Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Corporate Governance

: The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

Some Dodd-Frank Executive Compensation Action Items

By Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance

ADVERTISEMENTS

Editor?s Note: Jeremy Goldstein is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz active in the firm's executive compensation and corporate governance practices. This post is based on Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Goldstein, David E. Kahan and Adam J. Kaminsky. Additional posts on the Dodd-Frank Act are available here.

Washington?s focus on changing the rules regarding executive compensation continues with the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Set forth below is a discussion of certain executive compensation provisions of the Act and some recommended action items.

Say-on-Pay

The Act requires that companies include in their annual proxy statement a non-binding resolution seeking shareholder approval of named executive officer compensation at shareholder meetings at least once every three years, and mandates a separate vote to determine how often the say-on-pay vote will be held (every one, two or three years), with such separate vote to be held at least once every six years. The frequency vote represents a welcome departure from earlier drafts of the bill, which required an annual say-on-pay vote. As discussed in our memo of September 30, 2009 (available on the Forum here, triennial say-on-pay votes more closely align sayon- pay with the goal of avoiding short-termism in corporate governance and executive pay arrangements than do annual say-on-pay votes. We therefore recommend that most companies seek to implement a triennial approach. Targeted shareholder outreach, shareholder surveys regarding executive compensation and effective use of the compensation disclosure and analysis section of the proxy can be part of the arsenal of effective shareholder communication in connection with the say-on-pay vote and the frequency vote. Companies should be cognizant of (although not unduly deferential to) voting policies of institutional shareholders and proxy advisory services for say-on-pay, given that these groups may recommend withhold/against votes on the re-election of directors if concerns raised through say-on-pay votes are not adequately addressed.

Click here to read the complete post...

Full post as published by The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog on August 12, 2010 (boomark / email).