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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT