IBJNews

Simon’s board wrongfully denied CEO pay vote, lawyers argue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc. directors improperly refused to let shareholders vote on changes to the real-estate company’s executive-compensation plan that resulted in a $120 million stock award to CEO David Simon, investors’ lawyers argued.

The board of Indianapolis-based Simon wrongfully amended the company’s stock-incentive plan to allow the chief executive to receive retention grants instead of tying the awards to performance, Stuart Grant, a lawyer for Simon shareholders, told a judge Monday.

Shareholders were entitled to vote on whether Simon, the son of the company’s co-founder, should go from “getting paid for delivering performance to getting paid for just showing up,” Grant argued at a hearing before Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine.

Simon, the largest U.S. shopping-mall owner, faced criticism last year over its chief executive’s compensation package. More than 70 percent of the Simon shares voted at the company’s 2012 annual meeting opposed the retention award. To address those complaints, directors changed the CEO’s compensation package in April to cut the number of shares eligible to vest if Simon leaves before 2015.

The plaintiff investors are asking the judge to rule against directors without a trial. Strine declined to make an immediate decision in the case.

Material changes

The board’s attorneys countered that the plan’s terms don’t provide an automatic shareholder vote on alterations and investors can’t show “intentional misconduct” on the part of directors for refusing to hold one.

The plan’s language says a vote “may be held” if changes are material as defined by the New York Stock Exchange, Paul Rowe, one of the company’s lawyers, said. NYSE officials confirmed that the changes to the company’s compensation plan don’t meet the test under their guidelines, he added.

Simon investors sued in Delaware last year in the wake of shareholders’ so-called “say-on-pay” vote over the CEO’s stock grants. Company officials defended Simon’s compensation, noting total stockholder returns for the past 10 years were 597 percent compared with 58 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500. Simon was one of the company’s top executives during that period, and has been CEO since 1995 and chairman since 2007.

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, a Simon shareholder, and other investors accused directors of exceeding their authority by amending the company’s stock-incentive plan, created in 1998, to allow Simon’s retention grant without shareholders’ approval.

‘Absurd result’

“The board caused the whole mess by violating the plan in effect at the time,” Michael Kelly, another lawyer for Simon shareholders, told the judge. The defendants’ interpretation of the agreement’s language on the vote “would lead to an absurd result,” he added.

After hearing arguments in Wilmington, Strine said investors’ complaints about the board’s refusal to hold a vote posed “an interesting situation” and suggested both sides should weigh a possible settlement.

The judge said Simon’s directors may want to consider whether “there is progress to be made outside the litigation front.”

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 can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT