Companies impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the concomitant widespread shelter in place orders, may be considering pay cuts for some or all of their workforce, either in addition to or instead of furloughs and layoffs.  In implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should be mindful of federal, state and local wage and hour and labor laws, consent and notice requirements under contractual agreements with individual employees or groups of employees, tax implications on subsequent “make-whole” or “make-up” payments, impact on employee benefit plan participation, governance considerations, and disclosure requirements for public companies.

Prior to implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should:

• IDENTIFY affected employees and applicable state or local law:
  • Who are the employees affected by potential salary or wage reductions? Are they exempt or non-exempt? Are they part-time or full-time? How many employees are affected at any single location? Will company executives be impacted?
  • Is the salary or wage reduction being undertaken in connection with a reduction in hours? If so, is the reduction proportionate?
  • What state or local law is applicable to the employee’s employment?
  • What are the state and local requirements for the notice, if any, that must be provided to employees prior to or following a wage reduction?
  • Would a reduction result in the employee’s wage falling below the threshold level for exempt classification (currently $684 per week under federal law)?
• REVIEW the potential effects of a salary or wage reduction under applicable law, contract, agreements, offer letters, and employee benefit plans:
  • Is the employee a party to an employment agreement, offer letter, or other agreement or arrangement that sets base salary? If so, does it expressly provide that base salary cannot be reduced, such that it would need to be amended?
  • Is the employee covered by an agreement, offer letter, or plan with a “good reason” or similar definition that would trigger severance, equity award accelerated vesting, or other rights as a result of a salary reduction? Is there an exception for across-the-board salary reductions and, if so, whether a limit or such reduction applies?
  • Does the employee participate in employee benefit plans and programs (e.g., group health plans, retirement plans, 401(k) plans, severance benefits, and vacation programs) that may be impacted by a reduction in hours and/or salary or wage reduction? For example, salary reductions may reduce an employee’s severance entitlement, pension accrual or matching contribution.
  • Does the company’s employee handbook address salary or wages during a leave of absence or furlough?
• ACT to execute waivers, deliver notices, take action with respect to employee benefit plans and, for publicly traded companies, provide disclosure of the salary reduction where necessary:
  • Obtain consents to salary or wage reductions and waivers of “good reason” from employees as needed.
  • Provide advance notice in accordance with applicable state and local requirements.
  • Take any necessary actions under employee benefit plans and programs to continue or end coverage/participation, as applicable.
  • Prepare and file disclosure if/as required for public companies (e.g., Form 8-K, press release).
  • Consider creating a working group including representatives from HR, legal, and investor relations to coordinate actions and communications to internal and external interested parties.

Wage and Hour considerations; Notice considerations

A number of states and some cities require companies to provide employees with notice of salary or wage reductions and/or notice of hours reductions within a certain number of days in advance of the reduction or within a certain period following the company’s decision to take such actions. Companies with operations in multiple states should confirm with labor/employment counsel whether state or local notice is required. If notice is required, the content of the notice should be reviewed by counsel to confirm that the messaging of the notice is consistent with the company’s approach for labor, employment, employee benefit plan, contract, and tax purposes.

In considering whether to reduce salary or wages of employees classified as “exempt” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies should carefully analyze applicable federal and state law (for example, exempt employees who perform any work during a work week are generally entitled to full salary, subject to limited exceptions).  Companies should also analyze whether such a reduction would be reasonably likely to result in the employee’s wage being reduced below the threshold level for exempt classification ($684 per week under federal law and $1,125 per week under New York law). If so, companies should consult labor/employment counsel with respect to the best approach with respect to such employees.  Additionally, while outside the scope of this blog post, companies that have employees represented by a union or subject to a collective bargaining agreement, should review any limitations or prohibitions under those agreements.

Contractual agreements

Compensatory arrangements entered into by companies with their employees, particularly with respect to their executive teams, and other arrangements maintained by companies (e.g., severance plans, equity plans, incentive compensation plans) often include provisions that require a specified salary to be paid and/or allow the employee to terminate his or her employment for “good reason” as a result of a salary reduction.

A common provision in good reason definitions is a reduction in the employee’s base salary and/or target bonus opportunity.  Once an employee’s good reason provision is triggered, and assuming that the wages are not reinstated within a short period of time or the employee does not consent to such reduction, the employee could terminate his or her employment and be entitled to severance, accelerated equity vesting, or other rights.  Certain agreements contain exceptions to these provisions for company-wide reductions or similar reductions across the senior-executive team, sometimes up to an overall cap.

