.

In 2004, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Baker, who was then the head of our mortgage business, relating to his years of credited service under our Pension Plan. At the time of the 2004 agreement, Mr. Baker began reporting directly to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and was designated by the Board as an executive officer of the company. The 2004 agreement provides for an increase in Mr. Baker’s years of credited service for pension purposes equal to the six years he served with our mortgage division. Our mortgage division did not participate in our Pension Plan, and those six years otherwise would not have been counted. The 2004 agreement was intended to provide a transition for Mr. Baker from our mortgage division’s traditional bonus plan to our management plan used for executive officers. When Mr. Baker became an executive officer in 2004, his annual cash bonus previously was determined based on business line results in a traditional manner consistent with our understanding of industry practices. The bonus opportunity offered under the MIP was significantly less than that provided under mortgage industry norms. Given Mr. Baker’s tenure with us at that point and expected retirement age, the Compensation Committee and Mr. Baker agreed that this adjustment to his years of service adequately compensated Mr. Baker for giving up his expectations under our traditional mortgage division bonus arrangement.

Special Retention Agreement with Mr. Gusmus

Following his appointment in 2008 to the position of President, FTN Financial, we entered into a special retention agreement with Mr. Gusmus. Additional information concerning the terms of Mr. Gusmus’s agreement is provided under the heading “Special Retention Agreement with Mr. Gusmus” beginning on page 54 of this proxy statement.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee Report is located on page 13 of this proxy statement under the caption “The Compensation Committee.”

35

Recent Compensation

Summary Compensation Table

The Summary Compensation Table which appears below provides compensation information about the following persons: Mr. Jordan, who served as our CEO starting September 2008; Mr. Adams, who served as our Interim Chief Financial Officer (CFO) from September 2008 until January 2009; and Messrs. Burkett, Gusmus and Tuggle, who are our three most highly compensated executive officers at year-end 2008 other than Mr. Jordan and Mr. Adams. Also included is Mr. Baker, who retired as our CEO in 2008. All of the named executive officers are or were officers of both First Horizon and the Bank.

Executive compensation for 2008 continued to be based on First Horizon’s financial and strategic performance. Payout from our long-term incentive program (LTIP) was $0 for all executive officers, as it was in the previous year. None of the named executives were paid bonuses for 2008 under the Management Incentive Plan, nor was Mr. Adams paid a bonus under the FirstPower Plan. Discretionary bonuses were awarded to certain named executive officers to recognize 2008 strategic accomplishments as outlined in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section beginning on page 21 of this proxy statement.

The amounts shown in the table include all compensation earned in 2008, including amounts deferred by those persons for all services rendered in all capacities to us and our subsidiaries. If the 2008 named officers were also named officers in 2007 and/or 2006, their compensation from those years is also included. If a 2008 named executive officer served during any portion of the year as an executive officer, their 2008 compensation as an officer or employee is provided for the entire year. Additional executive compensation information is provided in tabular form in the following pages. A complete discussion and analysis of our compensation objectives and rationale, along with information on compensation of non-employee directors, is located in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Director Compensation” sections of this proxy statement beginning on pages 21 and 57, respectively. No named officer who served as a director was compensated as a director of First Horizon or the Bank.

36

Details concerning information in certain of the columns are presented in the following paragraphs:

37