# Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation and Golden Parachute Compensation > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-26535 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** October 28, 2010 - **Citation:** 75 FR 66590 ## Text SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 229, 240, and 249 [Release Nos. 33-9153; 34-63124; File No. S7-31-10] RIN 3235-AK68 Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation and Golden Parachute Compensation AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing amendments to our rules to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to shareholder approval of executive compensation and “golden parachute” compensation arrangements. Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding Section 14A, which requires companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K or any successor to Item 402. Section 14A also requires companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to determine how often an issuer will conduct a shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation. In addition, Section 14A requires companies soliciting votes to approve merger or acquisition transactions to provide disclosure of certain “golden parachute” compensation arrangements and, in certain circumstances, to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the golden parachute compensation arrangements. DATES: Comments should be received on or before November 18, 2010. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml ); • Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov . Please include File Number S7-31-10 on the subject line; or • Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-31-10. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml ). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hodgdon, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-3430, Anne Krauskopf, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3500, or Perry Hindin, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3440, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are proposing new Rule 14a-21 and amendments to Rules 14a-4, 1 14a-6, 2 14a-8 3 and a new Item 24 and amendments to Item 5 to Schedule 14A 4 and amendments to Item 3 to Schedule 14C 5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 6 We are also proposing amendments to Item 402 7 of Regulation S-K, 8 Item 1011 9 of Regulation M-A, 10 Item 15 of Schedule 13E-3, 11 Item 8 of Schedule 14D-9, 12 Item 9B in Part II of Form 10-K, 13 and Item 5(c) in Part II of Form 10-Q. 14 1 17 CFR 240.14a-4. 2 17 CFR 240.14a-6. 3 17 CFR 240.14a-8. 4 17 CFR 240.14a-101. 5 17 CFR 240.14c-101. 6 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 7 17 CFR 229.402. 8 17 CFR 229.10 et seq. 9 17 CFR 229.1011. 10 17 CFR 229.1000 et seq. 11 17 CFR 240.13e-100. 12 17 CFR 240.14d-101. 13 17 CFR 249.310. 14 17 CFR 249.308a. Table of Contents I. Background and Summary II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendments A. Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation 1. Proposed Rule 14a-21(a) 2. Proposed Item 24 to Schedule 14A 3. Proposed Amendments to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K B. Shareholder Approval of the Frequency of Shareholder Votes on Executive Compensation 1. Proposed Rule 14a-21(b) 2. Proposed Item 24 of Schedule 14A 3. Proposed Amendment to Rule 14a-4 4. Proposed Amendment to Rule 14a-8 5. Proposed Amendments to Form 10-K and Form 10-Q 6. Effect of Shareholder Vote C. Issues Relating to Both Shareholder Votes Required by Section 14A(a) 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 14a-6 2. Broker Discretionary Voting 3. Relationship to Shareholder Votes on Executive Compensation for TARP Companies D. Disclosure of Golden Parachute Arrangements and Shareholder Approval of Golden Parachute Arrangements 1. General 2. Proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K 3. Amendments to Schedule 14A, Schedule 14C, Schedule 14D-9, Schedule 13E-3, and Item 1011 of Regulation M-A 4. Proposed Rule 14a-21(c) E. Treatment of Smaller Companies F. Transition Matters G. General Request for Comment III. Paperwork Reduction Act A. Background B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Proposed Amendments C. Request for Comment IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis A. Introduction B. Benefits C. Costs D. Request for Comment V. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act VI. Consideration of Impact on the Economy, Burden on Competition, and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action B. Legal Basis C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Action D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules F. Significant Alternatives G. Solicitation of Comments VIII. Statutory Authority and Text of the Proposed Amendments I. Background and Summary Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) 15 amends the Exchange Act by adding new Section 14A. New Section 14A(a)(1) requires that “[n]ot less frequently than once every 3 years, a proxy or consent or authorization for an annual or other meeting of the shareholders for which the proxy solicitation rules of the Commission require compensation disclosure” 16 must also “include a separate resolution subject to shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives,” 17 as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, or any successor to Item 402 (a “say-on-pay” vote). The shareholder vote to approve executive compensation required by Section 14A(a)(1) “shall not be binding on the issuer or the board of directors of an issuer.” 18 15 Public Law 111-203 (July 21, 2010). 16 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(1). Section 951 of the Act includes the language “or other meeting of the shareholders,” which is similar to corresponding language in Section 111(e)(1) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or EESA, 12 U.S.C. 5221. We have previously considered this language in connection with companies required to provide a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation so long as the company has outstanding obligations under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. See Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation of TARP Recipients, Release No. 34-61335 (Jan. 12, 2010) [75 FR 2789] (hereinafter, the “TARP Adopting Release”). We continue to view this provision to require a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation only with respect to an annual meeting of shareholders for which proxies will be solicited for the election of directors, or a special meeting in lieu of such annual meeting. Similarly, proposed Rules 14a-21(a) and (b) are intended to result in issuers conducting the required advisory votes in connection with the election of directors, the proxy materials for which are required to include disclosure of executive compensation. 17 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(1). 18 Exchange Act Section 14A(c). Section 951 of the Act also adds new Section 14A(a)(2) to the Exchange Act, requiring that, “[n]ot less frequently than once every 6 years, a proxy or consent or authorization for an annual or other meeting of the shareholders for which the proxy solicitation rules of the Commission require compensation disclosure shall include a separate resolution subject to shareholder vote to determine” 19 whether the shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives “will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years.” 20 As discussed below, this shareholder vote “shall not be binding on the issuer or the board of directors of an issuer.” 21 19 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(2). 20 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(2). 21 Exchange Act Section 14A(c). In addition, Section 951 of the Act amends the Exchange Act by adding new Section 14A(b)(1), which requires that, in any proxy or consent solicitation material for a meeting of shareholders “at which shareholders are asked to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or proposed sale or other disposition of all or substantially all the assets of an issuer, the person making such solicitation shall disclose in the proxy or consent solicitation material, in a clear and simple form in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission, any agreements or understandings that such person has with any named executive officers of such issuer (or of the acquiring issuer, if such issuer is not the acquiring issuer) concerning any type of compensation (whether present, deferred, or contingent) that is based on or otherwise relates to the acquisition, merger, consolidation, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the issuer.” 22 These compensation arrangements are often referred to as “golden parachute” compensation. Such disclosure must include the aggregate total of all such compensation that may be paid or become payable to or on behalf of such named executive officer, and the conditions upon which it may be paid or become payable. 23 Under Section 14A(b)(2), “unless such agreements or understandings have been subject to [the periodic vote described in Section 14A(a)(1)],” 24 a separate shareholder vote to approve such agreements or understandings and compensation as disclosed is also required. 25 As with the annual shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives and the shareholder vote on the frequency of such votes, this shareholder vote “shall not be binding on the issuer or the board of directors of an issuer.” 26 22 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). 23 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). 24 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(2). 25 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(2). 26 Exchange Act Section 14A(c). For a more detailed discussion of the advisory nature of the shareholder votes required by Section 951 of the Act, see Section II.B.6 below. None of the shareholder votes required pursuant to Section 14A (including the shareholder vote to approve executive compensation, the shareholder vote on the frequency of such votes, and the shareholder vote to approve golden parachute compensation) is binding on an issuer or its board of directors or is to be construed “as overruling a decision by such issuer or board of directors.” 27 These shareholder votes also do not “create or imply any change to the fiduciary duties of such issuer or board of directors” 28 nor do they “create or imply any additional fiduciary duties for such issuer or board of directors.” 29 In addition, these votes will not be construed “to restrict or limit the ability of shareholders to make proposals for inclusion in proxy materials related to executive compensation.” 30 27 Exchange Act Section 14A(c)(1). 28 Exchange Act Section 14A(c)(2). 29 Exchange Act Section 14A(c)(3). 30 Exchange Act Section 14A(c)(4). In addition, Exchange Act Section 14A(d) provides that every institutional manager subject to Exchange Act Section 13(f) [15 U.S.C. 78m(f)] shall report at least annually how it voted on any shareholder vote required by Section 951 of the Act, including the shareholder vote on executive compensation, the shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation, and the golden parachute compensation vote, unless such vote is otherwise required to be reported publicly by rule or regulation of the Commission. Amendments to our rules to implement this requirement will be proposed in a separate rulemaking. Section 14A(a)(3) requires that both the initial shareholder vote on executive compensation and the initial vote on the frequency of votes on executive compensation be included in proxy statements “for the first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring after the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment” of the Act. 31 Thus, the statute requires separate resolutions subject to shareholder vote to approve executive compensation and to approve the frequency of say-on-pay votes for proxy statements relating to an issuer's first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011, whether or not the Commission has adopted rules to implement Section 14A(a). Because Section 14A(a) applies to shareholder meetings taking place on or after January 21, 2011, any proxy statements, whether in preliminary or definitive form, even if filed prior to this date, for meetings taking place on or after January 21, 2011, must include the separate resolutions for shareholders to approve executive compensation and the frequency of say-on-pay votes required by Section 14A(a) without regard to whether the amendments proposed in this release have been adopted by that time. 32 31 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(3). 32 For a discussion of the relationship between Section 14A and the required shareholder votes on executive compensation for companies subject to EESA with outstanding obligations under TARP, see Section II.C.3 below. With respect to the disclosure of golden parachute arrangements in accordance with Commission regulations in merger proxy statements required by Section 14A(b)(1), we note that the statute similarly references a 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act. However, because the statute requires such disclosure “in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission,” 33 the golden parachute compensation arrangements disclosure under proposed new Item 402(t) and a separate resolution to approve golden parachute compensation arrangements pursuant to Rule 14a-21(c) would not be required for merger proxy statements relating to a meeting of shareholders until the effective date of our rules implementing Section 14A(b)(1). 33 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). We are proposing Rule 14a-21 to provide a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation, to approve the frequency of such votes on executive compensation and to approve golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with merger transactions. We are also proposing a new Item 24 of Schedule 14A to provide disclosure regarding the effect of the shareholder votes required by Rule 14a-21, including disclosure of the non-binding nature of the votes. In addition, our proposed amendments to Item 5 of Schedule 14A, Item 3 of Schedule 14C, Item 1011 of Regulation M-A, Item 8 of Schedule 14D-9, and Item 15 of Schedule 13E-3 would require additional disclosure regarding golden parachute arrangements in connection with mergers, Rule 13e-3 34 going-private transactions and tender offers. 34 17 CFR 240.13e-3. We are also proposing amendments to Item 402 of Regulation S-K to address the issuer's response to the shareholder vote on executive compensation in Compensation Discussion and Analysis, and to prescribe disclosure about golden parachute compensation arrangements in proposed new Item 402(t). Finally, we are proposing amendments to Form 10-K and Form 10-Q to require disclosure about whether and how the issuer will implement the results of the shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation. II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendments A. Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation 1. Proposed Rule 14a-21(a) We are proposing Rule 14a-21(a), pursuant to which issuers 35 would be required, not less frequently than once every three years, to provide a separate shareholder advisory vote in proxy statements to approve the compensation of executives. Proposed Rule 14a-21(a) would specify that the separate shareholder vote on executive compensation is required only when proxies are solicited for an annual or other meeting of security holders for which our rules require the disclosure of executive compensation pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K. Proposed Rule 14a-21(a) would require a separate shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives for the first annual or other such meeting of shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011, 36 the first day after the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act. 35 Our proposed rules would apply to issuers who have a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 [15 U.S.C. 78 l ] of the Exchange Act and are subject to our proxy rules. The application of this provision to companies subject to EESA with outstanding obligations under TARP is discussed in Section II.C.3 below. 36 Section 14A(a)(3) requires the shareholder advisory votes beginning with “the first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring after the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment” of Section 951 of the Act. The Act was enacted on July 21, 2010. Proposed Rule 14a-21(a) would specify how an issuer must provide a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of its named executive officers, as defined in Item 402(a)(3) 37 of Regulation S-K. In accordance with Section 14A(a)(1), shareholders would vote to approve the compensation of the issuer's named executive officers, as such compensation is disclosed in Item 402 38 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”), the compensation tables and other narrative executive compensation disclosures required by Item 402. 39 Smaller reporting companies 40 are subject to scaled executive compensation disclosure requirements and are not required to include a CD&A. Therefore, for smaller reporting companies, the shareholders would vote to approve the compensation of the named executive officers, as disclosed under Items 402(m) 41 through 402(q) 42 of Regulation S-K. We are also proposing an instruction to new Rule 14a-21 to specify that Rule 14a-21 does not change the scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies and that smaller reporting companies would not be required to provide a CD&A in order to comply with Rule 14a-21. 43 37 17 CFR 229.402(a)(3). 38 If disclosure of golden parachute compensation arrangements pursuant to proposed Item 402(t) is included in an annual meeting proxy statement, such disclosure would be included in the disclosure subject to the shareholder advisory vote under Rule 14a-21(a). We are not proposing, however, to require that such disclosure under Item 402(t) be included in all annual meeting proxy statements. 39 While not required, our rules “would not preclude an issuer from seeking more specific shareholder opinion through separate votes on cash compensation, golden parachute policy, severance or other aspects of compensation.” See Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111-176 at 133 (2010). 40 As defined in Rule 12b-2 [17 CFR 240.12b-2], these generally are companies with a public float of less than $75 million as of the last day of their most recently completed second fiscal quarter. 41 17 CFR 229.402(m). 42 17 CFR 229.402(q). 43 In connection with the shareholder vote on executive compensation for companies subject to EESA with outstanding obligations under TARP, we adopted a similar instruction to Rule 14a-20. See TARP Adopting Release, supra note 16, at 75 FR 2795. Consistent with Section 14A, the compensation of directors, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402(k) 44 and by Item 402(r) 45 is not subject to the shareholder advisory vote. In addition, if an issuer includes disclosure pursuant to Item 402(s) 46 of Regulation S-K about the issuer's compensation policies and practices as they relate to risk management and risk-taking incentives, these policies and practices would not be subject to the shareholder advisory vote required by Section 14A(a)(1) as they relate to the issuer's compensation for employees generally. We note, however, that to the extent that risk considerations are a material aspect of the issuer's compensation policies or decisions for named executive officers, the issuer is required to discuss them as part of its CD&A, 47 and therefore such disclosure would be considered by shareholders when voting on executive compensation. 44 17 CFR 229.402(k). 45 17 CFR 229.402(r). 46 17 CFR 229.402(s). 47 See Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, Release No. 33-9089 (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334] at note 38. Our proposed rule would not require issuers to use any specific language or form of resolution to be voted on by shareholders. However, the shareholder vote must relate to all executive compensation disclosure set forth pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K. New Section 14A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires that the shareholder vote must be “to approve the compensation of executives, as disclosed pursuant to [Item 402 of Regulation S-K] or any successor thereto.” 48 In our view, a vote to approve a proposal on a different subject matter, such as a vote to approve only compensation policies and procedures, would not satisfy the requirement of Section 14A(a)(1) or proposed Rule 14a-21(a). 49 48 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(1). 49 See the corresponding discussion in the TARP Adopting Release, supra note 16, at 75 FR 2791, note 14. Request for Comment (1) Should we include more specific requirements regarding the manner in which issuers should present the shareholder vote on executive compensation? For example, should we designate the specific language to be used and/or require issuers to frame the shareholder vote to approve executive compensation in the form of a resolution? If so, what specific language or form of resolution should be used? (2) Would it be appropriate to exempt smaller reporting companies from the shareholder vote to approve executive compensation? Please explain the reasons why an exemption would, or would not, be appropriate. Would the proposed amendments be disproportionately burdensome for smaller reporting companies? 50 50 Section 951 of the Act establishes a new Section 14A(e) of the Exchange Act, which provides that we may, by rule or order, exempt an issuer or class of issuers from the requirements of Section 14A(a) and (b). In determining whether to make an exemption under this subsection, we are directed to take into account, among other considerations, whether the requirements of Section 14A(a) and 14A(b) disproportionately burden small issuers. We are also soliciting comment on a number of issues relating to smaller reporting companies as discussed further in Section II.E below. (3) Should we establish compliance dates to phase-in effectiveness of our proposed rules? Are there other transition issues that our rules should address? (4) Section 14A(a)(1), like Section 111(e) of the EESA, does not specify which shares are entitled to vote in the shareholder vote to approve executive compensation, nor does this section direct the Commission to adopt rules addressing this point. As in our implementation of EESA Section 111(e), we are not proposing to address this question in our rules. Should our rules implementing Section 14A(a)(1) address this question? If so, how, and on what basis? 2. Proposed Item 24 to Schedule 14A We are also proposing a new Item 24 to Schedule 14A. Pursuant to this item, issuers would be required to disclose in a proxy statement for an annual meeting (or other meeting of shareholders for which our rules require executive compensation disclosure) that they are providing a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation and to briefly explain the general effect of the vote, such as whether the vote is non-binding. 51 This is similar to the approach taken by the Commission in connection with disclosure requirements about the shareholder vote on executive compensation for companies subject to EESA. 52 51 Section 14A(a) does not require additional disclosure with respect to the non-binding nature of the vote. We are proposing to require additional disclosure so that information about the advisory nature of the vote is available to shareholders before they vote. 52 See Item 20 of Schedule 14A; TARP Adopting Release, supra note 16, at 75 FR 2790. Request for Comment (5) Are there other disclosures that should be provided by issuers regarding the shareholder vote on executive compensation? If so, what kinds of disclosure would be useful to shareholders? 3. Proposed Amendments to Item 402(b) 53 of Regulation S-K 53 17 CFR 229.402(b). In connection with our implementation of Section 14A(a)(1), we are also proposing amendments to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K. Item 402 requires the disclosure of executive compensation and includes requirements prescribing narrative and tabular disclosure, as well as separate scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies. 54 Item 402(b) contains the CD&A requirement. CD&A is intended to be a narrative overview that puts into context the executive compensation disclosure provided elsewhere in response to the requirements of Item 402. The CD&A disclosure requirement is principles-based, in that it identifies the disclosure concept and provides several non-exclusive examples. Under Item 402(b)(1), issuers must explain all material elements of their named executive officers' compensation by addressing mandatory principles-based topics in their CD&A: 54 Item 402 also includes requirements to disclose director compensation (Items 402(k) and 402(r)) and the issuer's compensation policies as they relate to risk management (Item 402(s)). As noted above, disclosure pursuant to these paragraphs is beyond the scope of the shareholder advisory vote to approve executive compensation. Similarly, as noted in note 38 above, disclosure pursuant to proposed Item 402(t) is beyond the scope of the shareholder advisory vote to approve executive compensation unless the issuer includes that disclosure in its annual meeting proxy statement. • What are the objectives of the company's compensation programs? • What is the compensation program designed to reward? • What is each element of compensation? • Why does the company choose to pay each element? • How does the company determine the amount (and, where applicable, the formula) for each element? • How do each element and the company's decisions regarding that element fit into the company's overall compensation objectives and affect decisions regarding other elements? Item 402(b)(2) of Regulation S-K sets forth certain non-exclusive examples of the kind of information that an issuer should address in its CD&A, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Our proposals would amend Item 402(b) to require issuers to address in CD&A whether and, if so, how their compensation policies and decisions have taken into account the results of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. This proposed new disclosure is not mandated by Section 951 of the Act, but we believe that a requirement to provide that information would facilitate better investor understanding of issuers' compensation decisions. We note that the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation will apply to all issuers, and as a result, we view information about how issuers have responded to such votes as more in the nature of a mandatory principles-based topic than an example. The manner in which individual issuers may respond to such votes in determining executive compensation policies and decisions will likely vary depending upon facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the proposal would amend Item 402(b)(1) to require issuers to address in CD&A whether, and if so, how they have considered the results of previous shareholder votes on executive compensation required by Section 14A and Rule 14a-20 55 in determining compensation policies and decisions and, if so, how that consideration has affected their compensation policies and decisions. 56 55 17 CFR 240.14a-20. Because companies with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP will continue to have an annual say-on-pay vote until they repay all such indebtedness, we are proposing that these votes be addressed by issuers in CD&A as well. The treatment of companies subject to EESA with outstanding obligations under TARP is discussed in Section II.C.3 below. 56 Reporting companies are currently required to disclose, pursuant to Item 5.07 of Form 8-K [17 CFR 249.208a], the results of a shareholder vote within four business days after the end of the meeting at which the vote is held. We are not proposing any additional disclosure on Form 8-K for a company to discuss the results of the votes required by Exchange Act Section 14A, though companies may voluntarily provide additional disclosure. Smaller reporting companies are subject to scaled disclosure requirements in Item 402 of Regulation S-K and are not required to include a CD&A. We are not proposing to add a specific requirement for smaller reporting companies to provide disclosure about how previous votes pursuant to Section 14A affected compensation policies and decisions because we believe such information would not be as valuable outside the context of a complete CD&A covering the full range of matters required to be addressed by Item 402(b). However, we note that pursuant to Item 402(o) 57 of Regulation S-K, smaller reporting companies are required to provide a narrative description of any material factors necessary to an understanding of the information disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table. If consideration of prior executive compensation advisory votes is such a factor for a particular issuer, disclosure would be required pursuant to Item 402(o). 57 17 CFR 229.402(o). Request for Comment (6) Should we amend Item 402(b) to require disclosure of the consideration of the results of the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation in CD&A as proposed? If not, please explain why not. (7) Should the requirement to discuss the issuer's consideration of the results of the shareholder vote be included in Item 402(b)(1) as a mandatory principles-based topic, as proposed, or should it be included in Item 402(b)(2) as a non-exclusive example of information that should be addressed, depending upon materiality under the individual facts and circumstances? In this regard, commentators should explain the reasons why they recommend either approach. (8) Should the proposed requirement for CD&A discussion of the issuer's consideration of previous shareholder advisory votes be revised to relate only to consideration of the most recent shareholder advisory votes? (9) For smaller reporting companies, should we instead require disclosure to address the consideration of previous shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation? Would such information be valuable outside the context of a complete CD&A? Would the existing requirements under Item 402(o) of Regulation S-K, pursuant to which smaller reporting companies must provide a narrative disclosure of any material factors necessary to an understanding of the information disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table, be sufficient information for investors in smaller reporting companies? B. Shareholder Approval of the Frequency of Shareholder Votes on Executive Compensation 1. Proposed Rule 14a-21(b) Under proposed Rule 14a-21(b), issuers would be required, not less frequently than once every six years, to provide a separate shareholder advisory vote in proxy statements for annual meetings to determine whether the shareholder vote on the compensation of executives required by Section 14A(a)(1) “will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years.” 58 Proposed Rule 14a-21(b) would also clarify that the separate shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation would be required only in a proxy statement solicited for an annual or other meeting of shareholders for which our rules require compensation disclosure. 59 Under proposed Rule 14a-21(b), issuers would be required to provide the separate shareholder vote on the frequency of the say-on-pay vote for the first annual or other such meeting of shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011. 60 58 Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(2). 59 As discussed above in note 16, proposed Rule 14a-21(b) would require issuers to conduct the required advisory vote in connection with the election of directors, when our rules call for disclosure of executive compensation. In our view, a separate shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation is required only with respect to an annual meeting of shareholders for which proxies will be solicited for the election of directors or a special meeting in lieu of such annual meeting. 60 See Section II.C.3 below for a discussion of the application of this section to companies subject to EESA with outstanding obligations under TARP. Request for Comment (10) Should we include more specific requirements regarding the manner in which issuers should present the shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation? For example, should we designate the specific language to be used and/or require issuers to frame the shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes to approve executive compensation in the form of a resolution? If so, what specific language or form of resolution should be used? (11) Should a new issuer be permitted to disclose the frequency of its say-on-pay votes in the registration statement for its initial public offering and be exempted from conducting say-on-pay and frequency votes until the year disclosed? For example, if an issuer discloses in its initial public offering prospectus that it will conduct a say-on-pay vote every two years, should we exempt it from the requirements of Section 14A(a)(1) and 14A(a)(2) for its first annual meeting as a reporting company? (12) Section 14A(a)(2) does not specify which shares are entitled to vote in the shareholder vote on the frequency of the shareholder vote to approve executive compensation, nor does this section direct the Commission to adopt rules addressing this point. We are not proposing to address this question in our rules, but should our rules implementing Section 14A(a)(2) address this question? If so, how, and on what basis? 2. Proposed Item 24 of Schedule 14A In addition to disclosure regarding the vote on executive compensation, issuers would be required to disclose in the proxy statement that they are providing a separate shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation. Item 24 of Schedule 14A would also require issuers to briefly explain the general effect of this vote, such as whether the vote is non-binding. 61 As noted above, this is similar to the approach taken by the Commission in connection with disclosure requirements about the shareholder vote on executive compensation for companies subject to EESA. 61 As discussed above in note 51, Section 14A(a) does not require additional disclosure with respect to the non-binding nature of the vote. We are proposing to require additional disclosure so that information about the advisory nature of the vote is available to shareholders before they vote. Request for Comment (13) Should we require disclosure about the general effect of this shareholder advisory vote? Is such disclosure useful to shareholders? (14) Are there other disclosures that should be provided by issuers regarding the shareholder vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes? If so, what kinds of disclosure would be useful to shareholders? 3. Proposed Amendment to Rule 14a-4 Section 14A(a)(2) requires a shareholder advisory vote on whether say-on-pay votes will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years. Thus, shareholders must be given four choices: Whether the shareholder vote on executive compensation will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years, or to abstain from voting on the matter. In our view, Section 14A(a)(2) does not allow for alternative formulations of the shareholder vote, such as proposals that would provide shareholders with two substantive choices ( e.g., to hold a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation every year or less frequently), or only one choice ( e.g., a company proposal to hold shareholder votes every two years). We would expect that the board of directors will include a recommendation as to how shareholders should vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation. However, the issuer must make clear in these circumstances that the proxy card provides for four choices (every 1, 2, or 3 years, or abstain) and that shareholders are not voting to approve or disapprove the issuer's recommendation. Accordingly, we are proposing amendments to our proxy rules to reflect the statutory requirement that shareholders must be provided the opportunity to cast an advisory vote on whether the shareholder vote on executive compensation required by Section 14A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years, or to abstain from voting on the matter. 62 62 Because the shareholder vote on the frequency of voting on executive compensation is advisory, we do not believe that it is necessary to prescribe a standard for determining which frequency has been “adopted” by the shareholders. As discussed in the following section, however, for purposes of Rule 14a-8 we are proposing that an issuer may exclude as “substantially implemented” a shareholder proposal that seeks a say-on-pay vote or that relates to the frequency of say-on-pay votes only if the issuer has implemented a say-on-pay voting frequency that is consistent with the vote of a plurality of the votes cast. For that rule, we are proposing a plurality standard because the proxy card will have three substantive choices (1, 2, or 3 years), and as a consequence there may be situations where none of these three frequencies has been supported by a majority of the votes cast or shares represented at a meeting. Specifically, we are proposing amendments to Rule 14a-4 under the Exchange Act, which provides requirements as to the form of proxy that issuers are required to include with their proxy materials, to require that issuers present four choices to their shareholders. Under existing Rule 14a-4, the form of proxy is required to provide means whereby the person solicited is afforded an opportunity to specify by boxes a choice between approval or disapproval of, or abstention with respect to each separate matter to be acted upon, other than elections to office. 63 The proposed amendments would revise this standard to permit proxy cards to reflect the choice of 1, 2, or 3 years, or abstain, for these votes. 63 Rule 14a-4(b)(1). Request for Comment (15) Will the four choices available to shareholders for the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation be sufficiently clear? (16) Will issuers, brokers, transfer agents, and data processing firms be able to accommodate four choices ( i.e., 1, 2, or 3 years, or abstain) for a single line item on a proxy card? What technical or processing difficulties do such a change to the proxy card present? If there are technical or processing difficulties, are there practical ways to mitigate them? 4. Proposed Amendment to Rule 14a-8 We are also proposing an amendment to Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act to add a note to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) that would clarify the status of shareholder proposals that seek an advisory shareholder vote on executive compensation or that relate to the frequency of shareholder votes approving executive compensation. Rule 14a-8 provides eligible shareholders with an opportunity to include a proposal in an issuer's proxy materials for a vote at an annual or special meeting of shareholders. An issuer generally is required to include the proposal unless the shareholder has not complied with the rule's procedural requirements or the proposal falls within one of the rule's 13 substantive bases for exclusion. 64 One of the substantive bases for exclusion, Rule 14a-8(i)(10), provides that an issuer may exclude a shareholder proposal that has already been substantially implemented. 64 These substantive bases for exclusion are set forth in Rule 14a-8(i). We believe that under certain conditions, an issuer's response to the say-on-pay and related frequency votes in Section 951 of the Act may be viewed as having substantially implemented subsequent shareholder proposals that seek a vote on the same matters. We are proposing to add a new note to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) to permit the exclusion of a shareholder proposal that would provide a say-on-pay vote or seeks future say-on-pay votes or that relates to the frequency of say-on-pay votes, provided the issuer has adopted a policy on the frequency of say-on-pay votes that is consistent with the plurality of votes cast in the most recent vote in accordance with Rule 14a-21(b). 65 As noted in Section I above, a “say-on-pay” vote is defined as a separate resolution subject to shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, or any successor to Item 402. 65 More specifically, to exclude such shareholder proposals, the issuer must have adopted the voting frequency receiving the greatest number of votes in the most recent advisory vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes. We are prescribing this voting standard solely for purposes of determining the scope of the exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10), and not for the purpose of determining whether a particular voting frequency should be considered to have been adopted or approved by shareholder vote as a matter of state law. As a result of this proposed amendment, if an issuer implements the results of the advisory vote of its shareholders as to how often it will solicit votes to approve the compensation of its executives, it would be permitted to exclude shareholder proposals that propose a vote on the approval of executive compensation as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K or on the frequency of such votes, including those drafted as requests to amend the issuer's governing documents, so long as the issuer has adopted a policy on the frequency of say-on-pay votes that is consistent with the plurality of votes cast in the most recent vote required by Rule 14a-21(b) and provides a vote on frequency at least as often as required by Section 14A(a)(2). For example, if in the first vote under Rule 14a-21(b) the largest number of votes were cast for a two-year frequency for future shareholder votes on executive compensation, and the issuer discloses that it has approved a policy to hold the vote every two years, a shareholder proposal seeking a different frequency could be excluded so long as the issuer seeks votes on executive compensation every two years and provides a vote on frequency at least every six years as required by Section 14A(a)(2). We believe that, in these circumstances, additional shareholder proposals on frequency generally would unnecessarily burden the company and its shareholders given the company's substantial implementation of a plurality shareholder vote regarding the frequency of say-on-pay votes. For the same reasons, a shareholder proposal that would provide an advisory vote or seek future advisory votes on executive compensation with substantially the same scope as the vote required by Rule 14a-21(a) would be subject to exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10). 66 66 A shareholder proposal that proposes a periodic say-on-pay vote would not be excludable under Rule 14-8(i)(10) if the issuer does not adopt a frequency policy that is consistent with the plurality of votes cast in the most recent shareholder vote pursuant to Rule 14a-21(b). Section 14A(c)(4) provides that the shareholder advisory votes required by Sections 14A(a) and (b) may not be construed “to restrict or limit the ability of shareholders to make proposals for inclusion in proxy materials related to executive compensation.” As proposed to be amended, Rule 14a-8(i)(10) would only provide a basis for exclusion of a say-on-pay proposal if the company has adopted a policy on the frequency of say-on-pay votes that is consistent with the plurality of votes cast in the most recent shareholder vote. Otherwise, simply having the required vote on frequency would not restrict or limit the ability of a shareholder to have a say-on- pay proposal included in the company's proxy materials. Request for Comment (17) Is it necessary or appropriate to prescribe a standard, such as a plurality, as proposed, for resolving whether issuers have substantially implemented the shareholders' vote on the frequency of the vote on executive compensation for purposes of Rule 14a-8? Is a standard other than plurality appropriate? Should the standard vary if the company's capital structure includes multiple classes of voting stock ( e.g., where classes elect different subsets of the board of directors)? (18) Is the proposed amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) appropriate? Should we, as proposed, allow the exclusion of shareholder proposals that propose say-on-pay votes with substantially the same scope as the votes required by Rule 14a-21(a)? If not, please explain why not. (19) Should we, as proposed, permit the exclusion of shareholder proposals that seek to provide say-on-pay votes more or less regularly than the frequency endorsed by a plurality of votes cast in the most recent vote required under Rule 14a-21(b), as described above? Are there other circumstances under which shareholder proposals relating to the frequency of say-on-pay votes should be considered substantially implemented and subject to exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10)? (20) Should we amend Rule 14a-8(i)(10) to address other specific factual scenarios that are likely to occur as a result of the implementation of Section 951 and our related rules? Are there other specific facts and circumstances under which Rule 14a-8(i)(10) should permit or prohibit the exclusion of shareholder proposals that seek say-on-pay votes? (21) Should the proposed note to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) be available if the issuer has materially changed its compensation program in the time period since the most recent say-on-pay vote required by Section 14A(a)(1) and Rule 14a-21(a) or the most recent frequency vote required by Section 14A(a)(2) and Rule 14a-21(b)? 5. Proposed Amendments to Form 10-K and Form 10-Q Issuers are currently required to disclose the results of shareholder votes pursuant to Item 5.07 of Form 8-K within four business days following the day the shareholder meeting ends. The rules we propose today would not alter this requirement. We are proposing amendments to Form 10-K and Form 10-Q to require additional disclosure regarding the issuer's action as a result of the shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation in accordance with Section 14A. 67 67 A company may, but is not required to, provide additional disclosure in Item 5.07 of Form 8-K regarding any of the shareholder votes required by Section 951 of the Act and how the results of these votes affect its plans for the future. Our proposed amendments to Item 9B of Form 10-K and new Item 5(c) of Part II of Form 10-Q would require an issuer to disclose, in the quarterly report on Form 10-Q covering the period during which the shareholder advisory vote occurs, or in the annual report on Form 10-K if the shareholder advisory vote occurs during the issuer's fourth quarter, its decision regarding how frequently it will conduct shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation in light of the results of the shareholder vote on frequency. Because the shareholder vote to determine the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation is advisory and non-binding on the issuer, we are proposing disclosure in the Form 10-Q (or the Form 10-K for shareholder meetings taking place during the fourth quarter) to notify shareholders on a timely basis whether the issuer's determination regarding frequency will follow the results of the shareholder vote. Request for Comment (22) Should we require, as proposed, disclosure in a Form 10-Q or Form 10-K regarding the issuer's plans with respect to the frequency of its shareholder votes to approve executive compensation? Would this disclosure be useful for investors? (23) Would the proposed Form 10-Q or Form 10-K disclosure notify shareholders on a timely basis of the issuer's determination regarding the frequency of the say-on-pay vote? Should this disclosure instead be included in the Form 8-K reporting the voting results otherwise required to be filed within four business days after the end of the shareholder meeting, or in a separate Form 8-K required to be filed within four business days of when an issuer determines how frequently it will conduct shareholder votes on executive compensation in light of the results of the shareholder vote on frequency? (24) Would the amendments to Form 10-Q and 10-K, as proposed, allow an issuer sufficient time to analyze the results of the shareholder votes on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation and reach a conclusion on how it should respond? Should the issuer's plans with respect to the frequency of such shareholder votes instead be required to be disclosed no later than in the Form 10-Q or Form 10-K for the next full time period ended subsequent to the vote (for example, if the vote occurs in the second quarter of the issuer's fiscal year, the disclosure would be required no later than in the Form 10-Q for the third quarter)? 6. Effect of Shareholder Vote Although the language in Section 951 of the Act indicates that the separate resolution subject to shareholder vote is “to determine” the frequency of the shareholder vote on executive compensation, in light of new Section 14A(c) of the Exchange Act, we believe this shareholder vote, and all shareholder votes required by Section 951 of the Act, are intended to be non-binding on the issuer or the issuer's board of directors. Under new Section 14A(c), the shareholder votes referred to in Section 14A(a) and Section 14A(b) (which includes all votes under Section 951 of the Act) “shall not be binding on the issuer or the board of directors of an issuer.” 68 As proposed, new Item 24 of Schedule 14A would include language to require disclosure regarding the general effect of the shareholder advisory votes, such as whether the vote is non-binding. 69 68 Exchange Act Section 14A(c). 69 Even though each of the shareholder advisory votes required by Section 14A is non-binding pursuant to the rule of construction in Section 14A(c), we believe these votes could play a role in an issuer's executive compensation decisions. Request for Comment (25) Under the proposed rules, the shareholder vote on the frequency of the say-on-pay vote would not bind the issuer or board of directors of the issuer. Are there other ways to provide for a vote “to determine” the frequency of the say-on-pay resolution that are consistent with the Section 14A(c) rule of construction that the vote “shall not be binding”? C. Issues Relating to Both Shareholder Votes Required by Section 14A(a) 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 14a-6 Rule 14a-6(a) generally requires issuers to file proxy statements in preliminary form at least ten calendar days before definitive proxy materials are first sent to shareholders, unless the items included for a shareholder vote in the proxy statement are limited to specified matters. During the time before final proxy materials are filed, our staff has the opportunity to comment on the disclosures and issuers are able to incorporate the staff's comments in their final proxy materials. However, an issuer is not required to file preliminary materials if the only matters to be acted upon are: • The election of directors, • The election, approval or ratification of the accountants, • Approval or ratification of certain employee benefits plans or plan amendments, • Shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8, 70 and 70 Rules 14a-6(a)(5) and (6) specify other proposals by investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq. ], the inclusion of which does not compel filing of preliminary materials. • Shareholder votes to approve executive compensation for companies with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP, in accordance with the EESA. 71 71 See Rule 14a-6(a)(7) [17 CFR 240.14a-6(a)(7)]. Absent an amendment to Rule 14a-6(a), a proxy statement that includes a solicitation for either the shareholder vote on the approval of executive compensation or the approval of the frequency of the votes approving executive compensation required by Sections 14A(a)(1) and 14A(a)(2) would need to be filed in preliminary form. Because the shareholder vote on executive compensation and the shareholder vote on the frequency of such shareholder votes would be required for all issuers, we view them as similar to the other items specified in Rule 14a-6(a) that do not require a preliminary filing. 72 72 In our view, a preliminary filing requirement for the shareholder votes on executive compensation and the frequency of such votes would impose unnecessary administrative burdens and preparation and processing costs associated with the filing and processing of proxy material that would unlikely be selected for review in preliminary form. See Proxy Rules—Amendments to Eliminate Filing Requirements for Certain Preliminary Proxy Material; Amendments With Regard to Rule 14a-8, Shareholder Proposals, Release No. 34-25217 (Dec. 21, 1987) [52 FR 48982]. We are proposing to amend Rule 14a-6(a) to add the shareholder votes on executive compensation and the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation required by Section 14A(a) to the list of items that do not trigger a preliminary filing. 73 Under the proposed amendments, a proxy statement that includes a solicitation with respect to either of these shareholder votes would not trigger a requirement that the issuer file the proxy statement in preliminary form, so long as any other matters to which the solicitation relates include only the other matters specified by Rule 14a-6(a). 73 In the recent release relating to the similar shareholder votes for companies subject to EESA with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP program, we received comments regarding whether a preliminary proxy statement should be required for shareholder votes on executive compensation for TARP companies. While some commentators argued that a preliminary proxy statement should be required, other commentators argued persuasively that the burdens of such an approach outweighed the costs. As a result, we decided to eliminate the requirement for a preliminary proxy statement for shareholder votes on executive compensation for TARP companies. See TARP Adopting Release, supra note 16, at 75 FR 2791. Request for Comment (26) Should we amend Rule 14a-6(a) under the Exchange Act as proposed so that issuers are not required to file a preliminary proxy statement as a consequence of providing a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation in accordance with Rule 14a-21(a)? If not, please explain why not. (27) Should we amend Rule 14a-6(a) under the Exchange Act as proposed so that issuers are not required to file a preliminary proxy statement as a consequence of providing a separate shareholder vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation in accordance with Rule 14a-21(b)? If not, please explain why not. (28) Should we amend Rule 14a-6(a) under the Exchange Act so that issuers are not required to file a preliminary proxy statement as a consequence of providing any other separate shareholder vote on executive compensation? If so, please explain in what circumstances. 2. Broker Discretionary Voting Section 957 of the Act amends Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act 74 to direct national securities exchanges to change their rules to prohibit broker discretionary voting of uninstructed shares in certain matters, including shareholder votes on executive compensation. The national securities exchanges have begun to amend their rules regarding broker discretionary voting on executive compensation matters to implement this requirement. 75 Under these amended exchange rules, for issuers with a class of securities listed on a national securities exchange, broker discretionary voting of uninstructed shares would not be permitted for a shareholder vote on executive compensation or a shareholder vote on the frequency of the shareholder vote on executive compensation. 76 74 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 75 See, e.g., Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend NYSE Rule 452 and Listed Company Manual Section 402.08 to Eliminate Broker Discretionary Voting on Executive Compensation Matters, Release No. 34-62874, SR-NYSE-2010-59 (Sept. 9, 2010). 76 Broker discretionary voting in connection with merger or acquisition transactions is not permitted under current rules of the national securities exchanges. See, e.g., NYSE Rule 452. 3. Relationship to Shareholder Votes on Executive Compensation for TARP Companies Issuers that have received financial assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, are required to conduct a separate annual shareholder vote to approve executive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from the financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding. 77 77 Section 111(e) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 5221. See also Rule 14a-20. Because the vote required to approve executive compensation pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or EESA, is effectively the same vote that would be required under Section 14A(a)(1), we believe that a shareholder vote to approve executive compensation under Rule 14a-20 for issuers with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP would satisfy Rule 14a-21(a). Consequently, we would not require issuers who conduct an annual shareholder vote to approve executive compensation pursuant to EESA to conduct a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation under Section 14A(a)(1) until such issuers have repaid all indebtedness under the TARP. These issuers would be required to include a separate shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation pursuant to Section 14A(a)(1) and proposed Rule 14a-21(a) for the first annual meeting of shareholders after the issuer has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP. Even though issuers with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP have a separate statutory requirement to provide an annual shareholder vote on executive compensation so long as they are indebted under the TARP, these issuers would be required, pursuant to Section 14A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, to provide a separate shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation for the first annual or other such meeting of shareholders on or after January 21, 2011. In our view, however, because such issuers have a requirement to conduct an annual shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation so long as they are indebted under the TARP, a shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of such votes while the issuer remains subject to a requirement to conduct such votes on an annual basis would not serve a useful purpose. We have considered, therefore, whether issuers with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP should be subject to the requirements of Section 14A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or consistent with the protection of investors to require an issuer to conduct a shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation when the issuer already is required to conduct advisory votes on executive compensation annually regardless of the outcome of such frequency vote. Because Section 14A(a)(2) would burden TARP issuers and their shareholders with an additional vote while providing little benefit to either the issuer or its shareholders, we believe an exemption by rule is appropriate, pursuant to both the exemptive authority granted by Section 14A(e) of the Exchange Act 78 and the Commission's general exemptive authority pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. 79 As a result, Rule 14a-21(b), as proposed, would exempt issuers with outstanding indebtedness under the TARP from the requirements of Rule 14a-21(b) and Section 14A(a)(2) until the issuer has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP. Similar to the approach for shareholder advisory votes under Rule 14a-21(a), these issuers would be required to include a separate shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation pursuant to Section 14A(a)(2) and proposed Rule 14a-21(b) for the first annual meeting of shareholders after the issuer has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP. 78 Exchange Act Section 14A(e) provides that “the Commission may, by rule or order, exempt an issuer or class of issuers from the requirement” under Sections 14A(a) or 14A(b). Section 14A(e) further provides that “in determining whether to make an exemption under this subsection, the Commission shall take into account, among other considerations, whether the requirements under [Section 14A(a) and 14A(b)] disproportionately burdens small issuers.” In proposing the exemption, the Commission considered whether the requirements of Section 14A(a) and (b) as applied to TARP recipients to conduct a shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes could disproportionately burden small issuers. As described further in Section II.E below, we have also considered whether the provision as a whole disproportionately burdens small issuers. We note, in addition, that to the extent a TARP recipient is a small issuer, it would be subject to the exemption. 79 15 U.S.C. 78 mm(a)(1). Exchange Act Section 36(a)(1) provides that “the Commission, by rule, regulation, or order, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of this title or of any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.” Request for Comment (29) Should issuers who have outstanding indebtedness under the TARP be required to conduct a shareholder advisory vote under Rule 14a-21(a) for the first annual meeting after the issuer has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP? Should we amend Rule 14a-20 to reflect this requirement? (30) Should issuers who have outstanding indebtedness under the TARP satisfy Rule 14a-21(a) when such issuers conduct a shareholder advisory vote to approve executive compensation pursuant to Rule 14a-20? Should we reflect this position in Rule 14a-21(a)? (31) Should issuers who have outstanding indebtedness under the TARP be exempted, as proposed, from the requirement to conduct a shareholder advisory vote under Section 14A(a)(2) and Rule 14a-21(b) until the first annual meeting after the issuer has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP? Is our proposed approach consistent with the purposes of Section 951 of the Act? Instead, should issuers who have outstanding indebtedness under the TARP be required to provide the shareholder vote on frequency at a time when they are still required to provide an annual vote under EESA? Should such an issuer be permitted, at its discretion, to conduct a shareholder advisory vote on frequency while it has outstanding indebtedness under the TARP and, if such vote is held, not be required to conduct such a vote at its first annual meeting after it has repaid all outstanding indebtedness under the TARP? D. Disclosure of Golden Parachute Arrangements and Shareholder Approval of Golden Parachute Arrangements 1. General Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act requires all persons making a proxy or consent solicitation seeking shareholder approval of an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale or disposition of all or substantially all of an issuer's assets to provide disclosure, in accordance with rules we promulgate, of any agreements or understandings that the soliciting person has with its named executive officers (or that it has with the named executive officers of the acquiring issuer) concerning compensation that is based on or otherwise relates to the merger transaction. In addition, Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure of any agreements or understandings that an acquiring issuer has with its named executive officers and that it has with the named executive officers of the target company in transactions in which the acquiring issuer is making a proxy or consent solicitation in seeking shareholder approval of an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale or disposition of all or substantially all of an issuer's assets. Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act requires the disclosure to be in a “clear and simple form in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission” and to include “the aggregate total of all such compensation that may (and the conditions upon which it may) be paid or become payable to or on behalf of such executive officer.” 80 80 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). Under existing Commission rules, a target company soliciting shareholder approval of a merger is required to describe briefly any substantial interest, direct or indirect, by security holdings or otherwise, of any person who has been an executive officer or director since the beginning of the last fiscal year in any matter to be acted upon. 81 In response to this requirement, target companies often include disclosure in their proxy statements about compensation arrangements that may be payable to a target company's executive officers and directors in connection with the transaction. In addition, under our existing rules, companies are required to include in annual reports and annual meeting proxy statements detailed information in accordance with Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K about payments that may be made to named executive officers upon termination of employment or in connection with a change in control. 82 The Item 402(j) disclosure is provided based on year-end information and various assumptions, and generally does not reflect any actual termination or termination event. 83 81 Item 5 of Schedule 14A. 82 See Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.402(j)], Item 8 of Schedule 14A, and Item 11 of Form 10-K. Item 402(j) disclosure is required in both Annual Reports on Form 10-K and in annual meeting proxy statements, though such disclosure is typically provided in annual meeting proxy statements and incorporated into the Form 10-K by reference pursuant to General Instruction G(3) of Form 10-K. References to “annual meeting proxy statements” in this context are meant to encompass both locations for the disclosure. 83 See Instruction 1 to Item 402(j), which requires quantitative disclosure applying the assumptions that the triggering event took place on the last business day of the issuer's last completed fiscal year, and the price per share of the issuer's securities is the closing market price as of that date. Where a triggering event has actually occurred for a named executive officer who was no longer serving as a named executive officer of the issuer at the end of the last completed fiscal year, Instruction 4 to Item 402(j) requires Item 402(j) disclosure for that named executive officer only for that triggering event. While the Commission's existing rules require disclosure about golden parachute arrangements as described above, they do not include detailed requirements for such disclosures that are applicable to proxy or consent solicitations to approve the transaction, as required by Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act. Consequently, in order to implement the disclosure requirements of Section 14A(b)(1), we are proposing to amend Schedule 14A to require disclosure with respect to golden parachute compensation arrangements in proxy or consent solicitations in connection with an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or proposed sale or other disposition of all or substantially all assets, in accordance with new proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K. As described below, although not required by Section 14A(b)(1), we are also proposing to amend the disclosure requirements of other, similar forms, so that comparable golden parachutes disclosure would be required in other, similar transactions. 84 We are not proposing to amend the requirements for golden parachutes disclosure in annual meeting proxy statements, although, as described below, under our proposal companies would be permitted to provide disclosure in annual meeting proxies in accordance with the new requirement. 85 84 See Section II.D.3 below. 85 See Sections II.D.2 and II.D.4 below. Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure of agreements or understandings between the person conducting the solicitation and any named executive officers of the issuer or any named executive officers of the acquiring issuer if the person conducting the solicitation is not the acquiring issuer. In the typical case, the soliciting person is the target company in a merger transaction since target company shareholder approval is ordinarily required to approve a merger under state law. Consistent with Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, agreements or understandings between a target issuer conducting a solicitation and its named executive officers would be subject to disclosure under proposed Item 402(t). In addition, because golden parachute compensation arrangements also may involve agreements or understandings between the acquiring company and the named executive officers of the target company, we have formulated proposed Item 402(t) to require disclosure of this compensation in addition to the disclosure mandated by Section 14A(b)(1). As proposed, Item 402(t) would require disclosure of all golden parachute compensation relating to the merger among the target and acquiring companies and the named executive officers of each in order to cover the full scope of golden parachute compensation applicable to the transaction. 86 86 As described below, however, because any agreements between a soliciting target company's named executive officers and the acquiring company are beyond the scope of the disclosure required by Section 14A(b)(1), such agreements would not be subject to the Rule 14a-21(c) shareholder advisory vote required by Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c). See discussion of Rule 14a-21(c) in Section II.D.4 below. 2. Proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K As noted above, Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act requires disclosure of the golden parachute compensation in any proxy or consent solicitation to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale or disposition of all or substantially all assets to be “in a clear and simple form in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission” and to include “the aggregate total of all such compensation that may (and the conditions upon which it may) be paid or become payable to or on behalf of such executive officer.” 87 To satisfy these requirements for proxy or consent solicitations for these transactions, proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K would require disclosure of named executive officers' golden parachute arrangements in both tabular and narrative formats. 88 We are proposing the following new table: 87 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). 88 Proposed Instruction 1 to Item 402(t) would provide that disclosure would be required for individuals covered by Items 402(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii), and for smaller reporting companies, the individuals covered by Items 402(m)(2)(i) and (ii). Accordingly, issuers would not have to provide Item 402(t) information with respect to individuals who would have been among the most highly compensated executive officers but for the fact that they were not serving as an executive officer at the end of the last completed fiscal year, for whom Item 402 information otherwise is required by Item 402(a)(3)(iv), and for smaller reporting companies by Item 402(l)(2)(iii). Golden Parachute Compensation Name Cash ($) Equity ($) Pension/ NQDC ($) Perquisites/ benefits ($) Tax reimbursement ($) Other ($) Total ($) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) PEO PFO A B C The table would present quantitative disclosure of the individual elements of compensation that an executive would receive that are based on or otherwise relate to the merger, acquisition, or similar transaction, and the total for each named executive officer. 89 Elements that would be separately quantified and included in the total would be any cash severance payment ( e.g., base salary, bonus, and pro-rata non-equity incentive plan 90 compensation payments) (column (b)); the dollar value of accelerated stock awards, in-the-money option awards for which vesting would be accelerated, and payments in cancellation of stock and option awards (column (c)); pension and nonqualified deferred compensation benefit enhancements (column (d)); perquisites and other personal benefits and health and welfare benefits (column (e)); and tax reimbursements ( e.g., Internal Revenue Code Section 280G tax gross-ups) (column (f)). We have proposed an “Other” column of the table for any additional elements of compensation not specifically includable in the other columns of the table (column (g)). This column, like the columns for the other elements, would require footnote identification of each separate form of compensation reported. The final column in the table would require disclosure, for each named executive officer, of the aggregate total of all such compensation (column (h)). 91 As proposed, the table would require separate footnote identification of amounts attributable to “single-trigger” arrangements and amounts attributable to “double-trigger” arrangements, so that shareholders can readily discern these amounts. 