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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT