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 and Employee Benefits Alert: ISS Issues Draft Policy Changes for 2014; Comments Due by October 29, 2014

On October 15, 2014, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) published its draft policy changes for 2015 and opened a public comment period ending October 29, 2014. The proposed revisions for U.S. listed companies are designed to implement more holistic methods for evaluating (i) new equity plan proposals and (ii) independent chair proposals. The final policies are expected to be released the week of November 7, 2014. If adopted, the policies will take effect for meetings of public companies on or after February 1, 2015. The key changes are described below and are available on the ISS website​, under the Policy Gateway.

1. Equity Plan Scorecard

ISS is proposing to use an equity plan “scorecard” evaluation methodology that will provide for a more nuanced consideration of equity plan proposals and will consider a range of positive and negative factors in determining whether to give a negative recommendation rather than relying on the series of “pass/fail” tests applied in the existing policy. While some egregious plan features will continue to result in a negative recommendation regardless of other mitigating factors (e.g., authority to reprice options without shareholder approval), consideration of all of the scorecard factors will generally determine whether a “For” or “Against” recommendation is warranted. ISS does not intend for the scorecard methodology to change the number of negative recommendations issued and has not provided any guidance on the weightings of the various scorecard factors.

The three main categories of scorecard factors are:

  • Plan Cost:
    • The total potential cost of the company’s plan relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated “shareholder value transfer” in relation to its peers. “Shareholder value transfer” will be calculated for both (i) new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants and for (ii) new shares requested plus shares remaining on future grants only.
  • Plan Features:
    • Whether the plan provides for automatic single-trigger award vesting upon a change in control;
    • Whether the plan provides for discretionary vesting authority;
    • Whether the plan provides for liberal share recycling on various award types; and
    • Whether there is a minimum vesting period for grants under the plan (the guidelines do not distinguish between performance-based grants and time-based grants).
  • Grant Practices:
    • The company’s three-year burn rate relative to industry/market-cap peers;
    • The vesting requirements of the most recent CEO equity grants and the proportion of such grants that are subject to performance conditions;
    • The estimated duration of the share pool under the equity plan based on the sum of the shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the three prior years;
    • Whether the company maintains a clawback policy; and
    • Whether the company has established post exercise/vesting share retention requirements.

Separate scoring models would be employed for companies in the S&P 500, Russell 3000 (excluding S&P 500) and Non-Russell 3000 index groups and for companies that have recently completed an IPO or emerged from bankruptcy. Burn rate benchmarks would be calibrated for respective index groups and the relevant GICS industry classification would be used within each index group.

The scorecard methodology would eliminate the potential for burn rate commitments. Additionally, liberal share recycling provisions would be evaluated as a plan feature, instead of a component of “shareholder value transfer” calculations.

2. Independent Chair Proposal

ISS is also proposing to implement a more comprehensive and nuanced policy for evaluating independent chair shareholder proposals. ISS’s current policy is to generally recommend “For” independent chair shareholder proposals unless the company satisfies each of the following six criteria:

  • The company designates a lead director, who is elected by and from the independent board members with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties;
  • The board is at least two-thirds independent;
  • The key board committees are fully independent;
  • The company has disclosed governance guidelines;
  • The company has not exhibited sustained poor “total shareholder return” performance; and
  • The company does not have any problematic governance issues.

The proposed methodology would add new governance, board leadership and performance factors to the analytic framework, including:

  • The absence/presence of an executive chair;
  • Recent board and executive leadership transitions at the company;
  • The tenure of the directors/CEO; and
  • The company’s “total shareholder return” performance over a longer (five-year) period.

Under the new methodology, ISS would consider all the factors as a whole and no one factor would be dispositive to their recommendation. ISS expects that the new methodology will result in a higher level of “For” recommendations. ​