Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clearing Up Executive Compensation
Part One of Two
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published its proposal to revamp the rules governing the disclosure of executive and director compensation on Jan. 27, 2006. The proposed rules stand to significantly alter the compensation disclosure requirements applicable to registration statements, proxy statements, annual reports and Form 8-Ks, and are intended to ensure that investors receive disclosure that is 'clearer and more complete.' The regulations are the first attempt at a major overhaul of compensation disclosure since 1992 and were proposed in response to the widespread criticism that the current disclosure requirements do not engender a complete and accurate description of executive pay packages.
The proposal, to adapt the old saying, combines something old, something new and something borrowed.
- What's old: Retaining the tabular approach as the basis for disclosure to categorize information and promote comparability between years and among companies.
- What's new: A new column has been added to the Summary Compensation Table that would provide one figure disclosing total compensation. There are also several required supplemental tables on equity and non-equity incentive compensation, retirement benefits and other defined compensation arrangements, including a required narrative in which issuers must explain and describe the tabular data. Moreover, the proposed rules require enhanced details with respect to payments to executives upon a separation of employment or a change in control and enhanced tabular disclosure of director compensation arrangements.
- What's borrowed:Portions of Item 303 of Regulation S-K, which calls for Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results. The staff has created a new Compensation, Discussion and Analysis, or CD&A, requirement that would provide a general overview of compensation and a discussion of the data in the tables. In addition, the plain English rules that apply to prospectuses will also apply to compensation disclosure in proxy statements.
Reform Needed; Does This Do It?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?