IBJNews

Simon amends plan for CEO's controversial $154M bonus

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc. has amended its agreement with CEO David Simon for a hotly debated $154 million retention bonus, adding criteria to partially base the award on the financial performance of the company.

In 2011, the board of the Indianapolis-based retail real estate giant awarded Simon the bonus of 1 million shares—valued at that time at $120 million—contingent on him staying with the company through July 2019.

The changes to the agreement outlined in a Jan. 2 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission tie the CEO’s bonus to a pay-for-performance plan, as well as length of tenure. Under the amendments, the firm must meet goals related to improved funds from operation, a key measure of financial performance for real estate investment trusts.

“The performance criteria in the modified award are designed to incentivize Mr. Simon to continue and improve upon the company’s outstanding performance achieved under his leadership,” according to the filing.

The firm also believes that the changes will head off legal action against the company based on the controversial retention bonus. “The company has made a motion to dismiss the claims as moot,” according to the filing.

The bonus currently is worth about $154 million, based on the firm’s share price.

Some stockholders were incensed by the original plan for the retention bonus, believing that it lacked incentives for David Simon to continue performing at a high level. In May 2012, shareholders representing 73 percent of Simon shares voted at the firm’s annual meeting to oppose the award.

The vote was non-binding, but it sent a message to company officials that shareholders were not pleased with the move. Earlier this year, the board proposed a modified compensation package that left in place the stock retention bonus but tinkered with unrelated performance-based rewards.

Shareholders voted in favor of the package at this year’s annual meeting.

However, legal action against the firm has continued. In May, a judge ruled that investors could proceed with a lawsuit accusing company directors of improperly raising the CEO’s pay without shareholder approval.

Plantiffs included the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and the Delaware County Employees’ Retirement Fund. In court filings, they called Simon’s new compensation package “outlandish on its face” because it didn’t stipulate that the company achieve any performance benchmarks for Simon to get the $120 million.

“The only requirement for this enormous grant was for Simon to continue to show up for eight more years,” court papers said.

The plaintiffs also alleged board members breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders and violated the law by amending the company’s 1998 incentive-compensation plan without putting it to a shareholder vote.

The plan had to be changed, the plaintiffs argued, because it tied pay to performance goals and clearly barred “a retention award payable to an employee simply for sitting at his or her desk for a designated period.”

The new changes to the terms of David Simon’s retention bonus are not significant enough to sway the plaintiffs in the case, said Stuart Grant, lead attorney in the consolidated action.

“They put lipstick on a pig,” Grant told IBJ Friday morning.

Grant noted that the amended plan does not address the issue of whether the board violated its incentive-compensation plan.

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. A couple of issues need some clarification especially since my name was on the list. I am not sure how this information was obtained and from where. For me, the amount was incorrect to begin with and the money does not come to me personally. I am guessing that the names listed are the Principal Investigators (individual responsible for the conduct of the trail) for the different pharmaceutical trials and not the entity which receives the checks. In my case, I participate in Phase II and Phase III trials which are required for new drug development. Your article should differentiate the amount of money received for consulting, for speaking fees, and for conduct of a clinical trial for new drug development. The lumping of all of these categories may give the reader a false impression of physicians just trying to get rich. The Sunshine Law may help to differentiate these categories in the future. The public should be aware that the Clinical Trial Industry could be a real economic driver for Indiana since these revenues supports jobs and new job creation. Nationally, this account for 10-20 billion which our State is missing out on to a large degree. Yes, new drug and technology development has gotten most of the attention (e.g. CTSI, BioCrossroads, etc.) However, serious money is being left on the table by not participating in the clinical trials to get those new drugs and medical devices on the market!!!! I guess that this is not sexy enough for academia.

  2. The address given for the Goldfish Swim Club is the Ace Hardware, is it closing?

  3. Out of state management and ownership. If Kite controlled it, everything would be leased. Of course, due to the roundabout, there is limited access to the south side of 116th now also. Just have to go down to the light.

  4. Hey smudge, You're opposed to arresting people for minor crimes? Sounds great! We should only focus on murders and such, right? Let's stand around and wait until someone shoots someone before we act. Whatever we do, we should never question anyone, frisk anyone, or arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in shooting or stabbing. Very sound!

  5. You guys are being really rude to gays in the comments. (Not all of you, I presume). You need to stop it. Gays have just as much of a right to marry as straight people do. It's not fair how you guys are denying them equal rights. They're acting more human than you'll ever be. We obviously haven't matured since the bible was last updated. Hate the sin, not the sinner. You've all committed a sin at least once in your life. You've lied, you've stolen, etc. (Those are just possibilities). We should have a planet for people that support gay rights and a planet for people that don't. Then, gay people could get married without you bigots interfering with their love life. How would you feel if straights couldn't get married? How would you feel if teenagers were afraid to come out to their parents as straight? If straight people got hate everywhere they went? If straight people were afraid to go out in public, because they feared being judged? It's never going to happen at the rate society is going. You haven't seen the side of me where I act obscene. You're glad my inner demon hasn't been released. I would, but oh no, my comment would be removed because of my very strong emotions about this subject. I love gays, and love how they show their affection for each other. I just ADORE how a state is going to give same-sex couples a marriage license, then changes their mind. (I was obviously being sarcastic there). I just LOVE how society thinks gays are an abomination to our society. You're caring about marriage between two men or two women. That's a small thing. Just grow up, and let them marry. Let them live their lives. You can't make them change their sexuality. You can't make them change their lifestyle. In my opinion, gays are more than welcome to marry. Please, grow up and realize that people should be allowed to marry, even if it's same-sex marriage. You guys are saying that "the bible said gay marriage is wrong." Well, guess what else is wrong? Read Matthew:7 and you'll find out. (I am in no way breaking that. I am saying a fact). I'm stating that gays have just as much of a right to marry as straights do. (:

ADVERTISEMENT