In addition, employment agreements or offer letters may expressly provide that an employee’s base salary cannot be reduced below the stated level. If so, a reduction without the employee’s consent could result in a contractual claim. Further, amendments to or terminations of certain broad-based plans providing for specified levels of compensation may be limited or delayed by the provisions of the plan or certain advance notice requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Companies considering broad-based salary or wage reductions should review their employment agreements, offer letters, and any other agreements that require payment of a specified salary or that contain good reason protections, and should discuss with executive compensation and benefits counsel whether reducing wages could trigger unintentional contractual or administrative claims or severance obligations.

Tax considerations

Companies considering providing for salary, wage, or other compensation reductions in connection with the opportunity of a later guaranteed or conditional (i.e., merit or performance based) “make-whole” or “make-up” payment should be cautious, as such an arrangement could potentially result in an impermissible deferral of compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”).  Generally speaking, Section 409A, which governs non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, requires elections to defer compensation to be made no later than December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in which the employee performs the services to which the compensation relates (there are certain exceptions with respect to performance-based compensation that may be applicable to bonuses, but a discussion of these exceptions is beyond the scope of this blog post). If an employee’s consent is required for the compensation reduction and if in connection with such reduction, the company commits to paying additional compensation to the employee in a future taxable year, this type of arrangement could result in adverse tax consequences to the employee (including a 20% additional income tax in addition to applicable income tax). Companies should consult executive compensation and benefits counsel before implementing any program that includes a “make-whole” or “make-up” payment that could be paid in a calendar year following the calendar year of the compensation reduction.  Companies considering such programs should also consult executive compensation and benefits counsel to determine whether Congress, the Treasury Department, or the Internal Revenue Service have issued relief under Section 409A or other guidance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread salary/wage reductions.

Employee benefit plan considerations

Salary or wage reductions, especially when coupled with layoffs or furloughs, may impact employees’ participation in employee benefit plans. Companies should discuss the impact of a salary or wage reduction with their employee benefits counsel. In particular, companies should:

(1) Review their group health plan and Affordable Care Act requirements to assess requirements for continued coverage, either as an active employee or through COBRA, and the cost for that coverage;

(2) Monitor FSA and Dependent Care FSA contributions to be sure they are properly made depending on the facts; and

(3) Consider the effect of salary or wage reductions on 401(k) contributions and outstanding loans.

Governance considerations

In implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should confirm that such actions are approved at the appropriate level for corporate governance purposes. While decisions to reduce salary and wages for rank-and-file employees may in some cases be made by company management, salary and wage reductions for senior management and executive officers and director fee reductions should be approved by the Compensation Committee or the full Board, as applicable. Companies should consult executive compensation and benefits counsel to review governance documents (including Compensation Committee charter) and prepare the necessary approvals.

Public company disclosure considerations

For public companies, Form 8-K rules generally require disclosure of information that is important to security holders, including disclosure of information under Regulation FD and events material to corporate governance and management.  Broad-based or selective salary or wage reduction programs may trigger disclosure on a Form-8-K (whether under Item 2.05 as steps taken in connection with exit or disposal activities, Item 5.02 as a material amendment of a material management contract or Item 7.01 / Item 8.01 as Regulation FD disclosure or voluntary disclosure) and filing requirements should be carefully reviewed and considered by public companies with counsel. Contracts entered into in connection with salary or wage reductions may be required to be filed with the company’s next quarterly or annual report.

Our executive compensation lawyers are tracking the companies that have been implementing salary and wage reductions and are available to discuss the alternatives that other companies have been implementing.

The post COVID-19 Impact on Executive Compensation – Salary/Wage Reductions appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Efforts to conserve an equity plan’s share reserve should begin the day the issuer’s stockholders approve the plan (or share increase), and should continue going forward. Issuers that do not make such efforts tend to face problems relating to dwindling share reserves, including moving to cash-based programs, hiring proxy solicitation firms to garner stockholder support for share increases, and overcoming possible negative reactions from ISS.

The following are some ideas an issuer could use to extend the life of its plan share reserve:¹

• Grant awards that are settled in cash – Depending on the terms of the plan, a cash-settled award may not draw from the share reserve.² An alternative would be settling a portion of the award in shares (e.g., up to target), with any achievement above that settled in cash.

