Lochmann Discusses Emerging Issue for Upcoming Proxy Season
11 January 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
13 January 2025
In the News
Matthew Krueger Assesses Government Health Care Enforcement Focuses for 2025
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Matthew Krueger assessed several key government health care enforcement targets for the year ahead in the Report on Medicare Compliance article, "Outlook 2025: Look for MA Cases Based on Claim Denials; Incoming DOJ May Tweak Guidance," published by the Health Care Compliance Association.
13 January 2025
In the News
Aaron Maguregui on HHS Cybersecurity Revamp – 'Going to be added costs across the board'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui assessed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) proposed overhaul of its cybersecurity rules in the Bloomberg Law article, "Health Supply-Chain Hacks Targeted by HHS Cybersecurity Rule."
13 January 2025
In the News
Judith Waltz Describes Potential Health Policy Changes Under New Administration
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Judith Waltz commented on potential health policy changes under the incoming presidential administration in the Report on Medicare Compliance article, "Outlook 2025: Disruption Is Expected, Along With More OIG Guidance, Payment Changes," published by the Health Care Compliance Association.