92 89 Proposed Item 402(t)(2) of Regulation S-K. 90 As defined in Item 402(a)(6)(iii) of Regulation S-K. 91 Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure of “the aggregate total of all such compensation that may (and the conditions upon which it may) be paid or become payable to or on behalf of such executive officer.” 92 A “double-trigger” arrangement requires that the executive's employment be terminated without cause or that the executive resign for good reason within a limited period of time after the change-in-control to trigger payment. A “single-trigger” arrangement does not require such a termination or resignation after the change-in-control to trigger payment. As noted above, issuers are currently required to provide disclosure in annual reports on Form 10-K and in annual meeting proxy statements of potential payments upon termination or change-in-control for their named executive officers under Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K. That item, which does not typically apply to merger proxies, requires disclosure regarding each contract, agreement, plan or arrangement, whether written or unwritten, that provides for payments to a named executive officer at, following, or in connection with termination or change in control of the issuer. 93 We considered whether making the disclosure requirements in Item 402(j) applicable to transactions enumerated in Section 14A(b)(1), rather than adopting a new disclosure item for purposes of Section 14A(b)(1), would be an appropriate approach to satisfy the requirements of the Act. It appears, however, that certain elements required by Section 14A(b)(1) are not included in Item 402(j). Specifically, we believe that the requirement in Section 14A(b)(1) to present the information in a clear and simple form is most appropriately satisfied through the use of tabular disclosure, and Item 402(j) does not require disclosure in tabular format. In addition, Item 402(j) does not require disclosure about arrangements that do not discriminate in scope, terms or operation in favor of executive officers and that are available generally to all salaried employees, 94 permits exclusion of de minimis perquisites and other personal benefits, 95 and does not require presentation of an aggregate total of all compensation that is based on or otherwise relates to a transaction. 96 93 The circumstances covered by Item 402(j) include, without limitation, resignation, severance, retirement, a constructive termination of a named executive officer, a change in control of the registrant, or a change in a named executive officer's responsibilities. 94 Instruction 5 to Item 402(j). 95 See Instruction 2 to Item 402(j), which permits exclusion of perquisites and other personal benefits or property if the aggregate amount of such compensation will be less than $10,000. 96 We are also proposing conforming changes to Item 402(a)(6)(ii) [17 CFR 229.402(a)(6)(ii)] and Item 402(m)(5)(ii) [17 CFR 229.402(m)(5)(ii)] of Regulation S-K to clarify that information regarding group life, health, hospitalization, or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in scope, terms or operation, in favor of executive officers or directors of the company and that are generally available to all salaried employees must be included in disclosure pursuant to proposed Item 402(t). We also considered whether it would be appropriate to amend Item 402(j) to include the elements required by Section 14A(b)(1), rather than adopting a new disclosure item. Section 14A(b)(1) addresses only compensation that is “based on or otherwise relates to an acquisition, merger, consolidation, sale, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the issuer.” In comparison, Item 402(j) requires disclosure of potential payments in connection with “any termination, including without limitation resignation, severance, retirement or a constructive termination of a named executive officer, or a change in control of the registrant or a change in the named executive officer's responsibilities.” 97 Although we could amend Item 402(j) to mandate disclosure of all the elements required by Section 14A(b)(1) for every termination scenario covered by the item, we believe such an approach would impose significant new burdens on issuers. Alternatively, although we could amend Item 402(j) to include the disclosure elements required by Section 14A(b)(1) only with respect to change in control of the issuer, we believe that such an approach could result in a disclosure presentation that would be confusing to investors. Consequently, we are proposing the new item requirements described above. 97 Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K. In a proxy statement soliciting shareholder approval of a merger or similar transaction, Item 402(t)'s tabular quantification of dollar amounts based on issuer stock price would be required to be based on the closing price per share as of the latest practicable date. 98 Where Item 402(t) disclosure is included in an annual meeting proxy statement, 99 such amounts would be calculated based on the closing market price per share of the issuer's securities on the last business day of the issuer's last completed fiscal year, 100 consistent with quantification standards used in Item 402(j). 101 98 Proposed Instruction 1 to Item 402(t)(2). 99 A company may choose to include the disclosure in the annual meeting proxy statement in order for the Section 14A(a)(1) shareholder vote to satisfy the exception from the merger proxy separate shareholder vote. See Section II.D.4 below. 100 Proposed Instruction 2 to Item 402(t)(2). 101 See Instruction 1 to Item 402(j). The tabular disclosure required by Item 402(t) would require quantification with respect to any agreements or understandings, whether written or unwritten, between each named executive officer and the acquiring company or the target company, concerning any type of compensation, whether present, deferred or contingent, that is based on or otherwise relates to an acquisition, merger, consolidation, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all assets. As described above, the proposed table would quantify cash severance, equity awards that are accelerated or cashed out, pension and nonqualified deferred compensation enhancements, perquisites, and tax reimbursements. In addition, the proposed table would require disclosure and quantification of the value of any other compensation related to the transaction. 102 102 We have proposed an Instruction 3 to Item 402(t)(2) to provide, like Instruction 1 to Item 402(j), that in the event uncertainties exist as to the provision of payments and benefits, or the amounts involved, the issuer is required to make a reasonable estimate applicable to the payment or benefit and disclose material assumptions underlying such estimate in its disclosure. Unlike Item 402(j), as proposed Item 402(t) would not permit the disclosure of an estimated range of payments. However, Item 402(t) would require tabular and narrative disclosure only of compensation that is based on or otherwise relates to the transaction. As proposed, Item 402(t), like Item 402(j), 103 would not require separate disclosure or quantification with respect to compensation disclosed in the Pension Benefits Table and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table. Item 402(t) also would not require disclosure or quantification of previously vested equity awards. Because these amounts are vested without regard to the transaction, we do not view them as compensation “that is based on or otherwise relates to” the transaction. Similarly, the proposed table would not require disclosure and quantification of compensation from bona fide post-transaction employment agreements to be entered into in connection with the merger or acquisition transaction, as we do not view future employment arrangements as compensation “that is based on or otherwise relates to” the transaction. 104 103 See Instruction 3 to Item 402(j). 104 Information regarding such future employment agreements is subject to disclosure pursuant to Item 5(a) of Schedule 14A to the extent that such agreements constitute a “substantial interest” in the matter to be acted upon, as well as Item 5(b)(xii). Pursuant to the proposed narrative disclosure requirements, 105 to implement the statutory mandate to disclose the conditions upon which the compensation may be paid or become payable, Item 402(t) would require issuers to describe any material conditions or obligations applicable to the receipt of payment, including but not limited to non-compete, non-solicitation, non-disparagement or confidentiality agreements, their duration, and provisions regarding waiver or breach. 106 We have also proposed a requirement to provide a description of the specific circumstances that would trigger payment, 107 whether the payments would or could be lump sum, or annual, and their duration, and by whom the payments would be provided, 108 and any material factors regarding each agreement. 109 These proposed narrative items are modeled on the narrative disclosure currently required with respect to termination and change-in-control agreements. 110 An issuer seeking to satisfy the exception from the separate merger proxy shareholder vote under Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c) by including Item 402(t) disclosure in an annual meeting proxy statement soliciting the shareholder vote required by Section 14A(a)(1) and Rule 14a-21(a) 111 would be able to satisfy Item 402(j) disclosure requirements with respect to a change-in-control of the issuer by providing the disclosure required by Item 402(t). 112 The issuer would, however, still be obligated to include in an annual meeting proxy statement disclosure in accordance with Item 402(j) about payments that may be made to named executive officers upon termination of employment. 105 Proposed Item 402(t)(3) of Regulation S-K. 106 Proposed Item 402(t)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K. 107 Proposed Item 402(t)(3)(i) of Regulation S-K. 108 Proposed Item 402(t)(3)(ii) of Regulation S-K. 109 Proposed Item 402(t)(3) of Regulation S-K. Such material factors would include, for example, provisions regarding modifications of outstanding options to extend the vesting period or the post-termination exercise period, or to lower the exercise price. 110 Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K. 111 This exception is discussed in Section II.D.4 below. 112 We note also that one example of material information to be addressed in CD&A is the basis for selecting particular termination or change-in-control events as triggering payment ( e.g., the rationale for providing a single trigger for payment in the event of a change-in-control). See Item 402(b)(2)(xi) of Regulation S-K. Request for Comment (32) Should Item 402(t) disclosure be required only in the context of an extraordinary transaction, as proposed? Should we extend the Item 402(t) disclosure requirement to annual meeting proxy statements generally, or in annual meeting proxy statements in which the shareholder advisory vote required by Section 14A(a)(1) is solicited? Would this disclosure be useful in annual meeting proxy statements in the absence of an actual transaction, or are the existing compensation disclosure requirements applicable to annual meeting proxy statements sufficient? Should we amend Item 402(j) to cover the matters required by Section 14A(b)(1) that are not otherwise required by that Item, rather than adopt proposed Item 402(t)? (33) As proposed, Item 402(t) would require disclosure of all golden parachute compensation relating to the merger among the target and acquiring companies and the named executive officers of each in order to cover the full scope of golden parachute compensation applicable to the transaction. Would it be potentially confusing to require disclosure under Item 402(t) that relates to golden parachute compensation of a broader group of individuals than required by Section 14A(b)(1)? (34) Does proposed Item 402(t) tabular disclosure capture “any type of compensation (whether present, deferred, or contingent) that is based on or otherwise relates to” the transaction? Will proposed Item 402(t) elicit disclosure of all elements of golden parachute compensation that may be paid or become payable and the aggregate total thereof “in a clear and simple form”? If not, what specific revisions are necessary to accomplish these objectives? (35) Should we also require tabular disclosure of previously vested equity and pension benefits and require the total amount to include those amounts? For example, should the value of vested pension and nonqualified deferred compensation be presented so that shareholders may easily compare that value to the value of any enhancements attributable to the change-in-control transaction? Similarly, should the value of previously vested restricted stock and the in-the-money value of previously vested options be presented so that shareholders can compare these amounts to the value of awards for which vesting would be accelerated? Would inclusion of these amounts in the total overstate the amount of compensation payable as a result of the transaction? (36) In the table, will the proposed footnote identification of amounts of single-trigger and double-trigger compensation elements effectively highlight amounts payable on each basis? If not, should these elements be highlighted by disclosing them in separate columns, or by some other means? Is this information useful to investors? (37) Are there any elements captured by the “Other” column that should be presented separately, or in a different manner? If so, please explain why and how. (38) Should employment agreements that named executive officers of the target issuer enter into with the acquiring issuer for services to be performed in the future be excluded from the table, as proposed? Are such agreements used to induce target executives to support the transaction? Should such employment agreements instead be required to be quantified and included in the table? If such agreements should be quantified, should they be quantified separately, such as in a separate table, or is there a better way to present such agreements? If quantification is appropriate, should we specify how employment agreements should be quantified, for example by requiring a reasonable estimate applicable to the payment or benefit and disclosure of material assumptions underlying such estimates, or a valuation based on projected first year annual compensation, or average annual basis, or a present value for this compensation? If so, please explain. (39) In proxy statements soliciting shareholder approval of a merger or similar transaction, we are proposing that the tabular quantification of dollar amounts based on issuer stock price be based on the closing price per share as of the latest practicable date. Is this measurement date appropriate? Would a different measurement, such as the average closing price over the first five business days following the public announcement of the transaction, more accurately reflect the amounts payable to the named executive officers in connection with the transaction? If so, explain why. (40) The proposed narrative disclosure would explain by whom payments would be provided. Are any additional instructions needed to provide clarity with respect to the tabular disclosure in circumstances where separate payments would be made by the target issuer and the acquiring issuer? Should a separate table be required where golden parachute compensation is payable to named executive officers of the acquiring issuer, as well as named executive officers of the target issuer? (41) Will the proposed narrative disclosure adequately describe the conditions upon which the golden parachute compensation may be paid or become payable to or on behalf of each named executive officer? What, if any, additional disclosure is needed to accomplish this objective? What, if any, disclosure that we have proposed to require is not necessary to accomplish this objective? Explain why. (42) Are there other items of narrative disclosure that would be useful for investors? For example, should we require issuers to describe the basis for selecting each form of payment and to describe why it chose the various forms of compensation? 113 113 See Item 402(b)(2)(xi) of Regulation S-K. (43) As proposed, many of the table's columns would report more than one element of golden parachute compensation, with footnote quantification of the individual elements. Would it facilitate investor understanding to present in separate columns any of those individual elements, such as the different components of cash severance? If so, explain which elements and why. Would additional columns make the table too complex? (44) As proposed, issuers would not have to provide Item 402(t) information with respect to individuals who would have been among the most highly compensated executive officers but for the fact that they were not serving as an executive officer at the end of the last completed fiscal year. 114 Should Item 402(t) information be required if such individuals remain employed by the issuer at the time of the proxy solicitation? If so, explain why. Also, as proposed, issuers would have to provide Item 402(t) information with respect to all individuals who served as the principal executive officer or principal financial officer of the issuer during the last completed fiscal year or who were among the issuer's other most highly compensated executive officers at the end of that year, 115 even if such persons are no longer employed by the issuer at the time of the proxy solicitation. Would Item 402(t) disclosure with respect to such an individual serve a useful purpose or should we exclude former employees from the disclosure requirement? 114 Item 402(a)(3)(iv) provides that up to two such individuals are named executive officers for purposes of this item's general disclosure requirements. 115 Such persons are named executive officers as defined in Item 402(a)(3)(i)-(iii). 3. Amendments to Schedule 14A, Schedule 14C, Schedule 14D-9, Schedule 13E-3, and Item 1011 of Regulation M-A We are proposing amendments to Items 5(a) and (b) of Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act, as well as conforming changes to Item 3 of Schedule 14C, Item 1011(b) of Regulation M-A, Item 15 of Schedule 13E-3 and Item 8 of Schedule 14D-9. These amendments would be consistent with the goals of Section 14A(b)(1) by requiring that the disclosure set forth in Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K be included in any proxy or consent solicitation material seeking shareholder approval of an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or proposed sale or other distribution of all or substantially all the assets of the issuer. Our amendments would require such disclosure not only in a proxy or consent solicitation relating to such a transaction, as required by the Act, but also in the following: • Information statements filed pursuant to Regulation 14C; 116 116 See proposed Item 3 of Schedule 14C. • Proxy or consent solicitations that do not contain merger proposals but require disclosure of information under Item 14 of Schedule 14A pursuant to Note A of Schedule 14A; 117 117 For example, acquiring companies may solicit proxies to approve the issuance of shares or a reverse stock split in order to conduct a merger transaction; such proxy statements would be required to include disclosure of information required under Item 14 of Schedule 14A pursuant to Note A of Schedule 14A. See proposed Item 5(a)(5) and Item 5(b)(3) of Schedule 14A. • Registration statements on Forms S-4 and F-4 containing disclosure relating to mergers and similar transactions; 118 118 In addition to the proposed disclosure requirements on golden parachute arrangements in registration statements on Forms S-4 and F-4, companies will continue to be subject to the requirement to file such agreements and understandings as exhibits to these registration statements as required by Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.601(b)(10)]. • Going private transactions on Schedule 13E-3; 119 and 119 See proposed Item 15 of Schedule 13E-3. • Third-party tender offers on Schedule TO 120 and Schedule 14D-9 121 solicitation/recommendation statements. 120 See proposed Item 1011(b) of Regulation M-A. 121 See proposed Item 8 of Schedule 14D-9. Issuers may structure transactions in a manner that avoids implicating Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act ( e.g., tender offers and certain Rule 13e-3 going-private transactions), while still effectively seeking the consent of shareholders with respect to their investment decision ( e.g., whether or not to tender their shares or approve a going-private transaction, in instances where such going-private transactions are not subject to Regulation 14A). For these reasons, we believe requiring Item 402(t) disclosure in all such transactions furthers the purposes of Section 14A(b) of the Exchange Act and would minimize the regulatory disparity that might otherwise result from treating such transactions differently. Thus, our proposed amendments would require the Item 402(t) disclosure in whatever form the transaction takes, whether a merger, acquisition, a Rule 13e-3 going private transaction or a tender offer. The vote required by Section 14A(b)(2), however, would not be extended to transactions beyond those specified in that section. We are also proposing to include language in Item 1011(b) of Regulation M-A that would require the bidder 122 in a third-party tender offer to provide information in its Schedule TO about a target's golden parachute arrangements but only to the extent the bidder has made a reasonable inquiry about the golden parachute arrangements and has knowledge of such arrangements, since certain bidders in non-negotiated transactions may not have access to such information. In addition, we are proposing an exception to the disclosure requirement under Item 1011(b) for both bidders and targets in third-party tender offers and filing persons in Rule 13e-3 going-private transactions where the target or subject company is a foreign private issuer. 123 We are also proposing an exception to the disclosure obligation under Item 402(t) with respect to agreements and understandings with senior management of foreign private issuers where the target or acquirer is a foreign private issuer. 124 We believe such accommodations are appropriate in light of our long-standing accommodation to foreign private issuers regarding compensation disclosure. 125 122 “Bidder” is defined in Rule 14d-1(g)(2) [17 CFR 240.14d-1(g)(2)]. 123 “Foreign private issuer” is defined in Rule 3b-4(c) [17 CFR 240.3b-4(c)]. 124 Proposed Instruction 2 to Item 402(t). 125 See, e.g., Item 402(a)(1) of Regulation S-K, and Items 6.B and 6.E.2 of Form 20-F [17 CFR 249.220f]. Request for Comment (45) Should we require Item 402(t) disclosure, as proposed, in transactions not specifically referenced in the Act? Is this disclosure necessary to minimize potential regulatory arbitrage? If not, please explain why not. (46) Are there any impediments to providing this disclosure in such transactions? If so, please explain. (47) Are the proposed exceptions from the Item 402(t) disclosure requirements for bidders and target companies in third-party tender offers and filing persons in Rule 13e-3 going-private transactions where the target or subject company is a foreign private issuer appropriate? Is the proposed exception from the Item 402(t) disclosure obligation with respect to agreements or understandings with senior management of foreign private issuers appropriate? If not, why not? Are any other exceptions for transactions involving foreign private issuers necessary? 4. Proposed Rule 14a-21(c) Section 951 of the Act also amends the Exchange Act to add Section 14A(b)(2), which generally requires a separate shareholder advisory vote on golden parachute compensation arrangements required to be disclosed under Section 14A(b)(1) in connection with mergers and similar transactions. A separate shareholder advisory vote would not be required on golden parachute compensation if disclosure of that compensation had been included in the executive compensation disclosure that was subject to a prior advisory vote of shareholders under Section 14A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-21(a). As discussed above, 126 we are proposing new Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K to implement the compensation disclosure requirements set forth in new Section 14A(b)(1) of the Exchange Act by requiring disclosure of the full scope of golden parachute compensation applicable to the transaction. Consistent with Section 951 of the Act, whether or not Section 14A(b)(2) also requires the issuer to solicit shareholder approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements, disclosure prescribed by proposed Item 402(t) would be required in any proxy or consent solicitation for a meeting at which shareholders are asked to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation or sale of the issuer's assets. 126 See Section II.D.2 above. Under proposed Rule 14a-21(c), issuers would be required to provide a separate shareholder advisory vote in proxy statements for meetings at which shareholders are asked to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or proposed sale or other disposition of all or substantially all assets, consistent with Section 14A(b)(2). This advisory vote would be required only with respect to the golden parachute agreements or understandings required to be disclosed by Section 14A(b)(1), as disclosed pursuant to proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K. Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure of any agreements or understandings between the soliciting person and any named executive officer of the issuer or any named executive officers of the acquiring issuer, if the soliciting person is not the acquiring issuer. When a target issuer conducts a proxy or consent solicitation to approve a merger or similar transaction, golden parachute compensation agreements or understandings between the acquiring issuer and the named executive officers of the target issuer are not within the scope of disclosure required by Section 14A(b)(1), and thus a shareholder vote to approve arrangements between the soliciting target issuer's named executive officers and the acquiring issuer is not required by Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(2). Consequently, we have proposed Rule 14a-21(c) to require a shareholder advisory vote only on the golden parachute compensation agreements or understandings for which Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure and Section 14A(b)(2) requires a shareholder vote. As described above, 127 however, because compensation arrangements may involve agreements or understandings between the acquiring issuer and the named executive officers of the target issuer, proposed Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K would require disclosure of compensation pursuant to these arrangements, as well as the arrangements for which Section 14A(b)(1) requires disclosure, in order to require disclosure of the full scope of golden parachute compensation applicable to the transaction. In this regard, Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K would require disclosure of a broader group of agreements and understandings than required by Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1), but proposed Rule 14a-21(c) would require a separate shareholder advisory vote only on the agreements and understandings described in Exchange Act Section 14A(b)(1). Even though agreements and understandings between the acquiring issuer and the named executive officers of the target issuer would not be subject to the Rule 14a-21(c) vote unless the acquiring issuer is soliciting proxies to approve the merger, we are proposing to require this disclosure because we believe that shareholders may find disclosure about these arrangements informative to their voting decisions regarding not only the Rule 14a-21(c) advisory vote, but also the transaction itself. Moreover, some issuers may choose to subject these arrangements to the shareholder advisory vote voluntarily because of investor interest in the full scope of golden parachute compensation applicable to the transaction or for other reasons. 127 See Section II.D.2 above. Our proposed rule would not require issuers to use any specific language or form of resolution to be voted on by shareholders. This shareholder vote would not be binding on the issuer or its board of directors. In addition, consistent with Section 14A(b)(2), issuers would not be required to include in the merger proxy a separate shareholder vote on the golden parachute compensation disclosed under Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K if Item 402(t) disclosure of that compensation had been included in the executive compensation disclosure that was subject to a prior vote of shareholders under Section 14A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-21(a). In this regard, we note that Section 14A(b)(2) requires only that the golden parachute arrangements have been subject to a prior shareholder vote under Section 14A(a)(1); such arrangements need not have been approved by shareholders. For issuers to take advantage of this exception, however, the executive compensation disclosure subject to the prior shareholder vote would need to have included Item 402(t) disclosure of the same golden parachute arrangements. Even if the annual meeting proxy statement provides some disclosure with respect to golden parachute arrangements, 128 the annual meeting proxy statement would need to include the disclosure required by Item 402(t) in order for the annual meeting shareholder vote under Section 14A(a)(1) and Rule 14a-21(a) to satisfy the exception from the merger proxy separate shareholder vote under Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c). Consequently, we would expect that some issuers may voluntarily include Item 402(t) disclosure with their other executive compensation disclosure in annual meeting proxy statements soliciting the shareholder vote required by Section 14A(a)(1) and Rule 14-21(a) so that this exception would be available to the issuer for a potential subsequent merger or acquisition transaction. We also expect that some issuers may choose to include the new disclosure for other reasons, such as investor interest in the information. 128 See CD&A and Item 402(j) of Regulation S-K, and for smaller reporting companies see Item 402(q)(2) of Regulation S-K for the disclosure requirements applicable to annual meeting proxy statements. The exception would be available only to the extent the same golden parachute arrangements previously subject to an annual meeting shareholder vote remain in effect, and the terms of those arrangements have not been modified subsequent to the Section 14A(a)(1) shareholder vote. New golden parachute arrangements, and any revisions to golden parachute arrangements that were subject to a prior Section 14A(a)(1) shareholder vote would be subject to the separate merger proxy shareholder vote requirement of Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c). 129 Because a shareholder vote would already have been obtained on portions of the arrangements, however, we are proposing that only the new arrangements and revised terms of the arrangements previously subject to a Section 14A(a)(1) shareholder vote would be subject to the merger proxy separate shareholder vote under Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c). 129 As proposed, if the disclosure pursuant to Item 402(t) has been updated to change only the value of the items in the Golden Parachute Compensation Table to reflect price movements in the issuer's securities, no new shareholder advisory vote under Section 14A(b)(1) would be required. However, if any terms of such agreements have changed subsequent to the prior Section 14A(a)(1) shareholder vote, a separate vote under Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c) would be required. For example, we would view any change that would result in an IRC Section 280G tax gross-up becoming payable as a change in terms triggering such a separate vote. Under our proposal, issuers providing for a shareholder vote on new arrangements or revised terms would provide two separate tables under Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K in merger proxy statements. 130 One table would disclose all golden parachute compensation, including both arrangements and amounts previously disclosed and subject to a say-on-pay vote under Section 14A(a)(1) and Rule 14a-21(a) and the new arrangements or revised terms. The second table would disclose only the new arrangements or revised terms subject to the vote, so that shareholders can clearly see what is subject to the shareholder vote under Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c). Similarly, in cases where Item 402(t) requires disclosure of arrangements between an acquiring company and the named executive officers of the soliciting target company, issuers should clarify whether these agreements are included in the shareholder advisory vote by providing a separate table of all agreements and understandings subject to the shareholder advisory vote required by Section 14A(b)(2) and Rule 14a-21(c), if different from the full scope of golden parachute compensation subject to Item 402(t) disclosure. 131 130 See proposed Instruction 6 to Item 402(t)(2) of Regulation S-K. 131 Proposed Instruction 7 to Item 402(t)(2). As discussed above, such agreements are not required to be subject to the proposed Rule 14a-21(c) shareholder advisory vote, but issuers may voluntarily subject them to such a vote. Request for Comment (48) If golden parachute arrangements have been modified or amended subsequent to being subject to the annual shareholder vote under Rule 14a-21(a), should we require the merger proxy separate shareholder vote to cover the entire set of golden parachute arrangements or should we, as proposed, require a separate vote only as to the changes to such arrangements? For example, if a new arrangement is added, would the Section 14A(b)(2) shareholder advisory vote be meaningful if shareholders do not have the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the full complement of compensation that would be payable? (49) Should we exempt certain changes to golden parachute arrangements that have been altered or amended subsequent to their being subject to the annual shareholder vote under Rule 14a-21(a)? For example, should we require a separate vote under Rule 14a-21(c) if the only change is the addition of a new named executive officer not included in the prior disclosure or a change in terms that would reduce the amounts payable? Should we provide an exemption for golden parachute arrangements previously subject to an annual shareholder vote if the only change is the subsequent grant, in the ordinary course, of additional awards under an employee benefit plan, such as stock options or restricted stock, that are subject to the same acceleration terms that applied to those already covered by the previous vote? For example, if subsequent to the previous vote, additional equity awards are granted in the ordinary course pursuant to a plan, such as an annual option grant, and those awards are subject to acceleration in the event of a change in control on the same terms as earlier awards that were subject to the previous vote, should we exempt those subsequent awards? Should any other types of changes to golden parachute compensation arrangements be so exempted? (50) Where an issuer voluntarily includes Item 402(t) disclosure in an annual meeting proxy statement to satisfy the exception from the Section 14A(b)(2) shareholder vote, should all Item 402(t) disclosure be required to be presented in one section of the document, without cross references, to facilitate shareholder understanding? If not, why not? Does proposed Instruction 6 to Item 402(t)(2) assure certainty and predictability regarding the availability of this exception? If not, what additional instructions are needed? (51) Section 14A(b)(2) does not specify which shares are entitled to vote in the shareholder vote to approve the agreements or understandings and compensation specified in Section 14A(b)(1), nor does this section direct the Commission to adopt rules addressing this point. We are not proposing to address this question in our rules, but should our rules implementing Section 14A(b)(2) address this question? If so, how, and on what basis? E. Treatment of Smaller Companies Section 951 of the Act establishes a new Section 14A(e) of the Exchange Act, which provides that we may, by rule or order, exempt an issuer or class of issuers from the requirements of Sections 14A(a) and (b). In determining whether to make an exemption under this subsection, we are directed to take into account, among other considerations, whether the requirements of Sections 14A(a) and 14A(b) disproportionately burden small issuers. Our proposed rules would not exempt small issuers from the requirements of Sections 14A(a) and 14A(b). We believe the shareholder advisory votes and additional disclosure required by Section 14A and our proposed rules would be significant for investors in all issuers, including smaller reporting companies. 132 As a result, the proposed rules discussed above will all apply to smaller reporting companies, with the exception of our proposed amendment to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K, as smaller reporting companies are not required to provide a CD&A. We do not believe that smaller reporting companies should be exempt from the say-on-pay vote, frequency of say-on-pay votes and golden parachute disclosure and vote because we believe investors have the same interest in voting on the compensation of smaller reporting companies and in clear and simple disclosure of golden parachute compensation in connection with mergers and similar transactions as they have for other issuers. 132 “Smaller reporting company” is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act. We have crafted our proposals to minimize the costs for smaller reporting companies, while providing shareholders the opportunity to express their views on the companies' compensation arrangements. For example, our proposed amendments would provide the shareholders of smaller reporting companies with the same voting rights with respect to executive compensation as shareholders of other companies subject to the proxy rules. We are not currently aware that Section 14A and our proposed rules would unduly burden smaller reporting companies. Our proposed amendments, for example, would not alter the existing scaled disclosure requirements set forth in Item 402 of Regulation S-K for smaller reporting companies, which recognize that the compensation arrangements of smaller reporting companies typically are less complex than those of other public companies. 133 Under our proposed rules, we would not alter the provision in our rules that smaller reporting companies are not required to provide a CD&A. 133 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 53158] (hereinafter, the “2006 Executive Compensation Release”) at Section II.D.1. The scaled compensation disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies are set forth in Item 402(1) [17 CFR 229.402(l)] through (r) [17 CFR 229.402(r)] of Regulation S-K. Our proposed rules would, however, require quantification of golden parachute arrangements in merger proxies. Smaller reporting companies are not required to provide this quantification under current Item 402(q) in annual meeting proxy statements, and would not be required to do so under our proposals unless they seek to qualify for the exception for a shareholder advisory vote on golden parachute compensation in a later merger transaction. Even though our proposed rules would impose additional disclosure requirements relating to the shareholder advisory votes required by Section 14A, we preliminarily do not believe our proposed rules would impose a significant additional cost or disproportionate burden upon smaller reporting companies. As noted above, smaller reporting companies tend to have less complex compensation arrangements 134 so the proposed additional disclosures should not add significantly to their disclosure burden. As a result, we do not believe our proposed rules would place a disproportionate burden on smaller reporting companies. 134 In adopting executive compensation disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies, we have recognized that the executive compensation arrangements of these issuers typically are less complex than those of other public companies. See 2006 Executive Compensation Release, supra note 133, at Section II.D.1. Request for Comment (52) Should we fully, partially, or conditionally exempt smaller reporting companies or some other category of smaller companies from some or all of the requirements of Section 14A? Are the provisions of Section 14A unduly burdensome on small companies and if so, how are they unduly burdensome? (53) Should we fully, partially, or conditionally exempt smaller reporting companies or some other category of smaller companies from any or all of our proposed rules? If so, which ones? Are any of our proposed rules unduly burdensome to smaller reporting companies and if so, how are they unduly burdensome? (54) Are the golden parachute arrangements of smaller reporting companies relatively simple and straightforward compared to those of larger issuers? Would the disclosure of such arrangements required by proposed Item 402(t) impose an undue burden on smaller reporting companies? (55) Should we clarify in an instruction to Rule 14a-21, as proposed, that smaller reporting companies are not required to include a CD&A in their proxy statements in order to comply with our proposed amendments? (56) Are there any other steps that we should take to reduce the burden on smaller reporting companies? F. Transition Matters As noted above in Section I, Section 14A(a)(3) requires that both the initial shareholder vote on executive compensation and the initial vote on the frequency of votes on executive compensation be included in proxy statements relating to an issuer's first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011. Because Section 14A(a) applies to shareholder meetings taking place on or after January 21, 2011, any proxy statements, whether in preliminary or definitive form, even if filed prior to this date, for meetings taking place on or after January 21, 2011, must include the separate resolutions for shareholders to approve executive compensation and the frequency of say-on-pay votes required by Section 14A(a) without regard to whether the Commission has adopted rules to implement Section 14A(a) by that time. Therefore, in order to facilitate compliance with the new statute, we are addressing certain first year transition issues. Rule 14a-6 currently requires the filing of a preliminary proxy statement at least ten days before the proxy is sent or mailed to shareholders unless the meeting relates only to the matters specified by Rule 14a-6(a). Until we take final action to implement Exchange Act Section 14A, we will not object if issuers do not file proxy material in preliminary form if the only matters that would require a filing in preliminary form are the say-on-pay vote and frequency of say-on-pay vote required by Section 14A(a). Rule 14a-4 under the Exchange Act currently provides that persons solicited are to be afforded the choice between approval or disapproval of, or abstention with respect to, each matter to be voted on, other than elections of directors. Exchange Act Section 14A(a)(2) requires a “separate resolution subject to shareholder vote to determine whether [the say-on-pay] votes * * * will occur every 1, 2, or 3 years.” 135 Until we take final action to implement Exchange Act Section 14A, we will not object if the form of proxy for a shareholder vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes provides means whereby the person solicited is afforded an opportunity to specify by boxes a choice among 1, 2 or 3 years, or abstain. In addition, we understand that some proxy service providers may have difficulty in the short term in programming their systems to enable [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-26535. Public record. Not legal advice.