Partner Jessie Lochmann was featured in a Boston Business Journal article, “Behind the Boardroom Door: Ready for Proxy Season?” about an emerging issue that directors should be prepared to address during this year’s annual meetings and proxy season. These comments are from her discussion as a panelist at the National Association of Corporate Directors New England Chapter’s January event.
Lochmann explained, “Compensation committees will have a lot on their plates with respect to compensation structure as a result of the changes to 162(m) under the new tax law. It will likely cost companies more in 2018 and beyond to pay the same executive compensation that they are paying now, and those costs need to be considered when determining pay packages. The proportion of pay that is locked-in vs. that which is performance-based may now be reevaluated, and committees may find they like that additional flexibility in setting executive compensation. For example, without the need to meet any performance-based pay exception, Committees need not set performance goals during the first 90 days of the performance period, and they will no longer be limited to using negative discretion only in making bonus and LTIP payout decisions. However, the flexibility that comes from the changes to 162(m) must be balanced with the proxy advisory firms’ and institutional shareholders’ continued desire to see a certain percentage of pay be “at risk” and based on company performance.”
Lochmann explained, “Compensation committees will have a lot on their plates with respect to compensation structure as a result of the changes to 162(m) under the new tax law. It will likely cost companies more in 2018 and beyond to pay the same executive compensation that they are paying now, and those costs need to be considered when determining pay packages. The proportion of pay that is locked-in vs. that which is performance-based may now be reevaluated, and committees may find they like that additional flexibility in setting executive compensation. For example, without the need to meet any performance-based pay exception, Committees need not set performance goals during the first 90 days of the performance period, and they will no longer be limited to using negative discretion only in making bonus and LTIP payout decisions. However, the flexibility that comes from the changes to 162(m) must be balanced with the proxy advisory firms’ and institutional shareholders’ continued desire to see a certain percentage of pay be “at risk” and based on company performance.”
People
Related News
24 April 2024
In the News
Judith Waltz Discusses Nursing Home Staffing Mandate, Potential Legal Challenges
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Judith Waltz offers insight on a new nursing home staffing rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its impact on the industry in the Bloomberg Law article, “Nursing Homes, HHS on Collision Path Over Staffing Mandate.”
23 April 2024
In the News
David Sanders Discusses Lessons Learned from General Counsel Leadership Program
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Sanders recently joined a panel discussion with members of The Vanguard Network’s General Counsels Advisory Group to discuss the evolving role of the general counsel.
23 April 2024
In the News
Claire Marblestone Discusses HHS Final Rule on Protected Health Information Disclosure
Foley & Lardner LLP Claire Marblestone assessed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ final rule that bars providers, health plans, and other entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act from disclosing protected health information in a Healthcare Dive article.