Today I have a grab bag of short topics for you, each worth mentioning but none are really long enough for their own blog.
The Most Ridiculous Section 162(m) Lawsuit Ever Last year, a Delaware federal court ruled in favor of a company that was the subject of lawsuit alleging that their incentive plan had not been properly approved by shareholders for Section 162(m) purposes. The plaintiff argued that because Section 162(m) requires the plan to be approved by the company’s shareholders, all shareholders–even those holding non-voting shares–should have been allowed to vote on it. Shareholder votes are governed by state law but the plaintiff attorney argued that the tax code preempted state law on this matter. Luckily the judge did not agree.
The plaintiff also argued that the company’s board violated their fiduciary duties because they used discretion to reduce the payments made pursuant to awards allowed under the plan. The plaintiff stipulated that this violates the Section 162(m) requirement that payments be based solely on objective factors. In a suit like this, the plaintiff attorney represents a shareholder of the company; it seems surprising that a shareholder would be upset about award payments being reduced–go figure. In any event, it’s fairly well established that negative discretion is permissible under Section 162(m) and the judge dismissed this claim.
Glass Lewis Policy Update Glass Lewis has posted their updated policy for 2014. For US companies, the policy was updated to discuss hedging by execs (spoiler alert: Glass Lewis doesn’t like it) and pledging (they could go either way on this). With respect to pledging, Glass Lewis identifies 12–count ’em, that’s 12–different factors they will consider when evaluating pledging by execs.
The policy was also updated to discuss the SEC’s new rules related to director independence and how the new rules impact Glass Lewis’s analysis in this area. Although we now have three perfectly good standards for director independence (Section 16, Section 162(m), and the NYSE/NASDAQ listing standards), Glass Lewis has developed their own standards and they’re sticking to ’em. I’m sure I’ve asked this before, but really, how many different standards for independence do we need? I’m not sure director independence is the problem here.
Should Your Plan Limit Awards to Directors? As you are getting this year’s stock plan proposal ready for a shareholder vote, one thing to consider is whether to include a limit on awards to directors. In 2012, a court refused to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims in Seinfeld v. Slager because the plan did not place sufficient limits on the grants directors could make to themselves and, thus, were not disinterested in administration of the plan, at least with respect to their own grants.
Both ISS and Glass-Lewis have published updated corporate governance guidelines for the 2013 proxy season. The good news for my readers is that, in both cases, there aren’t a lot of changes in the policies specific to stock compensation; I think that Say-on-Pay is a much hotter issue for the proxy advisors right now than your stock compensation plan. Here is a quick summary of what’s changed with respect to stock compensation.
I don’t think ISS made any changes that directly apply to stock compensation, but there were some changes in their general policies on executive and CEO pay that may have an impact on your stock program:
Peer Groups: ISS assigns each company to a peer group for purposes of identifying pay-for-performance misalignments in CEO pay. The determination of company peer groups has been an ongoing source of much consternation; many companies disagree with the peers ISS assigns. In the past, peers have been determined based on GICS codes, market capitalization, and revenue. The new policy involves a lot of technical mumbo jumbo about 8-digit and 2-digit CICS groups that I don’t understand, but the gist that I came away with is that companies’ self-selected peers will somehow be considered in constructing peer groups. I’m not convinced this will be the panacea companies are looking for, but hopefully it will be an improvement.
Realizable Pay: Where ISS identifies a quantitative misalignment in pay-for-performance, a number of qualitative measures are taken into consideration before ISS finalizes a recommendation with respect to the company’s Say-on-Pay proposal. Under the 2013 policy, for large cap companies, these measures will include a comparison of realizable pay to grant date pay. For stock awards, realizable pay includes the value of awards earned during a specified performance period, plus the value as of the end of the period for unearned awards. Values of options and SARs will be based on the Black-Scholes value computed as of the performance period. If you work for a large-cap company, you should probably get ready to start figuring out this number.
Pledging and Hedging: Significant pledging and any amount of hedging of stock/awards by officers is considered a problematic pay practice that may result in a recommendation against directors. My guess, based on data the NASPP and others have collected, is that most of you don’t allow executives to pledge or hedge company stock. But if this is something your company allows, you may want to get an handle on the amounts of stock executives have pledged and consider reining in hedging altogether.
Say-on-Parachute Payments: When making recommendations on Say-for-Parachute Payment proposals, ISS will now focus on existing CIC arrangements with officers in addition to new or extended arrangements and will place further scrutiny on multiple legacy features that are considered problematic in CIC agreements. If you still have options or awards with single-trigger vesting acceleration upon a CIC (and, based on the NASPP and Deloitte 2010 Stock Plan Design Survey, many of you do), those may be a problem if you ever need to conduct a Say-on-Parachute Payments vote.
Glass Lewis Updates
Glass Lewis, in their tradition of providing as little information as possible, published their 2013 policy without noting what changed. I don’t have a copy of their 2012 policy, so I couldn’t compare the two but I’ve read reports from third-parties that highlight the changes.
As far as I can tell, the only change in their stock plan policy is that Glass Lewis will now be on the lookout for plans with a fungible share reserve where options and SARs count as less than one share (the idea is that full value awards count as one share, so options/SARs count as less than a share). It’s a clever idea for making your share reserve last as long as possible, but, to my knowledge, these plans are very rare (I’ve never seen one even in captivity, much less in the wild), so I suspect this isn’t a concern for most of you.
For today’s blog, I have a couple of updates related to Glass Lewis and ISS.
Through a Glass (Lewis) Darkly While ISS has been somewhat forthright about its voting policies, the methodologies employed by Glass Lewis to evaluate management proposals have always been a black box. Recently, however, Glass Lewis launched a new “Issuer Engagement Portal” to provide insight into their decision-making process when making vote recommendations on proxy ballots.
The portal includes both “US Abridged Guidelines” and “Continental Europe Abridged Guidelines.” A few highlights from the US Abridged Guidelines relating to stock options:
Companies should seek additional shares only when needed and the number of shares requested should be small enough that the company will need an additional allocation of shares within three to four years (or less).
The annual cost of the plan should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and the overall value of the company and in comparison to peers. Plans that are relatively expensive and that provide grants solely to senior executives and board members are a particular concern.
The intrinsic value received by option grantees in the past should be reasonable compared with the financial results of the business.
The portal also includes Issuer FAQs and a short summary of Glass Lewis’ Equity-Based Compensation Analysis, which discusses their analysis relating to program size, cost, and features.
While this is no where near the level of transparency provided by ISS and still leaves many questions unanswered, it is at least a step in the right direction.
ISS: Do as We Say, Not as We Do The disadvantage about disclosing your voting polices is that others can then apply them to you–or, in this case, to ISS’s parent company, MSCI. Exequity has prepared an in-depth analysis of how MSCI’s executive compensation programs would fare under ISS’s policies (ISS does not issue a report on MSCI due to the inherent conflict of interest in reporting on their own parent). Exequity found a number of areas where MSCI engages in practices that ISS criticizes:
Not splitting the CEO and Chairman of the Board roles;
Not having stock holding requirements, stock ownership guidelines, or a clawback policy;
Not using preset performance goals for the annual bonus plan (the plan is discretionary);
Not providing the specific performance goals for the performance-based equity awards until after the two-year performance period ends;
Aiming to compensate named executive officers at the “higher end of market practice”; and
Granting equity awards with single-trigger change-in-control provisions.
More at the NASPP Conference This year’s NASPP Conference will feature a session that will sort out fact from fiction on the proxy advisor policies and help you evaluate how critical it is for your company to comply with ISS and Glass Lewis policies. Look for more information when we announce the full program in a few weeks. The 20th Annual NASPP Conference will be held in New Orleans from Oct 8-11–register by May 31 for the early-bird rate.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so we keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in our blog.
Register for the 20th Annual NASPP Conference in New Orleans. Don’t wait, the early-bird rate is only available until May 31.
Register for the NASPP’s newly updated online Stock Plan Fundamentals program–it’s not too late to get into the course; all webcasts have been archived for you to listen to at your convenience.