We recently posted the executive summary to the NASPP and PwC 2015 Global Equity Incentives Survey and, later today, we will be presenting highlights of the results in our webcast, “Top Trends in Equity Plans for International Employees.” For today’s blog entry, I highlight five findings that I think are significant:
Globalization Continues: Back when we did the 2012 survey, 20% of respondents said they expected to increase global participation in their stock plan and this trend held steady in 2015, with 19% again expecting to increase participation. In addition 77% of respondents said they expect global participation to remain the same. That leaves only a very small percentage of companies that expect to pull back their global stock plans.
Compliance Reviews Are More Routine: The percentage of respondents who said they conduct annual compliance reviews of their global stock plans increased to 43%, up from 34% in 2012. At the same time, respondents conducting only sporadic reviews dropped to 40%, down from 45%. It can be risky to wait until you hear about a regulatory change to conduct a compliance review; annual reviews help ensure that you know when the laws impacting your global stock plan have changed.
UK Takes the Lead in Challenging Tax Compliance: We asked respondents to indicate which countries they found to be challenging in terms of tax compliance. The UK was first, with 46% of the votes, up from 36% (third place) in 2012. China, however, is hanging in there at second place with 42% of the votes (China was in first place in 2012). France dropped to third place, with 26% of the votes (down from second place and 38% of the votes in 2012).
Mobility Compliance Up: The percentage of respondents tracking mobile employees continues to increase: 87% of respondents track formal assignees (up from 80% in 2012), 62% of respondents track mobile employees who aren’t part of an assignee program (up from 60% in 2012), and a surprising 27% track business travelers (up from 18% in 2012). But the tools for tracking mobile employees still leave something to be desired: 36% of respondents track this in an Excel spreadsheet, up from 29% in 2012. About another third (32%) outsource tracking to a consultant or TPA. The final third use a hodge podge of methods.
Participant Understanding Looks Like a Mountain Rather Than a Bell Curve: Only 34% of respondents felt that their global participants understand a good deal or completely understand their stock plan benefits. That leaves a two-thirds majority for whom participant understanding is at best, somewhat or partial. Global stock plans are a very expensive employee benefit, both in terms of the P&L and administrative cost. It seems a little crazy to invest resources like this in a plan and not also invest in the education to make sure participants understand it.
Be sure to tune in to the webcast later today to learn more highlights from the survey.
A riddle: what do the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and HOPE for Haiti have to do with Forms 3921 and 3922? You might think “not much” but then you aren’t a member of Congress. The Trade Preferences Extension Act, which includes provisions relating to those three things and a couple of other global trade-related items, also increases the penalties for failure to file Forms W-2 and forms in the 1099 series, which includes Forms 3921 and 3922 (why forms 3921 and 3922 are considered part of the “1099” series is another riddle for another day).
The New Penalties
Timing of Correct Filing
New Penalty (Per Failure)
New Annual Cap
Old Penalty (Per Failure)
Old Annual Cap
Within 30 days
$50
$500,000
$30
$250,000
By Aug 1
$100
$1,500,000
$60
$500,000
After Aug 1 or never
$250
$3,000,000
$100
$1,500,000
With intentional disregard,
regardless of timing
Min. of $500
uncapped
Min. of $250
uncapped
Make That a Double
The penalties apply separately for returns filed with the IRS and the statements furnished to employees. If a company fails to do both, both the per-failure penalty and the cap is doubled. Thus, if both the return and the employee statement are corrected/filed/furnished after Aug 1, that’s a total penalty of $500, up to a maximum of $6,000,000. If intentional disregard is involved, that’s a minimum total penalty of $1,000 (and this amount could be higher) with no annual maximum.
Effective Date
The new penalties will be effective for returns and statements required after December 31, 2015, so these penalties will be in effect for 2015 forms that are filed/furnished early next year.
Penalties At Least As Interesting As the Trade Provisions?
Interestingly, when I Googled “Trade Preferences Extension Act,” so I could figure out what the rest of the act was about, the first page of search results included as many articles about the new penalties as about the trade-related provisions of the act.
If you want to know what the rest of the act is about, here is a summary from the White House Blog. There’s not a lot more to say about the penalties but if you want to spend some time reading about them anyway, here are summaries from Groom Law Group and PwC.
With the FASB and the SEC issuing significant announcements impacting stock and executive compensation, it only seems right that we should also be dealing with changes to the tax regs impacting stock compensation. Luckily the IRS has obliged with a proposed amendment to the procedures for filing Section 83(b) elections.
Background
I’m going to assume that you all know what a Section 83(b) election is and when it would be filed. If not, read the discussion of “Early Exercise” in the NQSO Portal and the discussion of “Section 83(b) Elections for Restricted Stock Awards” in the article “Taxation of Restricted Stock Awards,” available in the Restricted Stock Portal.
Previously, award and option holders wishing to file a Section 83(b) election had to mail the election to their IRS service center within thirty days of the triggering transfer (a grant of restricted stock or exercise of an unvested option) and also include a copy of their election with their tax return for that year. With the IRS now encouraging taxpayers to file their returns electronically, the requirement to include a copy with your tax return has turned out to be problematic. Many (dare I say all?) of the systems used to electronically file returns with the IRS simply don’t have the capability of including a copy of a Section 83(b) election, forcing taxpayers to file on paper—a situation in which everyone, both the IRS and the taxpayer, loses.
Recent Developments
Last year, in PLR 201438006, the IRS ruled that a Section 83(b) election is valid even if the taxpayer fails to include a copy of the election with his/her tax return for the year (see my February 3, 2015 blog entry, “Grab Bag“). This ruling was to avoid giving taxpayers an opportunity to rescind their election by simply failing to include the copy with their tax return but it also steered us on a course for the recently proposed amendment (if the election is valid without including a copy with your return, why is the copy necessary).
Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendment would simply eliminate this requirement altogether. There’s really no need for it; as the IRS notes in the preamble to the proposed regs, they already have the original and they scan that for their records upon receipt of it. The requirement to file the copy with your tax return is an anachronism, harkening back to a day before electronic forms and scanners were commonplace.
The IRS does note that taxpayers should keep a copy of the election in their records until the statute of limitations expires for the return on which the sale of the shares subject to the election is reported.
The proposed regulations would apply to all stock transferred (grants of restricted stock and exercises of unvested stock options) on or after January 1, 2016 but taxpayers can rely on them for stock transferred in 2015.
Last week, I covered the basic rules that apply for tax purposes when options are exercised or awards pay out after an individual has changed status from employee to non-employee or vice versa. Today I discuss a few more questions related to employment status changes.
Is it necessary that the consulting services be substantive?
When employees change to consultant status an important consideration is whether the consulting services are truly substantive. Sometimes the “consulting services” former employees are providing are a little (or a lot) loosey goosey (to use a technical term). For example, sometimes employees are allowed to continue vesting in exchange for simply being available to answer questions or for not working for a competitor. It this case, it’s questionable whether the award is truly payment for consulting services.
A few questions to ask to assess the nature of the consulting services former employees are performing include whether the former employee has any actual deliverables, who is monitoring the former employee’s performance and how will this be tracked, and will the award be forfeited if the services are not performed.
If the services aren’t substantive, it’s likely that all of the compensation paid under the award would be attributable to services performed as an employee (even if vesting continues after the employee’s termination) and subject to withholding/Form W-2 reporting.
Is the treatment different for an executive who becomes a non-employee director?
Nope. The same basic rules that I discussed last week still apply. The only difference is that I think it’s safe to presume that the services performed as an outside director will be substantive (unless the director position is merely ceremonial).
What about an outside director who is hired on as an executive?
The same basic rules still apply, except in reverse. For options and awards that fully vested while the individual was an outside director, you would not need to withhold taxes and you would report the income on Form 1099-MISC, even if the option/award is settled after the individual’s hire date.
For options and awards granted prior to the individual’s hire date but that vest afterwards, you’d use the same income allocation method that I described last week. As I noted, there are several reasonable approaches to this allocation; make sure the approach you use is consistent with what you would do for an employee changing to consultant status.
What about a situation where we hire one of our consultants?
