On December 18, 2018, the SEC approved final rules requiring companies to disclose their practices or policies with respect to hedging transactions by officers and other employees as well as directors. The final rules have not yet been published, but the SEC issued a press release (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-291) describing the rule it adopted. The new rule implements Section 955 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
New Item 407(i) of Regulation S-K will require a company to disclose in proxy or information statements for the election of directors its practices or policies for officers and other employees, as well as directors, relating to:
- purchasing securities or other financial instruments, or otherwise engaging in transactions,
- that hedge or offset, or are designed to hedge or offset,
- any decrease in the market value of equity securities granted as compensation or held, directly or indirectly, by the officer, other employee or director.
The new item has broad application for affiliated entities and will require disclosure of practices or policies on hedging activities with respect to equity securities of the company, any parent or subsidiary of the company or any subsidiary of any parent of the company.
Companies may either summarize their practices or policies for these types of hedging activities or, alternatively, disclose their practices or policies in full. If a company does not have a practice or policy with respect to hedging activities, it must disclose that fact or state that it permits hedging transactions generally.
Companies will be required to comply with the new disclosure requirements in proxy and information statements for the election of directors during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2019. “Smaller reporting companies” and “emerging growth companies” will have an additional year to comply with the new disclosure requirements. Companies that have adopted policies on hedging may opt to provide the additional disclosure during the 2019 proxy season.
There have been 40 failed say-on-pay votes thus far in 2012. Shareholders have disapproved executive compensation systems at companies such as Big Lots (31% approval), Cooper Industries (30%), Simon Property Group (27%), Pitney Bowes (35%) and Chiquita Brands (20%). Sometimes support from ISS is not enough – shareholders at Safety Insurance Group (42%) failed to approve a say-on-pay proposal even with an approval recommendation from ISS.
Continue reading “Update on Say-on-Pay Developments”
Investors and shareholder activists have become increasingly focused on the oversight and disclosure of political expenditures by public companies since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which invalidated restrictions on certain corporate political spending. Because the 2012 presidential election is expected to be a hotly contested race funded by record levels of political spending, the public’s interest in political and lobbying expenditures by public companies is intensifying and merits a careful review of recent trends in the policies and disclosure practices of public companies with respect to their political spending.
Continue reading “Shareholder Pressure Increases for Disclosure of Lobbying Activities and Other Political Expenditures”
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) once again has limited the ability of a broker to vote on proposals at shareholder meetings for which the broker has not received voting instructions from its customers. This narrowing follows recent rule amendments triggered by the Dodd-Frank Act prohibiting brokers from voting uninstructed shares in the election of directors and on proposals relating to executive compensation.
Continue reading “NYSE Further Narrows Broker Discretionary Voting: Potential Impact on a Company’s Proxy Season Planning”
In an important battle in the ongoing executive compensation wars, last week a federal court in Oregon affirmed that directors of Oregon corporations are indeed protected by the business judgment rule in making executive compensation decisions. In ruling that the claim in Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund v. Davis should be dismissed, the specifically declined to follow a recent controversial decision by an Ohio court allowing a say-on-pay lawsuit to proceed under similar circumstances.
Continue reading “Executive Compensation: Negative Say-on-Pay Vote Does Not Trump Board Authority”