ILNews

Behind the News: Lawsuit over Simon’s bonus may expose board’s mindset

Greg Andrews
March 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

BTN-andrewsThe $120 million retention bonus that Simon Property Group Inc.’s board awarded David Simon two years ago has spawned a bitter legal battle in Delaware that promises to shed fascinating light on the inner workings of the board.

The huge stock bonus, which David Simon will collect if he stays with the company through July 2019, received harsh criticism from corporate governance watchdogs, as rich pay packages usually do.

But what was more surprising was that, in a non-binding vote at Simon’s annual meeting last spring, shareholders representing a whopping 73 percent of shares opposed the bonus.

That’s remarkable because, during Simon’s 18 years of running the business, owning Simon shares has almost been like holding a winning lottery ticket. Simon Property Group has ballooned into the largest real estate company in the world, and the stock price has chugged higher and higher.

As you would expect, Simon’s board has argued that it’s worth spending a hefty sum to ensure he stays at the helm for many more years.

What’s never been clear – but almost surely will come to light as the discovery process gains momentum in the Delaware lawsuit – is what led the board to suddenly conclude that it needed to take dramatic steps to ensure Simon wouldn’t quit or jump to another company.

Family business

From the outside, neither scenario looks likely. After all, Simon is the son of company co-founder Melvin Simon and the nephew of co-founder Herb Simon. So he’s essentially leading the family business. How would taking the reins at, say, Home Depot be a better gig?

It seemed out of the blue when, in the company’s April 2011 proxy statement, the board’s compensation committee said it had believed for several years that Simon’s compensation “was not commensurate with his contributions” and that it was working on a long-term contract that would be more generous.

Without offering specifics, the board in the company’s April 2012 proxy raised the specter of David Simon’s getting recruited away.

Stepping in to sue in August were the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and the Delaware County Employees’ Retirement Fund. In court filings, they call Simon’s new compensation package “outlandish on its face” because it doesn’t stipulate that the company achieve any performance benchmarks for Simon to get the $120 million.

Legal issues

The plaintiffs allege board members breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders and violated the law by amending the company’s 1998 incentive-compensation plan without putting it to a shareholder vote.

The plan had to be changed, the plaintiffs argue, because it tied pay to performance goals and clearly barred “a retention award payable to an employee simply for sitting at his or her desk for a designated period.”

Simon argues the amendment did not constitute a “material change” requiring shareholder approval – a position buttressed by a 2011 e-mail exchange between the company and a New York Stock Exchange official.

The NYSE mandates that its listed companies put material revisions to incentive plans to shareholder votes. After the company explained to the exchange why it didn’t think the changes triggered that requirement, John Carey, chief counsel for NYSE Regulation, followed up with an e-mail saying, “We have discussed your question and we have concluded that we agree with your analysis.”

The plaintiffs dismiss the exchange, arguing that Carey’s e-mail fell far short of providing an official legal interpretation. They also argue that taking the position that the changes weren’t material “strains credulity.”

Such legal issues could decide which side prevails in the case. But more interesting will be the e-mails and other documents Simon will turn over during discovery. Perhaps we’ll finally learn the full story behind the board’s lofty, no-strings-attached payout.•

__________

This “Behind the News” column originally appeared in the Indianapolis Business Journal.

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT