On June 23, 2017, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued Chief Counsel Memorandum Number 201725027 (the ?Ç£Memorandum?Ç¥) addressing the application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (?Ç£Section 409A?Ç¥) to certain back-to-back arrangements. The taxpayer in the Memorandum managed investment funds, including the funds of a foreign corporation, with whom the taxpayer had entered into an arrangement to defer some of its management and/or performance fees from the foreign corporation (referred to as an ?Ç£ultimate service recipient plan?Ç¥ or ?Ç£USR plan?Ç¥). The taxpayer also sponsored a deferred compensation arrangement for its investment professional employees (referred to as an ?Ç£immediate service recipient plan?Ç¥ or ?Ç£ISR Plan?Ç¥). While the deferral elections and payment triggers of the USR Plan and ISR Plan were coordinated, the USR Plan provided that payment would be made to the taxpayer under the USR Plan even when amounts were forfeited by a participant under the ISR… Continue Reading
A former CEO of a marketing company has agreed to settle charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the ?Ç£SEC?Ç¥) that his executive perks were not properly disclosed to the company?ÇÖs shareholders. According to the SEC?ÇÖs order, annual filings disclosed that the company?ÇÖs CEO and chairman received an annual perquisite allowance of $500,000 in addition to other benefits. However, the SEC?ÇÖs investigation discovered that the company paid for the CEO?ÇÖs personal use of private airplanes as well as charitable donations in his name, yacht and sports car expenses, cosmetic surgery, jewelry, medical expenses for family members, pet care, and a wide range of other perks that the company failed to properly disclose. The SEC alleged the CEO improperly obtained an additional $11.285 million in perks beyond his disclosed benefits and the $500,000 annual allowance. The CEO has since resigned and returned $11.285 million to the company. The CEO consented… Continue Reading
In a recent Delaware Court of Chancery case, stockholders brought suit against a company?ÇÖs directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty for awarding themselves ?Ç£grossly excessive compensation.?Ç¥ The excessive compensation in question included equity grants issued pursuant to the company?ÇÖs equity incentive plan. The terms of the stockholder-approved plan provided limits on the number of shares that the company could issue as stock options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units and on the number of shares the company could award to employees and directors. The court held that the specific equity awards could be reviewed pursuant to the business judgment rule, which is the standard used to review executive compensation approved by a disinterested committee rather than a more stringent standard required for ?Ç£self-dealing.?Ç¥ In applying the business judgment rule, the court found that it was critical that the director-specific limits set forth in the plan differed from the limits that… Continue Reading
Directors, officers, and other persons who directly or indirectly hold common stock worth close to or more than $80.8 million (the threshold amount for 2017) should consult legal counsel before acquiring any more shares to determine if compliance with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the “HSR Act“), is required prior to completing any additional acquisitions. In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice have more aggressively enforced the HSR Act, including inadvertent failures to file that occur when an insider of a company with significant equity value acquires a small number of shares-whether through a restricted stock grant, shares issued as director compensation, the exercise of a stock option, open market purchases, or otherwise. For example, in January 2017, the agencies imposed a fine of $780,000 on an individual who was a founder, officer, and director of a company for his… Continue Reading
The SEC recently published Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs“) relating to the CEO pay ratio disclosure rule. This disclosure rule under Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires a public company to disclose the ratio between its CEO’s annual compensation and the median annual compensation of all other employees. The new C&DIs include guidance on the selection of an appropriate alternative compensation measure and clarify that if an alternative compensation measure is utilized to determine the median employee, the time period utilized does not have to be a full annual period. Moreover, the time period utilized does not have to include the date on which the employee population was determined. View our prior post on the SEC’s adoption of the CEO pay ratio disclosure rule?áhere. View the full text of the C&DIs here.
Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (?Ç£ISS?Ç¥) recently released the results of its annual global voting policy survey. Respondents include institutional investors, corporate issuers, as well as consultants and advisors to public companies. Survey responses provide helpful insight into the current views of influential institutional investors in addition to signaling changes to ISS voting policies. This year?ÇÖs survey was light on executive compensation related questions but did provide helpful feedback on two topics. (1) Frequency of Say-on-Pay: 66 percent of institutional investors favor annual say on pay votes, consistent with current ISS policy. (2) Pay for Performance Metrics: 79 percent of institutional investors support the incorporation of financial metrics, in addition to total shareholder returns, into the ISS pay-for-performance models that identify potential misalignments between CEO pay and company performance. The three most popular alternatives were return on investment metrics (e.g., return on invested capital), return metrics (e.g., return on assets or… Continue Reading
Ninth Circuit Holds Disgorgement Remedy Applies Regardless of Personal Misconduct of Issuer?ÇÖs CEO or CFO
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court?ÇÖs ruling interpreting Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (?Ç£SOX?Ç¥) in an enforcement action filed by the SEC alleging that defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by overstating revenue by millions of dollars. SOX 304 requires reimbursement of certain types of compensation, such as bonuses or equity-based compensation received by CEOs and CFOs, within 12 months of the public issuance or filing of financial statements that are required to be restated due to a reporting error that is a result of ?Ç£misconduct.?Ç¥ Previously, the SEC had sought to apply SOX 304 against CEOs and CFOs who were alleged to be personally involved in the wrongdoing leading to the restatement. However, in this case, ?Ç£it is the [misconduct of the issuer of the financial statements] that matters and not the personal misconduct of the CEO or CFO.?Ç¥… Continue Reading
The IRS recently issued proposed regulations that would amend the final regulations issued under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations provide a number of clarifications and changes in response to practitioner comments. For instance, the regulations clarify that the separation pay plan exception may apply to a service provider who had no compensation in the year preceding the year of the separation from service. In such situations, annualized compensation from the year of separation is used. In addition, the term ?Ç£eligible issuer of service recipient stock?Ç¥ now includes an entity for which a person is reasonably expected to begin, and actually begins, providing services within 12 months after the grant date of a stock right (i.e., an inducement option). The regulations also clarify that (i) a service provider?ÇÖs right to reimbursement of reasonable attorneys?ÇÖ fees and other expenses incurred to pursue a bona fide legal claim against… Continue Reading
Several Federal Agencies Issue Revised Proposed Rule Prohibiting Incentive Compensation for Excessive Risk Taking by Covered Financial Institutions
Several federal agencies, including the SEC, issued a joint revised proposed rule to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ?Ç£Proposed Rule?Ç¥), which prohibits incentive-based compensation that encourages inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions. The Proposed Rule divides covered institutions into three tiers based on their average total consolidated assets. Although many aspects of the Proposed Rule are similar to the rule proposed in 2011, there are a few key differences. These differences include a new definition of incentive-based compensation that would not be considered to appropriately balance risk and rewards, a new recordkeeping requirement regarding the structure of incentive-based compensation, new requirements for deferral of incentive-based compensation, downward adjustments and clawbacks, and requirements for the structure of the institution?ÇÖs compensation committee. The Proposed Rule is available?áhere.
IRS Releases Guidance on Applicability of Code Section 162(m) to CFOs of Smaller Reporting Companies
The IRS recently released a Chief Counsel Memorandum in which the IRS concluded that the CFO of a public company, which is eligible to report under the SEC?ÇÖs executive compensation disclosure rules as a ?Ç£smaller reporting company,?Ç¥ may be subject to Code Section 162(m)?ÇÖs $1 million compensation deduction limit. The limit under Code Section 162(m) applies to ?Ç£covered employees,?Ç¥ which are a public company?ÇÖs CEO and certain other highly compensated executives whose compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the SEC?ÇÖs executive compensation disclosure rules. For larger public companies, this means the limits of Code Section 162(m) generally will apply to its CEO and its three most highly compensated executives, other than its CEO. The company?ÇÖs compensation deduction for its CFO is not limited by Code Section 162(m) because the CFO?ÇÖs compensation must be disclosed due to his or her position, not due to the compensation level. However, for… Continue Reading