UPDATE: Simon Property wins dismissal of CEO pay suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc., the biggest U.S. shopping-mall owner, won’t have to face a lawsuit claiming it improperly barred investors from voting on an executive-pay plan that yielded a $120 million stock award to CEO David Simon.

Delaware Chancery Court Judge Travis Laster in Wilmington on Thursday backed the company’s arguments that a shareholder suit by a Louisiana pension fund should be thrown out because Simon officials agreed to change the compensation plan it targeted.

Simon, based in Indianapolis, faced criticism last year over its CEO’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 pay plan in April to cut the number of shares eligible to vest if Simon, 52, leaves before 2015.

The ruling comes as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission continues to weigh a proposal to require corporations to disclose how much more their chief executives earn than rank- and-file employees. The pay-ratio disclosures are mandated by a provision in the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act.

Les Morris, a company spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on Laster’s ruling Thursday.

Rising pay at Simon

Simon investors filed suit in Delaware after the shareholders’ vote on the CEO’s stock grants. In the past, company officials have defended Simon’s compensation by noting total stockholder returns for the past 10 years were 597 percent compared with 58 percent for the S&P 500. Simon was one of the company’s top executives during that period. He has been CEO since 1995 and chairman since 2007.

Simon’s compensation for 2013 was about $16.2 million, including salary, bonus, and stock awards, according to the company’s proxy filing, released Thursday. His compensation was $13.2 million in 2012 and $10.5 million in 2011.

Simon President and Chief Operating Officer Richard Sokolov saw total compensation rise to nearly $8 million in 2013, from $6.2 million in 2012. General Counsel James Barkley made $6.3 million, up from $5 million.

Chief Financial Officer Stephen Sterrett was paid $6.2 million, up from nearly $5 million. David J. Contis, president of Simon Malls, saw compensation rise to $3.1 million, up from $2.2 million.

David Simon is the son of Melvin Simon, who formed the company with brothers Herbert and Fred in 1960, the same year it opened its first shopping center in Bloomington, Indiana. The landlord went public in 1993.

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.

Stuart Grant, a lawyer for the pension fund, didn’t immediately respond to a call seeking comment on the ruling.


The company’s lawyers told Laster last month that the mall owner’s board approved changes to the plan designed to ensure executives got stock awards based solely on their performance and could only receive as much as $600,000 worth of shares in any one grant.

The pension fund argued the original pay plan granted Simon stock awards for simply staying on as the company’s top executive rather than achieving results for shareholders, according to court filings.

Simon officials argued the recent changes to the executive- compensation plan made the Louisiana pension fund’s suit moot.

“We think it’s completely resolved,” Lewis R. Clayton, a lawyer for the directors, told Laster at a March 25 hearing. “The plaintiffs have won.”

Laster allowed David Shepherd, an individual Simon investor, to proceed with his claims the company made misleading disclosures about its changes to the executive-pay plan.

Shepherd contends Simon officials mischaracterized the changes that allowed David Simon to get the disputed stock grants as “non substantive” in proxy materials, according to court filings. The company also claimed the changes limited such grants when they in fact increased the number of shares executives could get in annual awards, Shepherd’s lawyers argued.


  • Are We Jealous?
    It sounds to me like the previous 3 commenters are just amazed at how much money the Simons make. Their company has been around more than 50 years and is clearly leading their industry. Why is that? Because of David Simon. Sure, he had a leg up most of us don't, but he has done an exemplary job of advancing the ball for the Family company. Sounds like the judge agreed. Maybe, just maybe, if you start a company with your own money and efforts, your grandchildren can fight it out with investors in the future. But I doubt it will happen if you do nothing but complain. Get a life!
  • No matter how you cut it
    No matter how you cut it, Simon's paycheck came out of our pockets. What a waste.
  • Shocking
    WE THE TAXPAYERS give them mega bucks of our dollars and .....Sign me "ashamed to be a hoosier"
  • Unbelievable
    This is the same family that is on city welfare for hundreds of millions. Unbelievable. How much money do you need, Simons? Does your appetite have no end?

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.