Menu

ERISA and Global Benefits

Final Pay Ratio Rule Coming in 2015? And Clawback Proposal Too?
A June 2nd Law360 article cites Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, as saying that SEC Chair Mary Jo White “told her . . . that the [SEC’s pay ratio] rule would be completed in the fall” and follows by reporting that an SEC official has confirmed that Chair White "is committed to completing the rule in the time frame she described to Sen. Warren."
THE SEC’S PROPOSED DISCLOSURE RULES FOR HEDGING TRANSACTIONS BY DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES
Overall, because the hedging and pledging of company stock are widely considered to reflect poor corporate governance practices, the boards of public companies should take thoughtful action in 2015. In so doing, they should carefully analyze and update their insider trading policies.
Another Stock Award Scandal?
A new academic study concludes “that CEOs strategically time corporate news releases to coincide with months in which their equity vests.”
"Legally binding Rights" Tax Ruling for Bonus Deductions . . . 409A?
In the absence of a family inter-relationship or employer actions undermining its discretion to reduce or eliminate bonuses or other awards, the IRS Field Attorney Advice Memo is significant because it provides solid authority on which to argue that an employer's reservation of rights makes Code §409A totally inapplicable.
CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure: Now is the Time for Comments on the SEC's Proposed Rules
December 2nd is the deadline for comments on the SEC's proposed rules for disclosing the ratio of CEO pay to the median pay of all other employees. Employers who want to minimize the burden of the final rules - or to delay them - need to voice their concerns in November because the SEC is facing concerted pressure to retreat from the flexibility that employers would have under the current proposal.
Stock Plan Limits - §162(m) Disclosure Gives Legs to Shareholder Derivative Litigation
A shareholder derivative action has avoided dismissal because the underlying complaint reasonably claimed that the challenged stock option grants were not protected by the business judgment rule because the directors made grants in excess of a plan’s limits.
1 2