The Advisors' Blog

– Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Last week, I blogged over on TheCorporateCounsel.net about how some financial institutions participating in the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program might be changing their “double triggers” to single for their change of control arrangements. I clarified that blog right after it got pushed to those that have signed up for that feature (if you want to be added, just input your email address to the left of this blog or send me an email) that no bank has yet disclosed that it has taken such action (at least, as far as I know). Rather, I have been hearing that through the grapevine. So it’s hearsay at this point (a good thing because hopefully anyone thinking about it will now be enlightened).

I have also heard that some advisors are saying that (despite some apparently contradictory guidance in Q-11 of Treasury’s interim final rule release for participants in the CPP) that a move to pure “single triggers” is not required based on Q&A-16 in the IRS notice regarding the Section 162(m) and Section 280G provisions of the EESA and Section 302(e)(C)(i) of EESA itself.

In other words, some advisors are interpreting Q-11 to say that “double triggers” (or severance payments upon terminations after a change of control) may be prohibited parachute payments, even if the Treasury no longer holds any equity or debt in a company it once invested in. So some companies have been thinking that while they would have to ask executives to cut back on their “termination without cause” protection to comply with the Treasury’s program, they could modify their double trigger to make it a single trigger.

The thinking apparently is that if there is no requirement for a “termination of employment” in connection with the change of control payment, then it could never be a prohibited golden parachute. In response, tax lawyers and consultants have been pointing to Q&A-16 and Section 302(e)(C)(i) of EESA to say that a payment that is a parachute payment under the traditional 280G analysis – on account of a change of control without regard to the new Section 280G(e) – is not subject to the new prohibitions in 280G(e) and therefore not prohibited by the CPP. Clear as mud?

Even though Treasury might not particularly care if SEOs get prohibited parachute payments in connection with – and particularly, after – a change of control in which Treasury has been bought out (in the case of equity) or paid off (in the case of debt), I imagine investors certainly will care, as well as those in Congress who approved the $700 billion blank check to Treasury…

Corp Fin’s New Bag of Tricks: E-mail Your Questions!

Yesterday, Corp Fin posted this overview of its policy offices, including some organization chart information. My guess is the SEC will have trouble keeping that updated, as we have found maintaining our own “Corp Fin Org Chart” challenging ourselves – but we do keep it updated!

The big news is that these policy offices – including all your favorites like Chief Counsel’s and Chief Accountant’s – will now accept interpretive queries in writing via this online form.

Wow! It will be interesting to see if the volume of queries changes at all – my guess is it will go up, which will be a bummer for the Staff. But on the plus side from the Staff’s perspective, the queries will likely be couched more clearly when reduced to writing. Having worked myself in Chief Counsel’s office, it can be difficult to try to answer a question posed over the phone, particularly if the questioner is strangely vague or inexperienced (or drunk, but that’s a long story).