close

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 >

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

MORE >

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
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

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: The Trump Card in the GRId Game

RMG's New Rating Process - GRId. RiskMetrics Group, Inc. ("RMG") recently released a new corporate governance rating system, Governance Risk Indicators ("GRId"), which replaced RMG's Corporate Governance Quotient system ("CGQ"). GRId does not represent new RMG policy on risk, but rather attempts to make RMG’s rating process more transparent. GRId compares a company’s corporate governance practices against what RMG has determined to be "best practices" rather than against the practices of peer group companies, which was the methodology applied by CGQ. GRId also aims to synchronize RMG's rating process with its proxy voting policies, and it will be updated annually. While GRId scores will not directly determine RMG's proxy voting recommendations on shareholder proposals and director elections, they are necessarily related and, more importantly, they may influence institutional investors' voting decisions.

GRId evaluates four areas of corporate governance: audit; board structure; compensation and shareholder rights. RMG issues a risk-assessment grade to the company of red (high concern), yellow (medium concern) or green (low concern) in each of the four categories. GRId is comprised of a series of 63 weighted questions targeted at each of the four areas. Each of the possible responses is assigned a number of points ranging from -5 to +5. The scores are then converted to a 100-point scale for ease of comparison and comprehension. Because the questions are weighted, certain individual questions can significantly impact a company’s score.

Compensation-Related GRId Analysis. Compensation-related questions are at the center of the new system, claiming 28 of 63 questions. They are broken into sub-categories: executive short-term incentives, executive long-term incentives/equity compensation, dilution, equity vesting and holding periods, repricings, stock ownership, change-in-control triggers and pay practices (attached to this alert).

Change-in-Control Arrangements. The trump card is a company's severance trigger in its non-equity plan change-in-control agreements – it represents almost 25% of the total weighted compensation GRId score. The question of whether a company has "single" or "double" triggers in its non-equity plan change-in-control agreements is weighted heavily enough that it can move a company into the medium or high risk category.

 

No change-in-control agreements +3 points
Double trigger 0 points
Single trigger/modified single trigger (walk right on change-in-control) in an agreement that was entered into or amended prior to the last year -3 points

Single trigger/modified single trigger (walk right on change-in-control) in a agreement that was entered into or amended within the last year

-5 points
No disclosure -5 points

 

Pay Practices The pay practices subcategory with ten questions represents approximately 32% of the total weighted compensation GRId score. This subcategory aims to uncover any problematic or risky pay practices. The questions are equally weighted and are:

 

Did the company include a claw-back provision?
Are any of the NEOs eligible for a multi-year guaranteed bonus?
Do any of the NEOs receive tax gross-ups on their perks other than relocation and other broad-based benefits?
What is the multiple of salary plus bonus in the hange-in-control agreements for NEOs (other than CEO)?
What is the multiple of salary plus bonus for the CEO upon a change-in-control?
Does the company provide excise tax gross-ups for change-in-control payments?
What is the length of the employment agreement with the CEO?
Are executives given credit toward pension for years not worked?
In the last fiscal year, did the company grant premium priced options of at least 125% of market price that need to be maintained for at least 30 consecutive days?
Has the company voluntarily adopted a say-on-pay advisory vote resolution for the most recent annual meeting or committed to a resolution going forward?

 

These questions generally track what RMG has identified in its proxy voting guidelines as the most problematic pay practices, including among other things: egregious employment contracts; overly generous new CEO new-hire packages; excessively large bonus payouts without justifiable performance requirements or proper disclosure; egregious pension/SERP payouts; excessive perquisites and excessive severance or change-in-control terms (including payments exceeding 3x of base salary and bonus as well as single trigger terms and gross-up provisions, both of which are more problematic if in a new or recently amended agreement) and tax reimbursements.

Robust Disclosure. Whether or not a company makes adequate disclosure may also significantly impact its risk grade. A company’s failure to make any disclosure in its public filings relating to certain question topics may result in a lower score than the disclosure of the existence of a less than ideal pay practice.

While the GRId rating system may provide more clarity than its predecessor system, it still remains disconnected from a company’s actual circumstances. Companies will need to continue to balance the benefits of a "low risk" score from RMG with the need to effectively address their business risks and opportunities.

If you have questions about GRId, please contact Scott Spector or Blake Martell.


Scott P. Spector (650.335.7251–sspector@fenwick.com)
Blake W. Martell (650.335.7606–bmartell@fenwick.com)

©2010 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cenwick & West LLP or its clients. The content of the publication ("content") is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The publication of any content is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and Fenwick & West LLP. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the publication without seeking the appropriate legal or professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.


IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written by Fenwick & West LLP to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the internal revenue code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.​