Last week I blogged about the SEC’s agenda for this year, which includes a heavy focus on continued enforcement actions. While this is certainly one area on our radars, I’m reminded that there are other areas of “action” that could cast scrutiny on our practices. One such area is litigation. A few months ago, I blogged about one type of litigation that had taken hold – the shareholder driven lawsuits that challenged proxy disclosures. What I didn’t explore was all of the other areas where we’ve seen “action” in the form of enforcement or litigation. In today’s blog I’ll explore other areas (including some you may not have thought about) that have been the subject of a lawsuit.

I had a great aid in preparing this blog. Thanks to Executive Pay and Loyalty, I was able to access a “cheat sheet” that literally organizes stock award litigation by topic, complete with corresponding court cases. The full document is available on our web site.

Litigation Lessons Learned

What lessons have been learned from litigation in recent years? Here are a few of them:

Termination of Employment: This is a sensitive area, one that I’m betting is ripe for litigation. Not so much because an employee is terminated (that’s more of an HR concern), but if the employee misses the opportunity to exercise vested in-the-money stock options, they may come forward wanting restitution or compensation. The filing of a lawsuit doesn’t automatically make it a valid claim, or mean that the company will lose. We are reminded that sometimes there are “nuisance” cases – particularly if an employee simply “missed” the key pieces of information that would explain post termination provisions. Whether or not the claim is a solid one, any litigation takes time, money and focus away from more constructive activities. I see a couple of ways to minimize litigation opportunities in this situation – one is an “auto-exercise” of the vested stock option (See my recent blog on “The Case for Auto-Exercise”, January 16, 2014); another is to proactively send terminated employees the key documents that remind them of post employment provisions.

Defining Plan Terms: The more defined your plan terms are, the better. According to Executive Pay and Loyalty, it is better to have a longer plan document with explicit definitions than not. Litigation involving ambiguities is likely to be resolved against the employer. If you’re seeing a plan provision that is repeatedly the subject of questions or challenge from employees, this may be something to raise to your legal counsel to see if further clarification is needed.

Option Expiration During Blackout Period: The cheat sheet I mentioned suggests that employers be wary of stock options that expire during a blackout period. It is a best practice for plans to expressly address this in order to avoid angering employees and former employees who lose value due to a black-out period that interferes with their final time to exercise a stock option. I have actually seen several plan documents that are silent on this issue, so if your plan is up for amendment or overhaul, this may be a good area to document a defined practice. If it’s not in the plan document, at minimum identify a consistent approach or procedure for options expiring during a blackout and communicate it to employees in writing.

The Bottom Line

All of the issues described above have been the subject of court cases, and the suggestions I outlined are based on the result of those lawsuits. For more information on specific cases and a list of the other areas affected by litigation (including 162(m), and director compensation), check out the full Stock Plan and Award Litigation: Risk Management Checklist I mentioned as the basis for this blog.

We know we’re entrenched in a world that is highly regulated, scrutinized, audited and evaluated. The more we evolve our practices to be preventative, the better equipped we’ll be to stand up to investigations, enforcement actions, lawsuits and other nuisances.

-Jennifer