IBJNews

Simon sticks with key terms of CEO's pay despite shareholder ire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc.’s annual proxy statement, released this week, shows that the company's board was so concerned about investor backlash to CEO David Simon’s rich compensation package that it held 21 meetings over the past year with large investors.

The proxy shows the company made small adjustments to that package but left in place the element that created the largest controversy—a $120 million stock retention bonus Simon will receive if he stays through July 2019.

The board unveiled Simon’s new contract terms in 2011, and in a non-binding vote at the 2012 meeting investors representing a whopping 73 percent of shares voted against his compensation package.

The new proxy reveals that the resounding vote prompted the board to launch a sweeping shareholder-outreach program, which included 21 in-person or phone meetings with 16 big investors. Eighteen of the meetings were attended by compensation committee Chairman Reuben Leibowitz; the other three were attended by compensation committee member Allan Hubbard.

Among the changes that the board and David Simon agreed to after receiving shareholder input:

—They reduced the amount of the retention bonus that Simon, 51, could collect if he were terminated before the contract expired without cause or for good reason.

If Simon stays through July 2019, he still receives the full award, which is in the form of 1 million shares of stock. The award was worth $120 million on the date of grant, but the actual value will depend on the share price at the time he collects it. Because Simon shares have risen to $163 a share, the current value is $163 million.

—Reduced the amount Simon could earn annually in performance-based awards from $12 million to a figure that is tied to what other Simon executives could receive. Under the formula, the potential 2012 payout for Simon was $11.5 million.

In the proxy, the board reiterated that David Simon had earned a lucrative pay package because the company performed well under his leadership, and he frequently appears on lists of best CEOs.

The proxy shows Simon’s total compensation in 2012 was $17.2 million.

A group that advises large shareholders on corporate governance issues praised Simon’s outreach effort, even though it did not result in a revamping of David Simon’s compensation.

“I think the company was very … pressured to address these issues,” Victoria Nguyen, an analyst at Glass Lewis & Co., told The Wall Street Journal. "They definitely made a move to engage with shareholders, which we think is encouraging and shareholders should recognize that as a valiant effort."

The outreach effort won’t put the matter to rest, however. The company continues to battle a lawsuit filed by two pension funds in August. They charge Simon’s pay package is “outlandish on its face” because it doesn't stipulate that the company achieve any performance benchmarks for Simon to get the $120 million.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT