SEC Proposes Pay Versus Performance Disclosure Rules

May 5, 2015

Reading Time : 4 min

Summary of Proposed Rules

The proposed rules would add new paragraph (v) to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, which would require the disclosure in annual-or special-meeting proxy or information statements relating to executive compensation details about (a) the relationship between executive compensation actually paid to the registrant’s named executive officers (NEOs) and the cumulative total shareholder return (TSR) of the registrant, and (b)  the relationship between the registrant’s TSR and the TSR of a peer group chosen by the registrant, over each of the registrant’s five most recently completed fiscal years (or three years for smaller reporting companies).    The new disclosure is intended to provide useful information to shareholders when deciding whether to approve the compensation of the NEOs through the say-on-pay advisory vote, as well as when making voting decisions on compensation plans for NEOs and the election of directors.

New Tabular Disclosure. The amendments would require new tabular disclosure (in the format set forth below) showing the following information for each year covered by the table:

  • total compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table (SCT) for the principal executive officer (i.e., the chief financial officer (CEO)) and the average of the reported amounts of total compensation for the remaining NEOs identified in the SCT.
  • compensation actually paid to the CEO and the average of the compensation actually paid to the remaining NEOs.  Executive compensation actually paidwould be the total compensation for the covered fiscal year for each NEO, as disclosed in the SCT, but adjusted:
    • for pension benefits, to deduct the change in pension value and add back the actuarially determined pension service cost for services rendered during the applicable year
    • for equity awards, to deduct the fair value of equity awards granted during the year and add back the fair value on the vesting date of equity awards that vested during the year.
  • the company’s TSR, calculated in accordance with the definition of TSR in Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K
  • the TSR of the companies in a peer group, using the peer group identified by the company in its stock performance graph or in its Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Click here to see an example of a Pay versus Performance Table.

New Narrative/Graphic Disclosure.  Using the information provided in the table, companies also would be required to describe, for the periods covered by the table, (a) the relationship between the executive compensation actually paid to the CEO and other NEOs and the company’s TSR, and (b) the relationship between the company’s TSR and the TSR of the company’s identified peer group.  This information could be presented in narrative form, graphically (such as with plotted lines showing the change in compensation and TSR over the relevant period), in a table or through a combination of methods.

Voluntary Supplemental Disclosure.  Companies would be permitted to supplement the disclosure required by proposed Item 402(v) to reflect company-or industry-specific circumstances. Specifically, the proposing release notes that a company may include additional years of data or disclose supplemental measures of compensation other than compensation “actually paid” (e.g., realized pay or realizable pay), provided that any supplemental disclosure is clearly identified, is not misleading and is not presented with greater prominence than the required disclosure.

Companies and Filings Subject to Pay Versus Performance Disclosure.  All public companies that file proxy or information statements would be subject to the proposed rule, except (a) emerging growth companies, (b) foreign private issuers and (c) registered investment companies.  Smaller reporting companies would be subject to the proposed rule subject to the reduced disclosure and phase-in requirements discussed below. 

Pay versus performance disclosure would be required in proxy statements for annual and special shareholder meetings filed on Schedule 14A and information statements filed on Schedule 14C. The disclosure would not be required in registration statements on Form S-1 or annual reports on Form 10-K, regardless of whether such forms include Item 402 compensation disclosure, nor would it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the company specifically incorporates it by reference.

Because the disclosure will be provided pursuant to Item 402, it will be covered by the advisory say-on-pay vote.  

Persons Covered.  The compensation actually paid and relationship to TSR must be presented for each of the registrant’s NEOs.  Pay would be reported separately for the principal executive officer (i.e., the CEO), individually, and as an average for the remaining NEOs listed in the summary compensation table.  If more than one person served as CEO in any fiscal year, the aggregate compensation actually paid to those persons would be required to be disclosed for that year as the compensation actually paid to the CEO. 

Periods Covered.  For companies other than smaller reporting companies, the proposed rule would be phased in over three years, with three years of disclosure initially required and five years of disclosure eventually required. Smaller reporting companies initially would be required to disclose two years of information and three years of information thereafter. Companies would not be required to include periods prior to becoming an SEC-reporting company.

XBRL Requirement.  Companies would be required to tag the disclosure in the Pay versus Performance Table using eXtensible Business Reporting Language.  Companies would separately tag the values disclosed in the table and separately block-text tag the disclosure of the relationship among the measures, the footnote disclosure of deductions and additions used to determine executive compensation actually paid and the footnote disclosure regarding vesting date valuation assumptions.  The interactive data would have to be provided as an exhibit to the definitive proxy or information statement filed with the SEC.  This requirement would be phased in for smaller reporting companies so that they would not be required to comply with the tagging requirement until the third annual filing in which the pay versus performance disclosure is provided.

Timing for Implementation and Action Items

The new disclosure requirements regarding pay versus performance will not be effective until the SEC adopts final rules. While the timing of the adoption of the final rules is unclear, companies should plan for the possibility that the new requirements could go into effect as soon as the 2016 proxy season.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.