Executive Compensation

Subscribe to Executive Compensation via RSS

We continue our blog series on COVID-19 implications on executive compensation matters with a post that addresses salary or wage reductions on a company-wide or targeted basis.

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.

COVID-19 has had significant impacts on all aspects of business.  While employers are assessing how to handle immediate employee needs related to sick leave, family leave and benefits claims, employers should also consider the impact that changes in their workforce or economic conditions will have on their compensation plans and programs.

This blog post addresses one of those compensation issues that many companies are currently grappling with – whether a temporary leave of absence or furlough triggers forfeiture, payment, vesting, or other treatment under compensation arrangements.

In following blog posts, we will address other compensation issues, including:

  • Effect of salary reductions on compensation arrangements (including “good reason” triggers);
  • Limitations on amendment of equity awards and performance goals; and
  • Funding and termination of nonqualified deferred compensation plans (“NQDC plans”) and limitations on such actions.

Is a leave of absence or furlough a “termination of employment” or “separation from service”?

Many employment agreements, severance plans, equity awards and other compensation arrangements provide for partial or full vesting or payment of amounts upon an employee’s termination of employment or separation from service.

Although many employees have experienced a significant decline or cessation of work in connection with the COVID-19 outbreak, such employees may not have necessarily had a separation from service or termination of employment under the terms of the applicable compensation arrangement.

As a general matter, employers with compensation arrangements with separation from service or termination of employment triggers who have employees who are being placed on leave, reduced hours or furlough should take the following steps, preferably before or as soon as possible after implementing any workforce changes:

First Circuit reverses District Court’s decision that co-investing funds were in de facto partnership which controlled portfolio company and could be held liable for portfolio company’s withdrawal liability; decision may be significant for multiemployer pension funds and private investment funds. Read the full alert.

The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has issued Notice 2017-75 (the “Notice”), which provides certain limited relief from the strict requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), in order to pay income taxes on deferrals attributable to services performed before 2009 that…

On Friday, December 15, the U.S. House of Representative and Senate conferees reached agreement on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (the “Final Bill”), and released legislative text, an explanation, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated budget effects (commonly referred to as the “score”).  Next week the House and Senate are each expected to pass the bill, and it is expected to be sent to the President for signature the following week.  As the conferees actually signed the conference text, changes (even of a limited and/or technical nature) are extremely unlikely at this point.

The Final Bill largely follows the Senate bill, but with certain important differences.  We outline some of the most significant differences between the Final Bill, the earlier House bill, and the Senate bill.  We then discuss in detail some of the most significant provisions of the Final Bill.  The provisions discussed are generally proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, subject to certain exceptions (only some of which are noted below).  While we discuss some of these provisions in detail, we do not address all restrictions, exclusions, and various other nuances applicable to any given provision.

Under both the House and Senate versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) would be modified to expand the scope of companies and executive officers subject to the limitation on deductibility of compensation over $1 million, as well as to eliminate the exception to non-deductibility under Section 162(m) for qualified performance-based compensation. The changes would be effective for tax years after 2017, but under the Senate bill, binding contracts in effect on November 2, 2017 would be grandfathered if not materially modified on or after that date).  Each version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would also generally lower the corporate tax rate to 20%.  The House bill reduces the corporate tax rate beginning in 2018 and the Senate reduces it beginning in 2019.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the U.S. Senate passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (the “Senate bill”), just over two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed its own version of the same legislation (the “House bill”).  Members of the House and Senate will next convene in conference to attempt to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the legislation.  Identical versions of the bill must be passed by simple majorities in both the House and the Senate before the bill, and signed by President Trump, before such legislation will become law.

The final Senate bill, although similar to the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee on November 16, contains several important changes.  We outline some of the most significant changes below, followed by a list of some of the major outstanding points of difference between the House and Senate bills as passed by the respective chambers.  We then discuss in detail some of the most significant provisions of both bills.

On December 2, 2017, the Senate approved its version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which contains proposals modifying certain executive compensation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The Senate’s approval of the executive compensation provisions follows substantively the same provisions proposed by the Senate Finance Committee’s bill, and…

Yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (the “House bill”). The House bill is identical to the draft bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee on November 10. Late last night the Senate Finance Committee approved its own conceptual version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. An initial, descriptive version of the Senate Finance Committee bill (for which actual statutory text is still forthcoming) prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation (the “JCT”) was released on Thursday, November 9. The Senate Finance Committee subsequently revised the bill significantly, as reflected in the JCT descriptions of the modifications released on Tuesday, November 12, and a further amendment[1] released late last night (as modified, the “modified Senate bill” and generally, the “Senate bill”). The modified Senate bill varies in certain important respects from the House’s bill.

The modified Senate bill introduces significant changes to the Senate bill released last week. Perhaps most significantly, the modified Senate bill would repeal the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring individuals without minimum health coverage to make “shared responsibility payments” (commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”). The modified Senate bill also provides for most changes to individual taxation to sunset after December 31, 2025, including the repeal of the individual AMT, the reduced rate for pass-through entities, the reductions in ordinary income tax rates and brackets, the repeal of itemized deductions, the increased standard deduction, and the expanded exemption for estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes. Notably, the reduced corporate rate cut of 20% (reduced from 35%) effective in 2019 would be permanent.

We have outlined below some of the significant changes in the latest draft of the Senate bill, and summarized the key differences between the modified Senate bill and the House bill. Because the Senate has not yet released legislative text, this summary is based only on the JCT’s descriptions of the Senate Finance Committee’s bill (in its original and modified form) and the November 16 amendment (as published on the Senate Finance Committee website).

On September 21, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted interpretive guidance regarding Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, which governs pay ratio disclosure. The interpretive guidance is intended to provide assistance to companies choosing to use statistical sampling in determining their median employee. In the interpretive guidance, the…