For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

FLEX by Fenwick is the only service created by an AmLaw 100 firm that provides flexible and cost-effective solutions for interim in-house legal needs to high-growth companies.  MORE >

Fenwick & West handles significant cross-border legal and business issues for a wide range of technology and life sciences who operate internationally..  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney


We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200

Executive Compensation Alert: ISS Issues Policy Updates for 2012 Proxy Season

Executive Compensation Alert: 2012 ISS Corporate Governance Policy Updates

On November 17, 2011, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) released updates to its proxy voting guidelines. The updated policies will apply to all publicly-traded companies holding shareholder meetings on or after February 1, 2012. The key changes are described below and are available on the ISS website, under the Policy Gateway.

Methods to Determine Alignment Between Pay and Performance

ISS has updated its policies to provide a more focused review of a company’s alignment between pay and performance. The new updates emphasize long-term trends in pay versus performance and attempt to narrow a company’s peer group. The new framework is essentially comprised of the two following components.

  • ISS will consider the alignment between a company’s total shareholder return (TSR) rank and the CEO’s total pay rank within a peer group, as measured over one-year and three-year periods, weighted forty percent and sixty percent, respectively. The peer group will generally consist of 14-24 companies that are selected based on market cap, revenue (or assets for financial firms), and their specific industry group (as assigned within the Global Industry Classification Standard). ISS will seek to place the company being evaluated close to the median of the peer group in revenue/asset size. The CEO’s relative pay rank among the peer group will then be compared to the company’s weighted TSR rank.
  • ISS will evaluate the trend in annual CEO pay changes against the trends in the company’s annual TSR over the prior five fiscal years.

Based on these two tests, if the pay-performance alignment is unsatisfactory, ISS will consider causal or mitigating factors. These could include a review of the ratio of performance-based to time-based equity awards, the impact of a newly hired CEO, the rigor of performance goals, and the company’s grant and benchmarking practices.

Absent such mitigation or justification, ISS may recommend against the company’s Say-on-Pay proposal. 

Board Responses to Say-on-Pay and Say-on-Frequency Advisory Votes

Say-on-Pay. If the company’s previous Say-on-Pay proposal earned less than 70% of shareholder support, ISS will review the election of compensation committee members (and in extreme cases, the full board) and the new Say-on-Pay proposal on a case by case basis. This review will consider the company’s disclosure of efforts to engage with major investors regarding the issues that resulted in low-level support, its efforts to address those issues, whether those issues are recurring or isolated, and the company’s ownership structure. The new ISS guidelines emphasize the need for new and meaningful responses to low level Say-on-Pay support and warn that companies with such low level support should avoid repeating existing practices and boilerplate response.

Say-on-Frequency. ISS will recommend a vote “against” or “withhold” from the entire board of directors (except new nominees, to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis), if the board implements an advisory Say-on-Pay vote less frequently than the frequency desired by the majority of votes cast at the most recent annual shareholder meeting with a Say-on-Frequency vote. If no single proposal received a majority of shareholder support, where the board implements an option that is less frequent than the option receiving a plurality of votes cast, ISS will review the board’s rationale on a case-by-case basis. In so doing, ISS will evaluate the board’s reasons for disregarding the plurality opinion, the company’s ownership structure, shareholder support for the previous year’s Say-on-Pay proposal, and the company’s other compensation concerns.

Equity Plan Approvals with Section 162(m) Features

ISS has also updated its policies to clarify its position regarding compensation plan proposals related to Section 162(m) in order to exempt compensation from taxes under such section if no increase in shares is also requested. ISS will generally recommend in favor of proposals to approve or amend executive incentive plans if the proposal does one or more of the following: (i) includes only administrative features, (ii) caps the annual grants any single participant may receive to comply with Section 162(m), (iii) adds performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with Section 162(m), unless clearly inappropriate, or (iv) covers cash or cash and stock bonus plans submitted to shareholders.

Proposals will likely meet ISS disapproval if the compensation committee does not fully consist of independent directors or if the plan contains provisions that ISS considers to be problematic.

A new issue this year, is that ISS will evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis if the company has an evergreen provision and an equity plan is being submitted to shareholders for re-approval within the four-year time period required by the IRS after its initial public offering (IPO). Thus, ISS will compare the shareholder value cost of the evergreen provision to the good corporate governance features in the plan. This differs from past practice, where ISS almost always voted for re-approval without performing a case-by-case analysis. In light of this new guidance, we recommend that companies that have had recent IPOs consider submitting equity plans for re-approval at the first meeting following the IPO, at a time when venture funds may still have a substantial stake in the company.

With the 2012 proxy season approaching, companies should monitor their pay practices in light of these updated ISS guidelines. These updated policies reinforce ISS’ concern that pay practices should align with the company’s long-term performance and shareholder return. These updates also suggest that companies should meaningfully consider the results of non-binding Say-on-Pay and Say-on-Frequency shareholder votes.

For more information, you may contact any attorney in the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Group.

Scott P. Spector (650.335.7251–
Shawn E. Lampron (650.335.7642–
Blake W. Martell (650.335.7606–
Gerald Audant (415.875.2362–
Elizabeth A. Gartland (415.875.2361–
Grace Chen (650.335.7676–
Marshall Mort (650.335.7131–

Adriana Sherwood (415.875.2364–