This often doesn’t come up in that situation, because a lot of companies don’t grant options or awards to consultants. But if the consultant had been granted an option or award, this would be handled in the same manner as an outside director that is hired (see the prior question).
What if several years have elapsed since the individual was an employee?
Still the same; the rules don’t change regardless of how much time has elapsed since the individual was an employee. The IRS doesn’t care how long it takes you to pay former employees; if the payment is for services they performed as employees, it is subject to withholding and has to be reported on a Form W-2.
So even if several years have elapsed since the change in status, you still have to assess how much of the option/award payout is attributable to services performed as an employee and withhold/report appropriately.
What if the individual is subject to tax outside the United States?
This is a question for your global stock plan advisors. The tax laws outside the United States that apply to non-employees can be very different than the laws that apply in the United States. Moreover, they can vary from country to country. Hopefully the change in status doesn’t also involve a change in tax jurisdiction; that situation is complexity squared.
Finally, When In Doubt
If you aren’t sure of the correct treatment, the conservative approach (in the United States—I really can’t address the non-US tax considerations) is probably going to be to treat the income as compensation for services performed as an employee (in other words, to withhold taxes and report it on Form W-2).
What is the US tax reg cite for all of this?
My understanding is that none of this is actually specified in the tax regs—not even the basic rules I reviewed last week. This is a practice that has developed over time based on what seems like a reasonable approach.
For today’s blog entry, I discuss how stock plan transactions are taxed when they occur after the award holder has changed employment status (either from employee to non-employee or vice versa). This is a question that I am asked quite frequently; often enough that I’d like to have a handy blog entry that I can point to that explains the answer.
The basic rule here is that the treatment is tied to the services that were performed to earn the compensation paid under the award. If the vesting in the award is attributable to services performed as an employee, the income paid under it is subject to withholding and reportable on Form W-2. Likewise, if vesting is attributable to services performed as a non-employee, the income is not subject to withholding and is reportable on Form 1099-MISC.
Where an award continues vesting after a change in status, the income recognized upon settlement (exercise of NQSOs or vest/payout of restricted stock/RSUs) is allocated based on the portion of the vesting period that elapsed prior to the change in status.
For example, say that an employee is granted an award of RSUs that vests in one year. After nine months, the employee changes to consultant status. The award is paid out at a value of $10,000 on the vest date. Because the change in status occurred after three-fourths of the vesting period had elapsed, 75% of the income, or $7,500, is subject to tax withholding and is reportable on the employee’s Form W-2. The remaining $2,500 of income is not subject to withholding and is reportable on Form 1099-MISC.
What if the award is fully vested at the time of the change in status?
In this case, the tax treatment doesn’t change; it is based on the award holder’s status when the award vested. For example, say an employee fully vests in a award and then later terminates and becomes a consultant. Because the award fully vested while the individual was an employee, the award was earned entirely for services performed as an employee and all of the income realized upon settlement (exercise of NQSOs or vest/payout of restricted stock/RSUs) is subject to withholding and is reportable on Form W-2.
This is true no matter how long (days, months, years) elapse before the settlement. Under Treas. Reg. §31.3401(a)-1(a)(5), payments for services performed while an employee are considered wages (and are subject to withholding, etc.) regardless of whether or not the employment relationship exists at the time the payments are made.
What is the precise formula used to allocate the income?
There isn’t a precise formula for this. We asked Stephen Tackney, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel of the IRS, about this at the NASPP Conference a couple of years ago. He thought that any reasonable method would be acceptable, provided the company applies it consistently.
The example I used above is straight-forward; awards with incremental vesting are trickier. For example, say an employee is granted an NQSO that vests in three annual installments. 15 months later, the employee changes to consultant status.
The first vesting tranche is easy: that tranche fully vested while the individual was an employee, so when those shares are exercised, the entire gain is subject to withholding and reportable on Form W-2.
There’s some room for interpretation with respect to the second and third tranches, however. One approach is to treat each tranche as a separate award (this is akin to the accelerated attribution method under ASC 718). Under this approach, the second tranche is considered to vest over a 24-month period. The employee changed status 15 months into that 24-month period, so 62.5% (15 months divided by 24 months) of that tranche is attributable to services performed as an employee. If this tranche is exercised at a gain of $10,000, $6,250 is subject to withholding and reported on Form W-2. The remaining $3,750 is reported on Form 1099-MISC and is not subject to withholding. The same process applies to the third tranche, except that this tranche vests over a 36-month period, so only 41.7% of this tranche is attributable to services performed as an employee.
This is probably the most conservative approach; it is used in other areas of the tax regulation (e.g., mobile employees) and is also used in the accounting literature applicable to stock compensation. But it isn’t the only reasonable approach (just as there are other reasonable approaches when recording expense for awards under ASC 718) and it isn’t very practical for awards with monthly or quarterly vesting. It might also be reasonable to view each tranche as starting to vest only after the prior tranche has finished vesting. In this approach, each tranche in my example covers only 12 months of service. Again, the first tranche would be fully attributable to service as an employee. Only 25% of the second tranche would be attributable to services as an employee (three months divided by 12 months). And the third tranche would be fully attributable to services performed as a consultant.
These are just two approaches, there might be other approaches that are reasonable as well. Whatever approach you decide to use, be consistent about it (for both employees going to consultant status as well as consultants changing to employee status).
Read “Employment Status Changes, Part II” to learn about additional considerations and complexities relating to changes in employment status.
It’s no April Fool’s joke—on March 31, the IRS and Treasury issued final regulations under Section 162(m). The final regs are largely the same as the proposed regs that were issued back in 2011 (don’t believe me—check out the redline I created); so much so that I considered just copying my blog entry on the proposed regs and changing the word “proposed” to “final” throughout. But I’m not the sort of person that takes short-cuts like that, so I’ve written a whole new blog for you.
For more information on the final regs, check on the NASPP alert, which includes several law-firm memos.
The IRS Says “We Told You So”
The final regulations implement the clarification in the proposed regs that, for options and SARs to be exempt from the deduction limit under Section 162(m), the plan must specify a limit on the maximum number of shares that can be granted to an individual employee over a specified time period. It is not sufficient for the plan to merely limit the aggregate number of shares that can be granted, even though this creates a de facto per-person limit; the plan must separately state a per person limit (although the separately stated per-person limit could be equal to the aggregate number of shares that can be issued under the plan). One small change in the final regs was to clarify that the limit doesn’t have to be specific to options/SARs; a limit on all types of awards to individual employees is sufficient.
When the proposed regs came out, I was surprised that the IRS felt the need to issue regs clarifying this. This had always been my understanding of Section 162(m) and, as far as I know, the understanding of most, if not all, tax practitioners. In his sessions over the years at the NASPP Conference, IRS representative Stephen Tackney has said that everyone always agrees on the rules until some company gets dinged on audit for not complying with them—then all of a sudden the rules aren’t so clear. I expect that a situation like this drove the need for the clarification.
In the preamble to the final regs, the IRS is very clear that this is merely a “clarification” and that companies should have been doing this all along, even going so far as to quote from the preamble to the 1993 regs. Given that the IRS feels like this was clear all the way back in 1993, the effective date for this portion of the final regs is retroactive to June 24, 2011, when the proposed regs were issued (and I guess maybe we are lucky they didn’t make it effective as of 1993). Hopefully, you took the proposed regs to heart and made sure all your option/SAR plans include a per-person limit. If you didn’t, it looks like any options/SARs you’ve granted since then may not be fully deductible under Section 162(m).
Why Doesn’t the IRS Like RSUs?
Newly public companies enjoy the benefit of a transitional period before they have to fully comply with Section 162(m). The definition of this period is one of the most ridiculously complex things I’ve ever read and it’s not the point of the new regs, so I’m not going to try to explain it here. Suffice it to say that it works out to be more or less three years for most companies.
During the transitional period, awards granted under plans that were implemented prior to the IPO are not subject to the deduction limit. Even better, the deduction limit doesn’t apply to options, SARs, and restricted stock granted under those plans during this period, even if the awards are settled after the period has elapsed. It’s essentially a free pass for options, SARs, and restricted stock granted during the transition period. The proposed regs and the final regs clarify that this free pass doesn’t apply to RSUs. For RSUs to be exempt from the deduction limit, they must be settled during the transition period. This provides a fairly strong incentive for newly public companies to grant restricted stock, rather than RSUs, to executives that are likely to be covered by Section 162(m).
I am surprised by this. I thought that some very reasonable arguments had been made for treating RSUs the same as options, SARs, and restricted stock and that the IRS might be willing to reverse the position taken in the proposed regs. (In fact, private letter rulings had sometimes taken the reverse position). I think the IRS felt that because RSUs are essentially a form of non-qualified deferred comp, providing a broad exemption for them might lead to abuse and practices that are beyond the intent of the exemption.
This portion of the regs is effective for RSUs granted after April 1, 2015.
It’s been a while since I posted a stock compensation grab bag. Here are a few recent developments that don’t warrant their own entry but are still worth knowing about.
HSR Filing Thresholds
Good news: now executives can acquire even more stock! Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, executives that acquire company stock in excess of specified thresholds are required to file reports with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. The thresholds at which these reports are required have increased for 2015. See the memo we posted from Morrison & Foerster for the new thresholds, which are effective as of February 20, 2015.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, check out our handy HSR Act Portal.
Final FATCA Regs
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requires employees to report any overseas accounts that hold specified foreign financial assets, which could be interpreted to include stock awards issued by non-US corporations. The assets (stock awards, for our purposes) are reported on IRS Form 8938 (“Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets”), which is filed with the annual tax return. Final FATCA regulations, released in December 2014, clarify that unvested awards, do not need to be reported on Form 8938 until they have “substantially vested” (except in the case of a Section 83(b) election).
Dodd-Frank Rulemaking Update
The SEC has pushed back its agenda of rulemaking projects under the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rules for clawback requirements, disclosure of hedging policies, and pay-for-performance disclosures and the final rules for the CEO pay ratio disclosure have been pushed back to October 2015 (just in the time for the 23rd Annual NASPP Conference). This is despite comments from SEC Chair Mary Joe White last fall that the SEC was pushing to issue the final CEO pay ratio rules by the end of year. That’s a big delay—from the end of 2014 to October 2015—especially given the pressure on the SEC to issue these rules.
Section 83(b) Election Update
When making a Section 83(b) election, employees are required to include a copy of the election with their tax return for the year in which the election is made. In PLR 201438006, the IRS ruled that a Section 83(b) election was valid even though the taxpayer failed to attach a copy of the election to his Form 1040. If the failure had invalidated the election, employees could effectively revoke the election by “forgetting” to include it with their tax return—and, as we all know, Section 83(b) elections are irrevocable once the deadline to file them has elapsed.
Our first discussion of cost-basis reporting was posted back in 2009, yet, here we are, still talking about it half a decade later.
Why Am I Still Blathering On About This?
This is still a topic for discussion because the rules have changed again this year. For any shares acquired on or after January 1, 2014, brokers are no longer allowed to voluntarily include the compensation income recognized in connection with the option or award under which the stock was acquired in the cost basis reported on the Form 1099-B issued for the sale. This means that for any shares employees acquired under their options and awards this year, the cost basis reported on Form 1099-B is likely to be too low. Employees will have to report an adjustment on Form 8949 when they file their tax return to correct their capital gain/loss for the underreported basis.
Let’s Review
When you sell stock, your cost basis in the stock is subtracted from your net sale proceeds to determine what your capital gain or loss is. For shares acquired under stock awards, your cost basis is the amount you paid for the stock, plus any compensation income recognized in connection with the acquisition (in the case of NQSOs and restricted/units) or disposition (in the case of ISOs and ESPPs) of the stock.
Brokers have been required to report a cost basis on Form 1099-B since 2011. Previously, brokers were allowed to voluntarily include the compensation income recognized in connection with the award in the reported cost basis. This was good because it meant that sometimes the basis reported on Form 1099-B was correct, making it easy in those instances for employees to report their sales on Schedule D and calculate the correct capital gain/loss. But it was also bad because there was no way to tell, when looking at Form 1099-B, whether the reported basis included the compensation income or not. The end result was a lot of confusion and possibly a lot of over-reported capital gains.
Where Are We Now
You might think the IRS would fix this problem by making brokers indicate whether the basis reported on Form 1099-B includes the compensation income. But you would be wrong. Instead, the IRS decided that the basis reported on Form 1099-B should only be the purchase price. This way everyone knows what basis is reported on Form 1099-B. It’s the wrong basis in most cases, but at least we know what it is. That’s a step in the right direction, I guess.
To make things more confusing, for shares acquired before January 1, 2014, brokers can still voluntarily include the compensation income in the basis reported on Form 1099-B (and still can’t indicate on the form if they’ve done this). And, for option grants, brokers can treat the grant date as the acquisition date. I think that most brokers are planning to apply the new rules to everything, regardless of when the shares were acquired/option was granted, but you should check with your brokers to verify what they are doing.
What This Means for Employers
Forms 1099-B will be issued around mid-February. You should plan on distributing some educational material to employees to explain this. The NASPP webcast “The New Forms 1099-B Are Coming! Are You Ready?” will provide more information on the topic. In addition, we’ve updated all the sample forms, flow charts, and FAQs in our Cost-Basis Reporting Portal for the new rules and the 2014 forms. New this year, we’ve added Cost Basis Cheat Sheets, featuring flow charts explaining how to calculate the adjusted cost basis for most types of stock awards.
The new session of Congress comes with agendas and proposals. Notably, one of the changes proposed by House Democrats (essentially a resurrection of last year’s proposal) sought to add a new section to 162(m), in addition to expanding its reach.
I was going to try and summarize this myself, when I came across an article by Steve Seelig and Puneet Arora of Towers Watson on the topic that summarized the issue better than I could, so I am just going to quote the article. Broc Romanek quoted them, too, in his CompensationStandards.com blog, so I guess we’re all on the same page.
As part of their alternative to the Republican agenda, House Democrats have dusted off last year’s proposal to limit the deductibility of executive pay to $1 million for companies that fail to increase their rank-and-file pay to keep pace with U.S. economic growth…This bill is part of larger democratic “action plan” focusing on the middle class that also would provide tax breaks to workers earning under $100,000 per year.
The House previously voted down Van Hollen’s procedural motion to consider the bill, but he’s expected to reintroduce the bill later this year. The Democrats appear determined to keep the CEO-versus-worker-pay issue in the news pending the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) release of final CEO pay ratio regulations, as evidenced in the “dear colleague” letter released by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the opening day of the new session.
The Van Hollen bill would take a different approach than the California bill we blogged about last year, which would have limited state tax deductions for executive compensation on a sliding scale depending on the ratio of executive pay to rank-and-file pay. (For more on the California proposal that was defeated in the state legislature, see “California Legislation Would Limit Tax Deductions for Companies Where the CEO Pay Ratio Is Too High,” Executive Pay Matters, May 1, 2014.) Instead, it would add a new section to existing Section 162(m) of the tax code to limit to $1 million the deductibility of compensation (including performance-based compensation) paid to any current or former employee, officer or director if the average pay of all of the company’s U.S.-based non-highly-compensated employees (as defined under the qualified plan rules, i.e., those below $115,000 for 2015) does not keep pace with the growth of the U.S. economy. U.S. economic growth would be based on the average of productivity growth (based on Bureau of Labor Statistic measures) plus adjustments in the cost of living under the tax code.
The bill would also expand the reach of Section 162(m) to cover certain nonlisted, publicly traded companies, make sure the CFO is re-included as a “covered employee” and make it clear that income paid to beneficiaries is included in an executive’s remuneration for 162(m) purposes.
There is a silver lining—according to Towers Watson:
Given the GOP’s wider majority in the House and control of the Senate in the new Congress, any democratic proposals are even more of a long shot than before.
If anything else surfaces on this front, we’ll be sure to keep you informed. At the present the proposed changes to 162(m) (at least stemming from this proposal) appear to be a remote possibility.
