With proxy season approaching, public companies must consider their strategy for the second year of the mandatory say on pay advisory vote.

Even companies that passed last year’s vote with flying colors should prepare for the upcoming season with a fresh perspective, as the second season of say on pay will present new challenges. Some investors may have applied more relaxed standards to companies last year in recognition of the fact that mandatory say on pay was new. In addition, shareholders and proxy advisory firms may focus on a company’s response to the first mandatory say on pay vote, which was not an issue last year. Indeed, in its recently released 2012 draft policy changes, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) asked whether its voting recommendations should take into account a company’s response to receiving a majority but less than 70% support for its prior year’s say on pay vote. Further, an important factor in whether a company received a positive recommendation from the proxy advisory firms was the results of the total shareholder return (TSR) analysis described below and, accordingly, a change in performance can adversely affect the vote, even where compensation practices have not changed. Finally, ISS recently proposed revisions to its voting policies that may impact say on pay recommendations in the upcoming season.

…continue reading: How to Win the Say on Pay Vote

Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) recently published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding its U.S. compensation policies for 2011. The FAQs address a number of issues regarding the shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation required by the Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank) and provide useful clarification of a number of other recent ISS pronouncements.

Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote. The FAQs clarify that a management recommendation of a biennial or triennial vote will not trigger a negative vote recommendation from ISS on other proxy items, notwithstanding ISS’s categorical support of annual say-on-pay votes. In addition, the FAQs indicate that ISS plans to address in next year’s policy updates how it will treat a company’s adoption of a frequency vote that is not supported by a plurality of votes cast at the 2011 shareholders’ meeting.

…continue reading: ISS Guidance Regarding Compensation Policies for the 2011 Proxy Season

For many public companies, the new year marks the beginning of compensation season. Setting pay and targets for the new year, determining achievement of performance objectives for the past year and preparing the annual proxy statement contribute to a busy first quarter for compensation committees and management teams working with them. In 2011, companies will undertake these activities in a fluid environment, with executive compensation continuing to receive significant attention from shareholder activists, the government and the media. As companies prepare for the upcoming compensation season, they should consider the following items.

…continue reading: Compensation Season 2011

Washington’s focus on changing the rules regarding executive compensation continues with the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Set forth below is a discussion of certain executive compensation provisions of the Act and some recommended action items.

Say-on-Pay

The Act requires that companies include in their annual proxy statement a non-binding resolution seeking shareholder approval of named executive officer compensation at shareholder meetings at least once every three years, and mandates a separate vote to determine how often the say-on-pay vote will be held (every one, two or three years), with such separate vote to be held at least once every six years. The frequency vote represents a welcome departure from earlier drafts of the bill, which required an annual say-on-pay vote. As discussed in our memo of September 30, 2009 (available on the Forum here, triennial say-on-pay votes more closely align sayon- pay with the goal of avoiding short-termism in corporate governance and executive pay arrangements than do annual say-on-pay votes. We therefore recommend that most companies seek to implement a triennial approach. Targeted shareholder outreach, shareholder surveys regarding executive compensation and effective use of the compensation disclosure and analysis section of the proxy can be part of the arsenal of effective shareholder communication in connection with the say-on-pay vote and the frequency vote. Companies should be cognizant of (although not unduly deferential to) voting policies of institutional shareholders and proxy advisory services for say-on-pay, given that these groups may recommend withhold/against votes on the re-election of directors if concerns raised through say-on-pay votes are not adequately addressed.

…continue reading: Some Dodd-Frank Executive Compensation Action Items

As discussed in our memos of March 16, 2010 and May 13, 2010, RiskMetrics has recently released the guidelines for calculations under its Governance Risk Indicator (GRId) rating system. The GRId instructions include over 50 pages of compensation questions, the answers to which result in a stand-alone Compensation GRId rating.

The Compensation GRId questions and scoring generally reflect the substantive positions in RiskMetrics’ corporate governance policies and proxy voting guidelines, but in some cases are more punitive. For example, the proxy voting guidelines penalize excise tax gross-ups only in new or materially amended agreements, but the Compensation GRId deducts even for existing agreements with gross-ups. More significantly, the rigid scoring system by its nature codifies the level of emphasis on particular issues. While we do not think the one-size-fits-all GRId approach provides a useful picture of governance practices, most public companies will, given the prominence of RiskMetrics, find it useful to familiarize themselves with the GRId guidelines and identify areas where points can be scored with little risk of substantive harm. For example, in a number of cases addressing an issue in the annual proxy statement may increase a company’s score.

…continue reading: Understanding RiskMetrics Compensation “GRId”

For many public companies, the new year marks the commencement of compensation season. Setting pay and targets for the new year, determining achievement of performance objectives for the past year and preparing the annual proxy statement contribute to a busy first quarter for compensation committees and management teams working with them. In 2010, companies will undertake these activities in a fluid environment, with executive compensation continuing to receive significant attention from shareholder activists, government and the media. As companies prepare for the upcoming compensation season, they should consider the following items.

New SEC Disclosure Requirements. Companies should take steps to ensure compliance with the new SEC rules which, among other things, address corporate governance matters, risk in compensation programs, independence of compensation consultants and the valuation of equity awards in the compensation tables (see this Forum post or this Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz client memorandum for a description of the new rules). Companies should get an early start on organizing appropriate working groups, crafting necessary disclosures and preparing their directors so that they can meet their obligations with respect to upcoming filings.

…continue reading: Compensation Season 2010 – Issues to Consider