Getting Ready for Proxy Season: Changes to Section 162(m)

Written by


proxy-2-17-18.pngThe tax law signed by the president on December 22, 2017, makes a significant change to the ability of public companies to deduct compensation paid to top executives.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits a public company’s ability to deduct compensation of “covered employees” in excess of $1 million each year, but the old tax law provided a broad exception for certain types of performance-based compensation. A “covered employee” had been defined as any employee who, as of the last day of the taxable year, was the chief executive officer (or individual acting in that capacity) or an employee whose compensation is required to be reported to shareholders in the proxy statement because he or she is one of the four highest compensated officers, other than the CEO. As board members and compensation committee members of public companies are aware, the nuances and exceptions to section 162(m) limits were an important consideration in setting annual and long-term compensation for executives.

Below, we briefly explain the new limitations on the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m), and offer some next steps for boards and compensation committees to consider in the first quarter of 2018. Public boards and compensation committees will need to take action on this before proxy season.

Performance-Based Compensation Exception Repealed
Historically, performance-based compensation, such as stock-option income and compensation paid only on the attainment of performance goals, was excepted from the $1 million deduction limitation. The new law repeals this exception, and may change the approach of compensation committees regarding the mix of salary, bonus, performance awards and equity grants in compensation. Also, some plans that required shareholder approval due to the performance-based compensation exception will no longer require shareholder approval for deductibility.

CFOs Again Subject to Section 162(m)
The new law amends Section 162(m) to specifically include a publicly-held corporation’s principal financial officer as a “covered employee” that is subject to Section 162(m). This corrects an unintended gap that had left CFOs excluded from Section 162(m), due to changes in 2007 to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s executive compensation disclosure rules. For companies that had already included their CFO as a “covered employee,” this will not result in a change. However, for companies which had not included the CFO as a “covered employee,” this change limits the deduction for that executive.

Once Covered, Always Covered
If an executive is a “covered employee” subject to Section 162(m) in 2017 or any later year, the new law provides that he or she remains a “covered employee” for all future periods, including after termination of employment for any reason, including death. This eliminates the ability to deduct, for example, severance payments made after termination of an executive’s employment, to the extent that the severance results in compensation in excess of the limit.

Expansion of Covered Companies
Previously, Section 162(m) applied to a company issuing any class of common equity securities required to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The definition of a publicly held corporation subject to Section 162(m) is expanded by the new law to include any corporation “that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of [the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]”. This change would subject private corporations with public debt that triggers Section 15(d) reporting to the $1 million deduction limitation.

Limited Grandfathering Rule
The new law grandfathers in compensation provided pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017, so long as it was not modified in any material respect on or after November 2, 2017.

Next Steps
These rules are complicated and, with the grandfather rules, will require close attention by companies in advance of preparing their 2018 proxy statement. We recommend that boards and, as appropriate, compensation committees, do the following.

  • Educate the compensation committee on changes to the tax code.
  • Review all employment agreements, change in control agreements, severance plans, equity plans and cash bonus plans to determine if they qualify for grandfathering.
  • Evaluate the impact on bonus payment decisions for 2017.
  • Evaluate the non-equity bonus plan design for 2018.
  • Begin to redraft the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) and other relevant sections of the proxy statement.
  • Determine which plans will be subject to shareholder approval going forward.

In addition to the changes that will need to be made to proxy statements to reflect the updates to Section 162(m), the SEC’s pay ratio disclosure requirements were not modified by the new tax legislation and are in effect for the upcoming proxy season as well.

When the Gloves Come Off

Written by


shareholder-12-1-17.pngShareholder lawsuits are relatively common for the banking industry, but the reverse—a bank suing one of its shareholders—is fairly unique. On October 31, 2017, Nashville, Tennessee-based CapStar Financial Holdings, with $1.3 billion in assets, sued its second-largest shareholder, Gaylon Lawrence Jr. The bank alleges that the investor and his holding company, The Lawrence Group, violated the Change in Bank Control Act, which requires written notice and approval from the Federal Reserve before owning more than 10 percent of a financial institution, as well as a related Tennessee law. CapStar also maintains that Lawrence violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose plans to acquire additional CapStar stock.

Passing the 10 percent ownership mark without the proper approvals is more common than one might think, according to Jonathan Hightower, a partner at the law firm Bryan Cave LLP. And often the violators of these rules are directors who are simply enthusiastic about their bank’s stock and want more of it. “They’re interested in the bank. They may know of shares that are available in the community and buy them up without realizing they’ve crossed the threshold where they need regulatory approval,” says Hightower.

How the Fed interprets these regulations and the steps required of shareholders is a specialized area, adds Hightower. “Given that, the Fed’s approach, assuming there’s not an intentional violation, is more permissive than might be expected.” The Fed is unlikely to levy penalties against a shareholder acting in good faith.

Lawrence filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on November 13, 2017, and maintains that he has complied where necessary and that, as an individual investor, the Tennessee code requiring a bank holding company to acquire control of the bank isn’t relevant.

What’s unique in the CapStar case is that it’s the bank taking action against the investor, rather than the regulator. In a letter dated November 20, 2017, CapStar asked the Fed to reject Mr. Lawrence’s stake in the bank and require that Lawrence divest “all illegally acquired CapStar shares,” in addition to a request for a cease-and-desist order and the levying of civil money penalties against Lawrence.

Requiring Lawrence to divest will likely harm what is, in CapStar’s own words, a “thinly traded” stock, according to Stephen Scouten, a managing director at Sandler O’Neill + Partners. Without Lawrence’s acquisitions of large amounts of stock, “the stock would be appreciably lower than it is today,” says Scouten. The stock price rose 6.95 percent year-over-year as of November 27, 2017, and 17 percent in the three months in which Lawrence has been accumulating a sizeable number of shares.

stock-chart.png

Filings by CapStar indicate that Lawrence attempted to acquire the bank in the summer of 2016. When that attempt was unsuccessful, CapStar alleges that Lawrence approached two of the bank’s largest stockholders to buy their combined 30 percent stake. That attempt also failed, and Lawrence began acquiring CapStar stock on the open market after the bank’s initial public offering last year. From August through October 2017, Lawrence rapidly increased his stake in CapStar from 6.2 to 10.2 percent, paying a total of $82.7 million for 4.6 million shares. CapStar alleges that Lawrence has “coveted control” of CapStar, and it’s easy to see how the bank arrived at that conclusion.

Lawrence is a long-term investor who appears to like what he sees in the Nashville market. He even recently purchased a home there. He’s certainly an experienced bank investor. He owns seven community banks, including two in the Nashville area: F&M Bank, with $1 billion in assets, and Tennessee Bank & Trust, formerly a division of $510 million asset Farmers Bank & Trust in Blytheville, Arkansas, which is also owned by Lawrence. “He’s got a lot of money to put to work, [and] he thinks banks are a good investment for his capital,” says Scouten. Right now, that looks to be as much as 15 percent of CapStar. Whether that turns into a full-fledged bid for the bank, as he sought in 2016, is anyone’s guess. Bank Director was unable to reach a representative of Gaylon Lawrence Jr., and CapStar CEO Claire Tucker declined to comment.

Bank boards frequently deal with active investors, and in most cases, Hightower recommends focusing on shareholder engagement and ensuring that large investors understand the broad strokes of the bank’s strategic plan. “More often than not, it’s people not understanding what they’ve invested in, and where it’s going,” he says.

Are Your Owners Violating the Change in Bank Control Act?

Written by


Change-in-Control-10-18-16.pngMore people probably violate the Change in Bank Control Act (CBCA) than any other banking statute, as it is complicated and easy to do. But knowing the law and helping your shareholders keep up with their ownership filings is important. The law requires regulatory approvals before a person or group of persons “acting in concert” may take actions to directly or indirectly “control” a bank or savings association. Consequently, the CBCA impacts both bank and thrift holding companies and, with minor variations, all of the federal regulators have implementing regulations for the CBCA. Although the focus of this article is the Federal Reserve Board regulations regarding changes in control of bank holding companies, it is fair to say that given the intricacy of control determinations, the CBCA is likely one of the most inadvertently violated banking statutes currently on the books. The inadvertent CBCA violations often occur because of the presumption that certain groups are “acting in concert,” and the application of the CBCA requirements to these groups.

The CBCA requires that any person or groups of persons “acting in concert” must file change in bank control notices with the applicable federal regulator if the individual or group reaches an ownership level of 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of an institution. The definition of “person” under the CBCA is very broad and includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, trusts, associations and other forms of business entities. Acting in concert is defined as knowing participation in a joint activity or parallel action towards a common goal of acquiring control of a bank or bank holding company, whether or not pursuant to an express agreement.

There is a rebuttable presumption that an acquisition of voting securities of a bank holding company is the acquisition of control under the CBCA, requiring a notice filing, if, immediately after the transaction, the acquiring person or persons acting in concert will control 10 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the institution, and if the institution has registered securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or if no other person will own, control, or hold the power to vote a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction.

In determining whether persons are engaging in concerted action, there is a rebuttable presumption that the following groups are acting in concert:

  • A company and any controlling shareholder, partner, trustee, or management official of the company, if both the company and the person own voting securities of the institution;
  • An individual and the individual’s immediate family, which includes a person’s father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandparent, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, the spouse of any of the foregoing, and the person’s spouse;
  • Companies under common control;
  • Persons that are parties to any agreement, contract, understanding, relationship, or other arrangement, whether written or otherwise, regarding the acquisition, voting, or transfer of control of voting securities of an institution, other than through certain types of a revocable proxy;
  • Persons that have made, or propose to make, a joint filing under certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  • A person and any trust for which the person serves as trustee.

With respect to inadvertent CBCA violations, the most likely “acting in concert” scenario is the consolidation of voting securities held by an individual and the individual’s “immediate family” members. To the extent a family group owns at least 10 percent of a bank holding company, a new notice filing may be required any time the family group or ownership mix changes. Violations of the CBCA are inadvertently committed literally all the time by family groups as ownership is realigned at death, through estate planning or gifting, as minors age into formal ownership stakes and by birth or marriage.

Although the burden of obtaining regulatory approval is on the person or group of persons acquiring control, not the institution, the issue has recently been arising with great frequency when bank holding companies seek to acquire other institutions. As part of the review process, the Federal Reserve has requested current shareholder lists to compare them to prior control determinations made by the Federal Reserve. If a review of the shareholder list indicates changes, even intra-family changes, in the control group, the Federal Reserve may require that a new notice be filed.

Although at least in the family context, CBCA issues are generally easily resolved by filing an after-the-fact corrective notice, reviewing your bank holding company shareholder lists for technical changes in family group ownership may prevent a holdup down the line as you seek approval for future expansion.

FAST Act Extends Popular JOBS Act Registration Threshold to S&Ls

Written by


JOBS-Act-2-1-16.pngOn December 4, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act, which included several amendments to federal securities laws. Among the changes, the law amended Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 so that savings and loan (S&L) holding companies will be treated in the same manner to banks and bank holding companies for the purposes of registration or suspension of their Exchange Act reporting obligations. Not too long ago, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act raised the threshold under which a bank or bank holding company may terminate its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration and reporting requirements to 1,200 shareholders of record from 300.

One thrift, Alpena, Michigan-based First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, which has $338 million in assets, has already taken advantage of the new ruling and voluntarily deregistered and de-listed its stock from the NASDAQ stock market on December 18. The company’s stock now trades on the OTCQX market, the top tier of the over-the-counter markets operated by OTC Markets Group Inc.

In its press release about the rule change, the bank said that “the continuing increased costs and administrative burdens of public company status, including our reporting obligations with the SEC, outweigh the benefits of public reporting.”

The bank said it will continue to file quarterly interim financial statements and provide its shareholders with an annual report with audited financials, among other items, all of which are requirements on the OTCQX market.

The JOBS Act Deregistration and De-Listing Wave
Twenty banks and bank holding companies have deregistered and de-listed from a national stock exchange since the passage of the JOBS Act. Approximately half have moved to the OTCQX market.

Most banks have cited the high costs and regulatory compliance of being an SEC reporting company as the reason for their decision, as well as the ability to focus more of management’s time and resources on growing the business.

In a letter to shareholders following its de-listing, First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp said that deregistering and de-listing it shares would allow its management team to “spend more of its time focused on the core operations of the bank, including strategic planning and market expansion, thereby helping to create shareholder value.”

Wheeling, VA-based First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., with $347 million in assets, said in an October 26 press release that deregistering and de-listing its securities from the New York Stock Exchange’s NYSE MKT market would allow its senior management “to devote more time and resources to focus on customers and profitable growth of the [c]ompany as opposed to the considerable time and effort necessary to manage compliance with SEC reporting requirements.”  The company’s stock now trades on the OTCQX market under its same symbol, FWVB.

Attorney’s fees, printing costs and exchange listing fees aren’t the only expenses banks stand to save from by de-listing from an exchange. Directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance is also higher for SEC-registered companies than for non-SEC reporting companies and can provide a significant cost savings to smaller banks.

Trading on the OTC Market Versus on a National Stock Exchange
The unique structure of the OTC market, which is based on a network of broker-dealers rather than a centralized matching engine, can also help reduce volatility in the trading of small bank stocks and provide better visibility into trading activity.

“For a very thinly traded bank on NASDAQ, a trader may not want to commit capital to inventory 20,000 shares of stock when those shares may represent six weeks’ worth of volume, and computers are changing the bid and ask every few minutes. Maybe that capital is better committed someplace else. Don’t get me wrong, NASDAQ is a fantastic place to be but maybe not for some of the more illiquid banks,” says Tom Dooley, senior vice president of Institutional Sales at Boenning & Scattergood.

On OTCQX, banks are required to appoint a FINRA-member broker-dealer who can provide guidance on the trading of their stock, as well as help facilitate relationships with institutional investors, investment bankers and other key market participants. OTCQX bank advisors can also help their clients handle changes in their shareholder base and correct imbalances between the number of buyers and sellers of their stock.

Small S&L companies that are interested in taking advantage of the new law should examine the various costs and benefits to their business and their shareholders. There is much to be gained from deregistering and de-listing your securities if you do it the right way.