IBJNews

Simon shareholders OK CEO’s controversial pay package

Scott Olson
May 14, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shareholders of Simon Property Group Inc. approved CEO David Simon’s modified compensation package at the Indianapolis-based company’s annual meeting Tuesday morning.

The still-lucrative agreement leaves in place the element that has created the largest controversy—a $120 million stock retention bonus Simon will receive if he stays through July 2019.

Shares voting in favor of the pay package totaled more than 147.6 million compared with about 113.5 million voting against the proposal.
    
In a prepared statement, Simon Property Group defended its CEO’s compensation.

“Under David Simon’s leadership, Simon Property Group has delivered industry-leading earnings and dividend growth and total shareholder return,” the company said. “Our shareholders are pleased with the outstanding performance of their investment, and we look forward to our ongoing interactions with current and potential investors.”

Company directors 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.

Simon's annual proxy statement revealed that the resounding “no” vote last year 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. 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