Restricted stock units and awards carry a unique risk when it comes to grant acceptance. It’s easiest to understand this risk in contrast to stock options. In most countries and situations, the taxable event on a stock option is the exercise. Employees must personally take action in order to exercise a stock option, which gives companies the opportunity to have their undivided attention when it comes to grant acceptance and simply prevent exercise until the grant has been signed. Restricted stock awards and units, on the other hand, are taxed on either the vest date or even at grant (depending on the country and circumstances). For the purpose of simplification, I’m going to focus on RSUs granted in the U.S. that do not have accelerated or continued vesting after retirement.

Policy #1: Time’s Up!

Some companies take a conservative approach to this issue by actually enforcing a grant acceptance requirement with a policy under which employees forfeit their grants if acceptance isn’t completed within a specific timeframe. In this approach, the highest risk is in ensuring adequate communication regarding the timeframe and consequences of not accepting the grants. In addition to including a warning in all communications leading up to the grant, it’s a good idea to also send out reminders to employees as they approach the deadline for acceptance.

Policy #2: It’s Yours Whether You Know it or Not

Some companies default to the philosophy that grants will continue to vest regardless of the grant acceptance status, even if they have a policy that theoretically requires grant acceptance without actually enforcing it. Hopefully, this is a well thought-out policy and not just a head-in-the-sand reaction to the issue of grant acceptance. For example, it could be that the comany’s legal team concluded that allowing shares to vest before the terms and conditions have been accepted poses less risk to the company than cancelling unaccepted grants. Regardless of the reason behind adopting this policy, the best way to make it effective is to make sure that grant documents, communications, and company policy accommodate how tax withholding is executed. The smart approach is to have a default tax withholding method which does not require action by the employee such as share withholding. Another advantage of share withholding over other methods is that, in the event the employee ultimately wants to decline the grant, the odds of being able to “unravel” the vest are much higher.

Policy #3: What?!

The riskiest approach of all is to ignore the issue until it’s too late. Of course, it’s entirely tongue-in-cheek to call this a policy at all. A company might fall into this situation because of poor planning, inadequate documentation, or a sudden increase in the number of RSU recipients. This could lead to a situation where taxes are due, but the company has no way to collect them because there either isn’t a default tax withholding method, or the default isn’t possible without action from the employee. Companies that find themselves in this position must scramble to get grant acceptance and/or collect taxes, possibly delaying the tax remittance or actual delivery of shares. Because it’s likely not possible to consider a late delivery of shares as a delay in constructive receipt of the shares in, delayed tax remittance could result in penalties incurred by the company.

Best Practices at the NASPP Conference

You can always pick up great tips for the best practices in equity compensation at our Annual Conference! This year, for information on grant acceptance and other hot issues in stock plan administration policies, check out the “Grant Practices: The Good, the Bad and the Outright Dangerous” session. If you haven’t already, register for our 18th Annual NASPP Conference now!

-Rachel