Lochmann Discusses Emerging Issue for Upcoming Proxy Season
January 11, 2018
Boston Business Journal
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
July 24, 2025
In the News
Foley's Trial Team Featured Following Landmark Victory in Texas Trade Secret Case
Foley & Lardner LLP’s recent landmark appellate victory in a Texas trade secrets case is featured in the Texas Lawyer article, "Ruling Sets Precedent for Employment, Trade Secrets, Fiduciary Duty."
July 24, 2025
In the News
Gregory Husisian and David Simon on Tariff Evasion – 'Huge money at stake'
Foley & Lardner LLP partners Gregory Husisian and David Simon detailed the rise and risks of tariff evasion in the POLITICO article, "As Trump raises tariffs, companies find ways to cheat — and risk getting caught."
July 23, 2025
In the News
Aaron Maguregui on AI Scribes in Health Care – 'Technically, it's a third party listening'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui shared insights on the growing applications for artificial intelligence across health care in the healthleaders article, “Is Your AI Scribe HIPAA-Compliant?“