Skip to main content

Director Compensation Update

I’ve written a number of articles and blogs about some sticky issues that can surface in the context of setting pay for public company non-employee directors (here, here, here, and here). On March 6th the parties to the In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, filed a settlement agreement with the Delaware Chancery Court.  By […]

GG

Certain Information Statements for ISOs and ESPPs Due by January 31, 2019

As reported in Part 4 of our 2018 End of Year Plan Sponsor “To Do” List, Section 6039 of the Code requires employers to provide a written information statement to each employee or former employee and file information returns with the IRS regarding: (1) the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of an Incentive […]

GG

New IRS Guidance Throws a Pass to Certain Universities That Pay Coaches Compensation in Excess of $1,000,000

In Notice 2019-09 (“Notice”), the IRS provides relief from the new excise tax to certain colleges and universities that pay their “covered employees” more than $1 million per year or pay excess parachute payments.  Specifically, the Notice provides that the new excise tax under Code Section 4960 does not apply to a governmental entity (including […]

MS
Former Partner

The 162(m) Transition Rule Guidance Has Arrived

On August 21, 2018, the IRS released Notice 2018-68 providing its initial guidance on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Act) transition rule for changes under 162(m).  Before the Act, 162(m) limited a public company’s tax deduction to $1,000,000 for annual compensation paid to its “covered employees” (i.e., the CEO and the other three most […]

MS
Former Partner

Settlement of Solak v. Barrett May Provide Additional Guidance on Setting Director Pay

I’ve stressed how important it is for public company executives and directors to stay apprised of developments in the director pay area, including developments/settlements of director pay lawsuits.  Earlier this summer, the Delaware Chancery court approved a settlement of Solak v. Barrett, a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that the directors of Clovis Oncology […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: , , , , ,
GG

Yet Another Reason to Focus on Director Pay

We have previously encouraged our readers to focus on the size of their director pay packages and the processes their boards undertake in setting director compensation.  Prior focus on these issues was recommended largely as a way to mitigate the risk of litigation for excessive pay.  In their current U.S. Compensation Policies FAQ, Institutional Shareholder […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , , , ,
GG

Short-Term Deferral Day is Right Around the Corner

Section 409A, the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that regulates the time and form of payment of nonqualified deferred compensation, contains a helpful exception for “short-term deferrals.”  Specifically, Section 409A provides that a payment will not be considered nonqualified deferred compensation if the employer makes the payment on or prior to the 15th day […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , , , ,
GG

Certain Information Statements for ISOs and ESPPs Due by January 31, 2018

As reported in Part 3 of our 2016 End of Year Plan Sponsor “To Do” List, Section 6039 of the Code requires employers to provide a written information statement to each employee or former employee and file information returns with the IRS regarding: (1) the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of an Incentive […]

| 1 min read | Tagged: , , , , , ,
GG

Making a List, Checking it Twice – 2017

It’s that time of year when boys and girls start making their lists for the holidays, but we in the employee benefits world make a very different kind of list.  In the rapidly changing world of employee benefits and executive compensation law, checklists can be particularly helpful to make sure important issues do not fall […]

NC

Say on Pay Failure Results 2017

Of the 7% of Russell 3000 companies that received “against” vote recommendations from ISS on their say on pay proposals this 2017 proxy season, some of the cited reasons for the negative vote recommendations from ISS consisted of the following: Pay for failure (i.e., pay for performance disconnect). Lack of rigorous performance goals. A substantial […]

GG