• Grant full value awards like restricted stock or RSUs – Such grants provide greater value to the holder than options or SARs, the latter providing incentive only to the extent the share price exceeds the exercise/strike price, but draw from the share reserve the same as full value awards.³

• Permit net-exercise of stock options – Depending on the terms of the plan, the shares subject to the option that are netted in a net-exercise may not draw from the share reserve. Also, a net-exercise could be helpful to a Section 16 insider to avoid a blackout (i.e., no open market transaction occurs with a net-exercise).⁴

• Amend the plan to permit maximum withholding – A recent change in accounting rules provides that maximum withholding will not result in liability accounting treatment. Depending on the terms of the plan, withholding of shares to cover taxes may not draw from the share reserve.

• Grant stock-settled SARs rather than options – A stock-settled SAR will provide the same economic result as a net-exercised option, but since a SAR is settled in shares with respect to only the excess over the strike price, fewer shares are burned than with a net-exercised option.

• Use inducement awards for new executive-level hires and certain M&A events – The award must be a material inducement to getting the executive/employee to accept the position. If properly structured, these awards can be made outside of the plan and do not require stockholder approval under NYSE or NASDAQ rules.⁵

• Implement an ESOP or ESPP – ESOPs, which are subject to ERISA, do not require stockholder approval under NYSE or NASDAQ rules. Depending upon the structure of an ESPP, stockholder approval may be required.⁶

_{1. Some of these methods involve liberal share counting, which is disfavored by ISS.}

_{2. Liability classification would apply for accounting purposes and settlement in cash will not count towards satisfying any share ownership requirements.}

_{3. This method will not work if the plan contains fungible share counting provisions.}

_{4. However, a net-exercise of an incentive stock option could jeopardize the ISO’s favorable tax treatment.}

_{5. Without stockholder approval, such awards could not qualify for deduction under Section 162(m), if applicable.}

_{6. Broad participation requirements may apply.}

The post Equity Plan Share Reserves: How to Increase Its Life Expectancy: Executive Compensation Practical Pointers appeared first on The National Law Forum.

PCAOB proposals would have auditors reading the employment and compensation contracts of corporate leaders and, possibly, forcing changes to comp programs due to unacceptable risks of material restatement.

Unfortunately, the PCAOB is suggesting that auditors also evaluate whether the design of an executive-compensation program could itself lead to excessive risk taking. Here’s what one of the board members, Steven Harris, had to say about this matter:

“Equity-based compensation arrangements may also provide strong incentives for excessive risk-taking by executives. Studies have shown that these arrangements can position executive officers to benefit from the upside of high-risk investments, while largely insulating them from the downside risks. In addition, excessive risk taking generally is viewed as one of the contributing factors to the recent financial crisis. For example, ‘The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report’ concluded that ‘Executive and employee compensation systems at these institutions disproportionately rewarded short-term risk taking.’ The Board’s proposals would require auditors to focus on the potential opportunities and motivations for executive officers to exaggerate gains, or minimize losses, and to consider any effect compensation incentives might have on the reliability of the financial statements.” (Emphasis added)

That type of statement raises the possibility that an auditor might view the structure of an executive-compensation program to be so problematic that, when coupled with other factors, the auditor may be unable to issue an unqualified opinion. This risk (i.e., not receiving an unqualified opinion on financial statements) could give the auditor significant influence over executive-compensation decisions.

What’s particularly interesting about the timing of the PCAOB release is that its focus on executive compensation is happening when shareholders now have a “say on pay” under Dodd-Frank and there is an increasing focus on “pay for performance.” As discussed in my January column, ISS, the leading shareholder advisory service, recently revamped its guidelines for making recommendations on executive compensation by focusing on total shareholder return (TSR) as compared with peer companies, and it’s reasonable to expect that issuers will start to use TSR performance goals. One can only imagine the reaction of compensation committees if their decisions to restructure executive pay in response to shareholders were to be second-guessed by auditors, particularly in light of the current lawsuits regarding failed say-on-pay votes.

The PCAOB is moving quickly on this change. While the proposed amendments require SEC approval, the PCAOB anticipates that these changes would be effective for audits of financial statements for companies with fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2012.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

The post Will Auditors Influence How Executives Are Paid? appeared first on The National Law Forum.