In December 2013, I blogged about a mistake that garnered public attention when daily deal website Groupon exceeded their plan’s limit for shares granted in a calendar year with an RSU award to their Chief Operating Officer (“Share Limit Lessons the Hard Way“, December 19, 2013). Just when I started to think it couldn’t happen twice, nearly a year to the day of my first blog another oops! occurred. This time it involved technology company Advanced Micro Devices (“AMD”).
In an 8-K filed with the SEC on December 29, 2014, AMD disclosed that they’d exceeded their equity plan’s limit on shares granted to an individual in a calendar year when issuing a series of awards to their new Chief Executive Officer. As a result of the technical error, the chipmaker decided to void and rescind most of the CEO’s newly issued awards. In their evaluation of the situation, AMD’s board of directors affirmed that the value of the CEO’s compensation package that included the awards was appropriate and in line with shareholder interests. Given that some of the awards were negotiated as part of an employment contract with the CEO, I wonder how the company now will deal with the fact that they can’t issue the grants that were contractually promised to the CEO. I’m no lawyer, so I’ll throw the question out there with no intention of trying to answer it myself. AMD did mention in their filing that they intend to “return Dr. Su’s equity compensation to the level it should have been prior to the action to void and rescind the equity awards described above at or near the earliest practicable opportunity available to the Company, subject to law and the terms of the 2004 Plan.”
How Does This Happen?
There’s been no information on “how” the oversight occurred, and I wouldn’t expect that we’d be privy to the specifics. The fact is that it happened. What stands out to me in this case is that, just like the Groupon case, the violation of the plan limit appeared unnoticed until AMD’s own shareholders filed a lawsuit over it. I’m thinking about all the checks and balances in a grant approval process, and wondering how it was left to shareholders in both cases to catch the mistakes.
While plan share limits seem on the surface to be a simple concept to embrace, there seems to be a trend, or at least a pattern in oversights of these limits. I’m guessing there are more situations like this that are caught before shareholder lawsuits occur. A common trigger for awards that exceed the limits outlined in the plan appears to large grants (or a series of grants) to executives or key employees.
Takeaways
We hear more and more about shareholders looking for prime litigation opportunities. As a group, they definitely have become more assertive in monitoring disclosures and finding opportunities to litigate perceived wrongs. With that in mind, I turn the focus to what we can learn from these high profile, public mistakes. I put myself in the position of asking “If I worked for this company, what would I do to avoid this in the future?” A few ideas come to mind:
Use these examples (AMD and Groupon) as the basis to have a training session or discussion with your internal Human Resources (HR) executives. Since the HR executives are typically the ones involved in discussing CEO and other executive compensation with the board, go right to those executives and educate them on any share limits (and other parameters) within the plan that may be triggers for violations of plan terms. If external compensation consultants are also in a position to have discussions with the Board on executive compensation decisions, it’s a good idea to make them aware of the plan limits as well.
Audit, audit, audit. Even if an oversight occurs at the HR/board level, the next stop should be the plan administrator. Anytime new grants come through, it’s best to have a check and balance in place that compares those grants to plan limits. Keep a running total of grants to date (whether it’s year to date or some other measurement outlined in the plan). Remember there are varied types of plan limits. Common limits include the number of shares that can be granted to an individual in a calendar year, the number of shares that can be cumulatively granted from the plan in a calendar year, and limits on the number of shares related to certain types of awards that can be made within a period of time (for example, a cap on the number of shares that can be issued as full value awards in a calendar year).
Advocate for contact with the board of directors. While it’s a good step to educate those who are in contact with the board (HR executives and compensation consultants), why not see if you can gain your own opportunity to educate the board? Whether it’s in person or via a communication that is presented to the board, this may be an opportunity to go straight to the decision makers. Even if it’s not the full board, the Compensation Committee of the board is an ideal target for these communications.
Nobody wants their mistakes made public. And, while there may not be a sole person responsible for the oversights at Groupon and AMD, these certainly were preventable mistakes. I hope this will be my last blog on this topic and companies will take to heart the importance of monitoring any and every aspect of the terms of their equity plans. Let’s not leave it to shareholders to discover the next mistake.