IBJNews

Biglari's revised incentive package approved by shareholders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shareholders for Biglari Holdings Inc., Steak n Shake’s parent company, on Friday approved a revised, scaled-back incentive plan for Chairman and CEO Sardar Biglari.

The revised pay package pays Biglari the equivalent of 25 percent of the company’s annual growth in adjusted book value above a 6-percent threshold, up from 5 percent in the earlier version. The new deal also caps Biglari’s annual incentive pay at $10 million, but still requires him to spend at least 30 percent of his annual incentive payment buying Biglari Holdings shares in the open market.

A previously proposed incentive package for Biglari was criticized because it created the potential for Biglari to profit at shareholders’ expense. About 82 percent of the voting shares on Friday favored the revised proposal.

Biglari said there was “considerable misinformation” among shareholders about the earlier incentive agreement. Still, he agreed to revise the incentive package.

San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings Inc. canceled its previous shareholders meeting, scheduled for Aug. 24, to “correct misinformation,” answer questions from shareholders and analysts, and incorporate suggestions into an incentive package for Biglari.

Biglari Holdings cited a number of reasons for redesigning Biglari’s compensation, including his increased duties as a result of its transformation from strictly a restaurant company into a diversified holding company.

A September filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission says the company's annual goal for book-value growth is 10 percent. Based on a book value of $300 million, if the company achieved that 10 percent target, Biglari would earn an incentive bonus of $3 million. That is in addition to an annual salary of $900,000.

Friday’s shareholders meeting was the first held in San Antonio since Biglari moved the Steak n Shake parent’s headquarters there from Indianapolis earlier this year.

Biglari Holdings' subsidiaries are Steak n Shake, Western Sizzlin and Biglari Capital Corp.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Talk about greedy
    This is exactly the kind of greed that got our economy in so much trouble. Go to Texas and see if we care. Every Hoosier should boycott Steak n' Shake from now on -- why line the pockets of another Carl Icahn, especially when he thumbs his nose at one of the states that helped give him the opportunity to earn $3 million+ in annual bonuses??? DO NOT EAT AT STEAK N' SHAKE. Period. I hope every single IBJ reader will seriously consider this suggestion.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT