Glass Lewis
Glass Lewis partners with compensation data provider, Equilar, which generates Equilar Market Peers that are subsequently used to prepare Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance quantitative analysis. Starting May 27, 2013, companies in the Russell 3000 Index can submit their peer groups on Equilar’s website. The deadline for updating your peer group for meetings scheduled for July through December 2013 is June 28.
Going forward, Equilar expects to update the peer groups it prepares for Glass Lewis, with company input, semi-annually in July and January.
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)
We understand that ISS will reach out in July to companies in the Russell 3000 (as of June 30) with meetings in the fall of 2013 or the early winter of 2014 and ask if they have changed their peer group since their last proxy disclosure. ISS will update those companies’ peer groups in the July-August timeframe. The timing of any future ISS peer group updates has not yet been determined, but will be considered as part of ISS’s annual policy update process. Companies should remain alert to communications from ISS regarding any peer group update opportunities.
There have been many more failures during the past few days, including one more that failed three years in a row! At three-peater Nabor Industries, two comp committee members failed to receive majority support and tendered their resignations, which were not accepted by the board – and as noted in this WSJ article, the company engaged in some shady vote counting on its proxy access proposal. Wow…:
– Sonus Networks – Form 8-K (49%)
– Consolidated Water – Form 8-K (49%)
– Vocus Form 8-K (45%)
– Lifepoint Hospitals – Form 8-K (43%)
– Spansion – Form 8-K (49%)
– Nabors Industries – Form 8-K (33%; also failed in 2012 with 25% and in 2011 with 42%)
– OpenTable – Form 8-K (47%)
– FTI Consulting – Form 8-K (41%)
Thanks to Karla Bos of ING for the heads up on these!
Britain’s 2012 annual meeting season, when a wave of investor protest votes on directors’ remuneration swept through U.K. boardrooms, was in the estimation of some a non-event, with dissent levels largely reflecting that evidenced in past years and just four large capital companies seeing majority opposition. For example, an ISS analysis of U.K. remuneration report voting in 2009 found the same number of failed votes–four–and average dissent levels just 0.5 percentage points less than the 10.9 percent evidenced at 216 FTSE 250 companies in 2012.
Still, the impact of what the media dubbed Britain’s “shareholder spring” has been far more profound, lending cover to the government of Prime Minister David Cameron’s plan to introduce binding pay votes for U.K. companies and, arguably, paving the way for tougher pay curbs in continental Europe in the succeeding months. In light of direct and tangential consequences of last year’s voting, a recent paper explores the state of voting on U.K. director pay vis-a-vis that of 2012 to identify trends in support and dissent by company size and business. Key findings include:
– The 2013 U.K. annual meeting season has been far quieter than last year, with most companies seeing gains in shareholder support levels for their remuneration reports over 2012, the year of the so-called “shareholder spring.”
– Fifty-six percent of companies studied this year saw remuneration report support levels rise from 2012.
– While support levels rose for FTSE 100 companies by 2.4 percentage points, they nudged up by a more modest 0.4 points for FTSE 250 firms.
– By sector, Energy companies, including Cairn Energy, Tullow Oil, and BP, saw the greatest gains in overall support levels compared with 2012 at seven percentage points.
– Meanwhile, Materials firms, such as Lonmin, Anglo American, and Glencore International, saw the largest overall decline in average support tallying 1.7 points.
– The U.K.’s Information Technology sector has seen the highest level of support from shareholders on pay practices thus far in 2013 at 93.6 percent on average.
– At the other end, Materials companies netted just 90.3 percent average support.
– Companies seeking to boost support from 2012 have taken to reforming service contract agreements, improving disclosures, addressing concerns over pension benefits, and other steps to successfully mitigate concerns evidenced last year.
The paper also provides a high-level look at how and why some companies fared better this year compared with 2012.
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Proxy Season Post-Mortem: The Latest Compensation Disclosures” – to hear Mark Borges of Compensia, Dave Lynn of CompensationStandards.com and Morrison & Foerster and Ron Mueller of Gibson Dunn analyze what was (and what was not) disclosed this proxy season.
Personally, I take these types of studies with a grain of salt – but this American Accounting Association press release notes that companies which adopt clawback provisions enjoy a “significantly positive capital market response” when the policy is disclosed.
New York State agencies have recently adopted final regulations to implement the new restrictions on executive compensation and administrative costs at state-funded not-for-profit and for-profit service providers, effective July 1, 2013. In general, the final rules make no significant changes in the regulatory framework proposed earlier this year. The limits will apply to reporting periods commencing on or after the effective date. In other words, for organizations that report on a calendar-year basis, the rules become effective January 1, 2014.
Among other provisions, the rules bar covered service providers from using more than $199,000 in state funds to pay executive compensation, with certain exceptions. Providers can pay executives more than $199,000 in total compensation from a combination of New York State and other funding sources if they meet conditions such as ensuring that the executive’s compensation doesn’t exceed the 75th percentile of that provided to comparable executives in comparable organizations, based on approved compensation surveys.
There have been 10 more failures during the past few days, including three more companies that have failed two years in a row – and another with that has failed three years in a row! Here are the latest failures:
– Big Lots – Form 8-K (31%; also failed in 2012 with 31%)
– East West Bancorp – Form 8-K (42%)
– Tutor Perini – Form 8-K (38%; the 3-peat with 38% in 2012, 49% in 2011)
– The Children’s Place Retail Stores – Form 8-K (17%)
– Gleacher & Company – Form 8-K (39%)
– Insite Vision – Form 8-K (38%; also failed in 2012 at 49%)
– Radioshack – Form 8-K (46%)
– Delcath Systems – Form 8-K (49% support)
– Equal Energy – Form 8-K (44% support)
– Healthways – Form 8-K (32% support; failed in 2012 with 33% support)
– Hercules Technology Growth Capital – Form 8-K (49%)
Thanks to Karla Bos of ING for the heads up on these! Also check out this Towers Watson article entitled “Smaller Companies Seeing More Say-on-Pay Failures.”
I told you that I could blog about this topic every day (hence this upcoming webcast – “Law Firms & Independence: What to Do Now“). Here’s a note that I received from a member:
As the July 1st deadline approaches, advisers to companies, particularly outside legal counsel, and board compensation committees have been focusing on what it means to “provide advice” as contemplated by the Instruction to Rule 10C-1(b)(4). The Securities Law Committee of the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals reported in a Society Alert that this question was discussed recently at its regular meeting with the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance.
At this meeting, Tom Kim, the Division’s Chief Counsel, clarified an informal Staff response to a question raised at the beginning of the month on how to determine whether a company’s outside legal counsel (or other outside adviser) was indirectly “providing advice” to a compensation committee. He indicated that, while the question does not lend itself to a “bright line” test, in-house legal counsel should be in the best position to make the determination and control the vetting process. For example, if in-house legal counsel has a lawyer outside the door of the compensation committee meeting and goes out and gets advice and then comes back in and transmits that advice, then obviously that adviser should have been vetted. He called this the “ventriloquist” scenario.
On the other hand, if in-house legal counsel speaks to several outside legal counsel as a matter of course and then is in a compensation committee meeting giving advice based on what he or she has heard and formulated in his or her own mind, this situation would not require that these counsel be vetted.
For everything else – including the more realistic scenario of in-house legal counsel talking to one outside law firm on a regular basis – it is up to the company to use its judgment as to whether, based on the relevant facts and circumstances, a party is providing advice to the compensation committee and, thus, an independence assessment is required.