Comp Committee Chairs: Get Help

Comp Committee Chairs:  Get Help Among the many requirements for Compensation Committees under Dodd-Frank is the heightened independence standard they must satisfy for any comp consultants.  The Comp Committee has the authority to appoint, compensate and oversee compensation and other consultants.  For most board members, “other consultants” or advisors would translate “attorneys.” Yet, what a chance for Comp Committees to get some real communication help.

If ever there was a time for compensation committees to clearly and credibly communicate, given the scrutiny they are under for creating and approving executive compensation, it would seem to be this proxy season.  The first step in “Say on Pay” would be for the committee to clearly articulate their decisions in arriving at the executive compensation decisions. It gives them an important chance to “tell their story.”

“Directors must ensure that the CD&A—which is the primary tool for shareholders to understand executive pay—is straightforward, complete and written in plain English,” said Warren Batts, veteran CEO, chairman, director and NACD “Director of the Year” in a blog on executive compensation. “In addition, directors need to respond to shareholder questions and concerns as quickly as possible.  I have stood up as chairman of the Compensation Committee more than once to explain what we were doing and why—and never had a negative comment afterwards.”

Compensation Committees that take the time to carefully explain the philosophy and background of its decisions is a sign of respect for shareholders.  Getting advice on how clearly you’ve accomplished that assignment could be the most cost-effective risk mitigation tool of the season.

CEOs, Help Your Board Prepare for Proxy Season

proxy seasonDear CEO,

Have you given your board the tools it needs to navigate the coming proxy season?  It’s up to you to see that your board is prepared.

The Dodd-Frank Act creates new requirements for board disclosure and greater transparency.  Governance power has shifted to shareholders, who are now empowered to hold boards and management accountable. How your board moves forward in this new environment is critical.

CEOs need to see their boards as helping them to restore confidence in the system. If you wear the mantle of both CEO and chairman, it’s even more critical that you set the tone for clear disclosure and genuine engagement with shareholders. It sends a signal that you respect their importance in the long-term health of the organization.

The new disclosure rules encourage boards to build trust with shareholders through the application of sound principles, transparent communications and actively engaging with them to secure a favorable vote. Board members will need to become better communicators.  But they need guidance in demonstrating independence and credible oversight.  Some basic communication planning should begin now.

What may prove to be a best in class approach is for the board to articulate its principles, its own “Articles of Governance” to serve as the source for board communication and shareholder engagement.  By reviewing its current identity, which resides in governance and legal documents, the board can craft a comprehensive board governance doctrine that prepares the board for the upcoming proxy season and beyond.

This proactive approach enables the board to discuss and decide in advance how it will handle critical issues.  By working through issues in an atmosphere of calm, the board is better prepared to face a crisis and even avoid or mitigate one.

Disclosure in governance is an area we understand well and we would be happy to assist you.

Even Lawyers Are Telling Directors, It’s Time to Communicate

proxyaccessDuring a NACD Webinar, DC in the Boardroom:  A Board Level Briefing on Proxy Access, the three attorney panelists—David Caplan a partner at Davis Polk & Wardell, John Gorman, partner at Luse Gorman and former Special Counsel, SEC Division of Corporation Finance and Annette L. Nazareth, also a partner at Davis, Polk & Wardell and  former SEC Commissioner, all agreed that directors should enhance their communication with shareholders.  They also agreed that the time to act is now.

During this period leading up to the proxy season, directors should be engaging in some form of self-evaluation to understand what their vulnerabilities are—do shareholders have concerns about executive compensation, the capabilities of the current board of directors or other governance issues? 

Nazareth reminded the participants that “investor protections has been a focus of the SEC and one way of ensuring protection is good corporate governance.”  

Directors should “consider ways to enhance shareholder communication so that you’re not in the position of your 3% shareholders feeling that they need to nominate their own directors because they are not being represented appropriately by the current board.”

Even Lawyers Are Telling Directors, It's Time to Communicate

proxyaccessDuring a NACD Webinar, DC in the Boardroom:  A Board Level Briefing on Proxy Access, the three attorney panelists—David Caplan a partner at Davis Polk & Wardell, John Gorman, partner at Luse Gorman and former Special Counsel, SEC Division of Corporation Finance and Annette L. Nazareth, also a partner at Davis, Polk & Wardell and  former SEC Commissioner, all agreed that directors should enhance their communication with shareholders.  They also agreed that the time to act is now.

During this period leading up to the proxy season, directors should be engaging in some form of self-evaluation to understand what their vulnerabilities are—do shareholders have concerns about executive compensation, the capabilities of the current board of directors or other governance issues? 

Nazareth reminded the participants that “investor protections has been a focus of the SEC and one way of ensuring protection is good corporate governance.”  

Directors should “consider ways to enhance shareholder communication so that you’re not in the position of your 3% shareholders feeling that they need to nominate their own directors because they are not being represented appropriately by the current board.”

Directors, Do You have a Shareholder Engagement Program?

Directors, Do You have a Shareholder Engagement Program? With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, power has shifted to shareholders.  The 2011 proxy season is a game-changer as the rules require boards to seek shareholder support for compensation programs and even directorship candidates.

Directors, do you have a shareholder engagement program? Have you reviewed and assessed the board capacity for shareholder communication and dialogue?  Have you discussed how you will handle increased dialogue and interaction with shareholders?

The board world has changed.  Shareholders have greater power to influence board composition and executive pay based on the provisions of Dodd-Frank for proxy access, say on pay, limits on broker discretionary voting.

By remaining silent, boards increase the power of proxy advisors as the only independent guidance to shareholders on how to vote.  Boards increasingly need to engage with key shareholders, initiating communication and dialogue.

Get started now.

Directors Face a Changed World

Directors Face a Changed WorldAs Ira Millstein told directors on a recent NACD/Weil webinar on the Dodd-Frank Act, they must align with the owners of the company, the shareholders. He advised directors “not to make believe” or “live in a dream world” because governance power has already shifted to shareholders and it’s not going to be the way it was ever again.

The context for this change is the “new normal”, a term coined by economists that characterizes an environment of high unemployment, slow growth, consumer distress, overly careful investors and long-term owners who will seek growth where they can find it. This is a challenging environment in which to serve as a director.

Millstein sees the changes wrought by the Dodd-Frank Act as tectonic, making Sarbanes-Oxley look like child’s play.

But directors shouldn’t wait until the final rules of the Act are written.  Rather, they should engage with their shareholders now.  He cited the fulsome letter that the Prudential board wrote in the proxy, introducing their thoughts on compensation. While Millstein believes directors should know what their shareholders think, he doesn’t believe that they have to agree with them.  “Explain why the board has a different view.  That seems to me perfectly rational.”

He noted that there was a huge amount to do in communication with shareholders and boards should get ready to engage. Now.

Opportunity for the HP Board

Mark HurdAfter ousting HP CEO Mark Hurd for his indiscretion with a marketing contractor, falsifying expenses to conceal his relationship, and thereby failing to live up to the HP code of conduct, the Hewlett-Packard board has a chance to demonstrate to shareholders and the public that they intend to revive and enforce “tone at the top” of the storied Silicon Valley company.

Hurd and his predecessor, Carly Fiorina, who was also fired by the board, brought new meaning to the HP Way.  Certainly, it was a different company than when brilliant engineers and founders William Hewlett and David Packard were at work in the company. Their instinctive style of “managing by walking around” would be almost impossible to replicate. Fiorina, ambitious and eager to make her mark aggressively drove the Compaq merger while a subplot revealed that the HP board had its own problems as chairwoman Patricia Dunn stepped down facing felony charges. After the scandal, Hurd’s success was welcomed even if he took a cost-cutting and execution style approach to management.

With Hurd occupying both the Chairman and CEO role, Robert Ryan has served as lead director since 2008.  But it has been Mark Andreessen handling the Hurd resignation.  As the founder of another storied company, Andreessen has the gravitas to insist on a leader that not only performs well but behaves well.

Andreessen is given to greater transparency as well as sensitivity to culture and a larger group of stakeholders including investors, employees and the larger public given that he is an under-40 wildly successful entrepreneur now leading a company that provides a platform for social networking websites.

Andreessen is the spark that HP needs at this time, setting the tone and communicating what the board is doing on behalf of shareholders and stakeholders.

Dodd-Frank Reflects ‘New Normal’–"Boards Are the Problem"

Dodd-Frank Reflects 'New Normal'--"Boards Are the Problem"“We’re seeing a sea-change in the environment of shareholder empowerment,” said Holly Gregory, Weil Gotshal partner and governance expert. “The Dodd-Frank bill accelerates a fundamental change, a new normal in the balance of governance power. “ She went on to note that the eighth anniversary of Sarbanes Oxley, enacted during the aftermath of WorldCom and Enron debacles,  boards were seen as the solution to the failures in corporate accountability. “In sharp contrast the new legislation reflects the view that boards are the problem and shareholders must be empowered to hold boards accountable.”

Gregory made these remarks on a National Association of Corporate Directors and Weil Gotshal webinar attended by hundreds of directors on Friday as boards try to gain a better understanding of the requirements that the new legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law on July 21, 2010.

“I want to emphasize that the theme within the legislation is that boards are the problem,” said Gregory.

Boards are well advised to recognize that the implementation of the legislation will fundamentally change their interactions with shareholders.  For directors who have eschewed any contact with shareholders, they must engage with shareholders in meaningful ways to elicit their support.  The sooner and more intelligently that they begin this dialogue, the better for them.

Dodd-Frank Reflects ‘New Normal’–“Boards Are the Problem”

Dodd-Frank Reflects 'New Normal'--"Boards Are the Problem"“We’re seeing a sea-change in the environment of shareholder empowerment,” said Holly Gregory, Weil Gotshal partner and governance expert. “The Dodd-Frank bill accelerates a fundamental change, a new normal in the balance of governance power. “ She went on to note that the eighth anniversary of Sarbanes Oxley, enacted during the aftermath of WorldCom and Enron debacles,  boards were seen as the solution to the failures in corporate accountability. “In sharp contrast the new legislation reflects the view that boards are the problem and shareholders must be empowered to hold boards accountable.”

Gregory made these remarks on a National Association of Corporate Directors and Weil Gotshal webinar attended by hundreds of directors on Friday as boards try to gain a better understanding of the requirements that the new legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law on July 21, 2010.

“I want to emphasize that the theme within the legislation is that boards are the problem,” said Gregory.

Boards are well advised to recognize that the implementation of the legislation will fundamentally change their interactions with shareholders.  For directors who have eschewed any contact with shareholders, they must engage with shareholders in meaningful ways to elicit their support.  The sooner and more intelligently that they begin this dialogue, the better for them.

Does “Corporate Democracy” Mean Dysfunction?

With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, board service organizations are conducting Webinars to help directors understand the changes.  The director moderating a recent session noted that it was difficult for shareholders to nominate their own directors, but said it was unclear to him why it was a problem and why Congress had done anything to to authorize the SEC to change the rules. democracy

board of directors“I’d hate to think that the U.S. corporate world will become as dysfunctional as the U.S. Senate,” he said, referring to “this monstrosity ” of legislation.  His questions to his fellow panel members reflected his belief that new regulations were going to stifle performance.  “This is meant to encourage dialogue with shareholders, which is an important principle of the legislation,” the panelist replied.

It turns out the moderating director has  the  educational and legal experience that boards seek.  But he’s 70 years old.  He has served on his current board since 1977.  The other director who joined the board with him is 86 and a third director, who is 83, joined the board in 1959.  There are younger board members–74, 62, 52 and 46.  But clearly, this is a board that needs to renew itself.

The world has changed.  Board work has changed.  It requires recognition of the important role that shareholders play in governance.  The director may be an esteemed professional but he has missed the last ten years of shareholder activism, brought about because boards turned a deaf ear to shareholders.