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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT