UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant x Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o
Check the appropriate box:
o | Preliminary Proxy Statement |
o | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
x | Definitive Proxy Statement |
o | Definitive Additional Materials |
o | Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12 |
KB HOME
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
x | No fee required. | |
o | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. | |
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: | |
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: | |
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): | |
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: | |
(5) | Total fee paid: | |
o | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |
o | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. | |
(1) | Amount Previously Paid: | |
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: | |
(3) | Filing Party: | |
(4) | Date Filed: | |
KB HOME
10990 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
(310) 231-4000
February 21, 2014
Dear Fellow Stockholder:
Your directors and officers join me in inviting you to attend the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of KB Home at 9:00 a.m., Pacific Time, on Thursday, April 3, 2014 at our corporate office in Los Angeles, California.
At our 2014 Annual Meeting, we will consider the following items of business:
Items of Business | Board Recommendation | |||
Elect ten directors, each to serve for a one-year term | FOR | |||
Advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation | FOR | |||
Approve the KB Home 2014 Equity Incentive Plan | FOR | |||
Ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm | FOR | |||
You can find more information on these items of business in the attached Notice of 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement. Your vote is very important, and we encourage you to vote via the Internet, by telephone or by mail as soon as possible to ensure that your vote is counted.
Following the formal business at the 2014 Annual Meeting, we will discuss our 2013 fiscal year results.
We look forward to seeing you on April 3.
Sincerely,
JEFFREY T. MEZGER
President and Chief Executive Officer
NOTICE OF 2014 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
Time and Date: | 9:00 a.m., Pacific Time, on Thursday, April 3, 2014. | |||||
Location: | KB Home Corporate Office, 10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024. | |||||
Items of Business: | (1) Elect ten directors, each to serve for a one-year term; | |||||
(2) Advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation; | ||||||
(3) Approve the KB Home 2014 Equity Incentive Plan; and | ||||||
(4) Ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm. | ||||||
The accompanying Proxy Statement describes these items in more detail. We have not received notice of any other matters that may be properly presented at the meeting. | ||||||
Record Date: | You can vote at the meeting and at any postponement or adjournment of the meeting if you were a stockholder of record on February 7, 2014. | |||||
Voting: | Please vote as soon as possible, even if you plan to attend the meeting, to ensure that your shares will be represented. You do not need to attend the meeting to vote if you vote before the meeting. If you are a holder of record, you may vote your shares via the Internet, by telephone or by mail. If your shares are held by a broker or financial institution, you must vote your shares as instructed by that broker or financial institution. | |||||
Annual Report: | Copies of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2013 (the “Annual Report”), including audited financial statements, are being made available to stockholders concurrently with the accompanying Proxy Statement. We anticipate that these materials will first be made available on or about February 21, 2014. | |||||
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting To Be Held on April 3, 2014: Our Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available at www.kbhome.com/investor/proxy. | ||||||
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
WILLIAM A. (TONY) RICHELIEU
Vice President and Corporate Secretary
Los Angeles, California
February 21, 2014
Table of Contents | |
KB HOME
10990 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
(310) 231-4000
PROXY STATEMENT
for the
2014 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON APRIL 3, 2014
General Information |
What is the purpose of this Proxy Statement? Your Board of Directors (the “Board”) is furnishing this Proxy Statement to you to solicit your proxy for our 2014 Annual Meeting. The items of business for the meeting are described in the accompanying Notice of 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This Proxy Statement contains information to help you decide how you want your shares to be voted. We anticipate that this Proxy Statement and a form of proxy or voting instruction form will first be made available on or about February 21, 2014. Who can vote? Holders of record of the 83,744,528 shares of common stock that were outstanding at the close of business on the record date (February 7, 2014) are entitled to one vote for each share held. The trustee of our Grantor Stock Ownership Trust (the “GSOT”) will vote the 10,501,844 shares the GSOT held on the record date based on the instructions received from our employees who hold unexercised common stock options under our employee equity compensation plans. Accordingly, a total of 94,246,372 shares are entitled to vote at the 2014 Annual Meeting. There is no right to cumulative voting. Who is a “Holder of Record”? If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, Computershare Inc., you are considered the “holder of record” of those shares. If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a financial institution or other holder of record, you are a beneficial owner of those shares held in “street name.” If you are a beneficial owner, this Proxy Statement will use the term “broker” to describe the person or institution that is the holder of record of your shares. | Attending the 2014 Annual Meeting | |||
Date: | Thursday, April 3, 2014. | |||
Place: | KB Home Corporate Office 10990 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024. | |||
Entry: | You must have an admission ticket and valid identification, as described below under the heading “Other Matters.” A professional business dress code will be observed. Parking is available at the meeting location. You may be subject to a security check. | |||
Note: | No cameras, recording equipment, electronic devices, large bags, briefcases or packages will be permitted at the meeting. Additional rules of conduct will apply at the meeting. | |||
Proxy Solicitation Costs We will pay the cost to solicit proxies for the 2014 Annual Meeting. In addition to this Proxy Statement, our officers, directors and other employees may solicit proxies personally, in writing or by telephone, facsimile, email or other means for no additional compensation. We will, if requested, reimburse banks, brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and certain fiduciaries for their reasonable expenses in providing material to their principals. We have hired Georgeson Inc., a professional soliciting organization, to assist us in soliciting proxies and distributing proxy materials. For its services, we will pay Georgeson a fee of $9,000, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. | ||||
1
Voting Information |
Quorum Requirement: | For stockholders to take action at the 2014 Annual Meeting, a majority of the shares of our common stock outstanding on the record date must be present or represented at the meeting. Abstentions and “broker non-votes” are counted for this purpose. | |
Broker Non-Votes: | A “broker non-vote” arises when a broker does not receive instructions from a beneficial owner and does not have the discretionary authority to vote on an item of business. For the 2014 Annual Meeting, we understand that brokers have discretionary authority to vote only on ratifying the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm. Therefore, if you are a beneficial owner, you must instruct your broker on how you want your shares to be voted on the other items of business for the 2014 Annual Meeting in order for your shares to be counted for those items. | |
Proxy Voting: | Holders of record may vote by proxy via the Internet, by telephone or by mail as described in the form of proxy or voting instruction form. If you are a beneficial owner, your broker should send you proxy voting materials and instructions, and may do so electronically. | |
Voting in Person: | Holders of record (or someone designated by a signed legal proxy) may vote in person at the 2014 Annual Meeting. If you are a beneficial owner, you must obtain a legal proxy from your broker and present it with your ballot. Voting at the 2014 Annual Meeting will replace any prior proxy voting. | |
Voting By Named Proxies: | The named proxies for the 2014 Annual Meeting — Jeffrey T. Mezger and Brian J. Woram (or their duly authorized designees) — will follow submitted proxy voting instructions. They will vote as the Board recommends as to any submitted instructions that do not direct how to vote on any item, and will vote on any other matters properly presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting in their judgment, including on any motion to postpone or adjourn all or any portion of the 2014 Annual Meeting. | |
Closing of Polls: | Polls will close shortly after the 2014 Annual Meeting is called to order. Holders of record may vote via the Internet and by telephone until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 2, 2014. Proxy voting instructions for shares held by the KB Home Common Stock Fund in our 401(k) Savings Plan or the GSOT must be received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 1, 2014. Each broker sets proxy voting deadlines for its beneficial owners. | |
Changing Your Vote: | Holders of record may revoke voting instructions at any time before polls close by submitting a later vote (i) in person at the 2014 Annual Meeting, (ii) via the Internet, by telephone or by mail before the above-listed deadlines, or (iii) to our Corporate Secretary at the address listed below under the heading “Communicating with the Board” by our close of business on April 2, 2014. If you are a beneficial owner, you must contact your broker to revoke any prior voting instructions. There are no dissenters’ rights or rights of appraisal as to any item to be acted upon at the 2014 Annual Meeting. | |
Election of Directors: | To be elected, each director nominee must receive a majority of votes cast in favor (i.e., the votes cast for a nominee’s election must exceed the votes cast against the nominee’s election). Shares that are not present or represented at the 2014 Annual Meeting and abstentions will not affect the election outcome. | |
Voting on Other Items: | Other items of business will be considered approved based upon the affirmative vote of a majority of shares of our common stock present or represented, and entitled to vote thereon, at the 2014 Annual Meeting. Abstentions from voting on these other items of business will have the same effect as an “against” vote. Broker non-votes will have no effect on the voting results for these other items of business. | |
Inspectors of Elections: | We have engaged our transfer agent to count the votes and to act as an independent inspector of election. William A. (Tony) Richelieu, our Corporate Secretary, will also act as an inspector of election. | |
2
Corporate Governance and Board Matters |
Corporate Governance Overview
We follow a number of leading corporate governance practices, and have done so for several years.
•All of our directors are independent (except our CEO), and are elected annually under a majority vote standard.
•Our standing Board Committees are entirely composed of independent directors.
•Since 2007 we have had an independent Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
•All directors and senior executives must meet equity ownership requirements during their service with us.
•Our Equity-Based Award Grant Policy provides strict Board-level oversight and controls over equity compensation.
•All directors and senior executives are prohibited from pledging or hedging their holdings of our securities.
• | We report our political contributions to the Nominating/Governance Committee and in our public Sustainability Report. |
• | Our charter documents do not require any supermajority votes, and we have only one class of voting securities. |
Role of the Board of Directors The Board is elected by our stockholders to oversee the management of our business and to assure that the long-term interests of our stockholders are being served. The Board carries out this role subject to Delaware law and our Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws and Corporate Governance Principles. Corporate Governance Principles Our Corporate Governance Principles provide a framework within which we conduct our business and pursue our strategic goals. The Nominating/Governance Committee regularly reviews our Corporate Governance Principles. On October 10, 2013, the Board, on the Nominating/Governance Committee’s recommendation, reaffirmed the terms of our Corporate Governance Principles without any changes. Ethics Policy We expect all of our directors and employees to follow the highest ethical standards when representing KB Home and our interests. To this end, all employees, including our senior executives, and our directors must comply with our Ethics Policy. The Audit Committee regularly reviews our Ethics Policy, and approved changes to it that became effective as of October 31, 2013. The changes updated certain standards of conduct, and clarified standards for employee personal use of KB Home service providers. Executive Sessions of Non-Employee Directors The non-employee directors meet in executive session at each of the Board’s regular meetings. Any non-employee director can request additional executive sessions. Stephen F. Bollenbach, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, schedules and chairs the executive sessions. | Board Membership As of the date of this Proxy Statement, the Board has eleven members. Except for Mr. Mezger, our President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), no director is a KB Home employee. Board Committees The Board has three standing Committees: • Audit and Compliance (the “Audit Committee”) • Management Development and Compensation (the “Compensation Committee”) • Nominating and Corporate Governance (the “Nominating/Governance Committee”) The Board appoints the members of and has adopted a charter for each Board Committee. The Board and each Board Committee conduct an annual evaluation of their respective performance. Mr. Mezger does not serve on any Board Committees. Board Meetings and Attendance The Board and its Committees hold regular meetings on a set schedule and may hold interim meetings and act by written consent from time to time as necessary or appropriate. The Board held five meetings during our 2013 fiscal year. Mr. Bollenbach, as the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, presides over all meetings at which he is present. In our 2013 fiscal year, each director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and the Board Committees on which he or she served during his or her period of service on the Board. We expect directors to attend our annual stockholder meetings. All directors serving at the time attended our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which was held on April 4, 2013. | |
3
Board Committee Composition and 2013 Fiscal Year Board Committee Meetings
Director | Audit Committee | Compensation Committee | Nominating/Governance Committee |
Barbara T. Alexander | X | ||
Stephen F. Bollenbach | X | X | |
Timothy W. Finchem | X | X | |
Dr. Thomas W. Gilligan | X | ||
Kenneth M. Jastrow, II | Chair | ||
Robert L. Johnson | X | ||
Melissa Lora | Chair | X | |
Michael G. McCaffery | Chair | ||
Luis G. Nogales | X | X | |
Michael M. Wood (a) | X | ||
Number of Meetings: | 7 | 6 | 4 |
(a) | Mr. Wood was appointed to the Audit Committee on January 22, 2014, the date on which he was elected to the Board, and has served on the Audit Committee since that date. |
Board Leadership Structure, Board Committee Responsibilities and Risk Oversight
Separate individuals currently hold the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and the Chairman of the Board is not an employee. The Board is led by an independent Non-Executive Chairman who coordinates the Board’s activities, including the scheduling of meetings and executive sessions of the non-employee directors and the relevant agenda items in each case (in consultation with the CEO as appropriate). The Board believes this leadership structure provides an effective way for the Board to carry out its roles and responsibilities on behalf of our stockholders. The Board has delegated certain responsibilities and authority to each standing Board Committee as described below, including with respect to risk oversight. At each regular Board meeting, each Board Committee Chair (or another designated Board Committee member) reports to the Board on his or her Board Committee’s activities.
Audit Committee. The Board has delegated its risk oversight responsibilities to the Audit Committee, other than risks relating to employee compensation. Each of our senior finance, accounting, legal and internal audit executives report directly to the Audit Committee regarding material risks to our business, among other matters, and the Audit Committee meets in executive sessions at each of its regular meetings with each such executive and with representatives of our independent registered public accounting firm. As part of its risk oversight, the Audit Committee reviews with our management on an annual basis an overall enterprise risk management assessment that identifies risk areas to our business and corresponding mitigating factors, controls or actions, and it requests or receives periodic updates as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Audit Committee or our management. The Audit Committee Chair reports to the Board regarding material risks as deemed appropriate.
The Audit Committee (a) is responsible for general oversight of our (i) accounting and reporting practices; (ii) internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures; (iii) audit process, including our independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, independence, retention, compensation and performance, and the performance of our internal audit department; and (iv) compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and management of matters in which we have or may have material liability exposure; (b) is authorized to act on the Board’s behalf with respect to our incurring, guaranteeing or redeeming debt and approving our entry into certain transactions; (c) oversees the preparation of a required report to be included in our annual proxy statement; and (d) is charged with the duties and responsibilities in its charter.
The Board has determined that each current member of the Audit Committee is financially literate under New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) listing standards, and that Ms. Lora qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules. The Audit Committee is a separately designated standing audit committee as defined in Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Our common stock is listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “KBH.”
4
Compensation Committee. The Board has delegated its oversight of risks that may arise from our employee compensation arrangements, plans, programs and policies to the Compensation Committee. In carrying out its risk oversight role, the Compensation Committee conducts with our management on an annual basis an overall assessment of our primary employee compensation plans and programs that identifies potential design and implementation risks of those plans and programs, including potential risks relative to relevant business risk areas identified in our annual overall enterprise risk management assessment. The Compensation Committee also carries out its risk oversight role on an ongoing basis through its review and, to the degree appropriate, specific approval of our compensation arrangements, plans, programs and policies as they are being developed by our senior human resources personnel. The Compensation Committee Chair reports to the Board regarding material risks as deemed appropriate. Based on this oversight approach and the identified mitigating factors noted in the box nearby, we do not believe that our present employee compensation arrangements, plans, programs and policies are likely to have a material adverse effect on us. | Mitigating Factors of Compensation Risks | |
• Balanced and competitive mix of salaries, benefits, and annual and long-term incentives aligned with our operational and strategic goals that are designed to attract, retain and motivate a talented team to achieve optimal performance. • The Compensation Committee’s and its outside consultant’s guidance in developing our compensation arrangements, plans, programs and policies, and the Compensation Committee’s review and approval of them. • Our equity-based award grant policy (described below under the heading “Equity-Based Award Grant Policy”), and the compensation clawback provisions in our CEO’s Employment Agreement. • The Compensation Committee’s review of our performance and of individual executives’ performance, and appropriate use of discretion to balance and/or contain performance-based compensation payable pursuant to applicable preset objective standards. | ||
The Compensation Committee (a) is responsible for (i) the evaluation and compensation of our CEO; (ii) the compensation of our senior executives (other than our CEO), which consists of our CEO’s direct reports and any designated “executive officers” (as that term is defined in Rule 3b-7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); (iii) oversight of our efforts to attract, develop, promote and retain qualified senior executives; and (iv) the evaluation and determination of non-employee director compensation and benefits; (b) oversees the preparation of the compensation discussion and analysis to be included in our annual proxy statement, recommends to the Board whether to so include the compensation discussion and analysis, and provides an accompanying report to be included in our annual proxy statement; (c) advises the Board on any non-binding vote or similar advisory action by stockholders to approve senior executive compensation; and (d) is charged with the duties and responsibilities in its charter. | ||
Executive Officer and Non-Employee Director Compensation Processes and Procedures. The Compensation Committee exercises the Board’s authority under our By-laws to fix executive officer and non-employee director compensation. Under this authority, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and approves the goals and objectives relevant to our CEO’s compensation, evaluates his performance in light of those goals and objectives and other criteria, and, either as a committee or together with the other independent directors (as directed by the Board), determines and approves our CEO’s compensation based on the evaluation. The Compensation Committee evaluates, in conjunction with our CEO, the performance of our senior executives, and reviews and approves their compensation. | Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation |
All current Compensation Committee members served throughout our 2013 fiscal year, and no member was part of a “compensation committee interlock” as described under SEC rules. In addition, none of our executive officers served as a director or member of the compensation committee of another entity that would constitute a “compensation committee interlock.” | |
In addition, the Compensation Committee exercises the Board’s authority with respect to our employee compensation and benefits arrangements, plans (including our employee equity compensation plans), programs and policies (collectively, “plans”), except to the extent that the Board, in its discretion, reserves its authority. This authority includes selecting eligible participants, recommending and approving grants and awards, setting performance targets and other award eligibility criteria, approving an aggregate incentive pool for any annual or long-term incentive awards, interpreting the plans’ terms, delegating certain responsibilities and adopting or modifying as necessary any rules and procedures to implement the plans, including any rules and procedures that condition the approval of grants and awards. The Compensation Committee also periodically reviews our plans and, from time to time, will recommend to the Board new material plans or modifications to existing plans. The Compensation Committee’s exercise of this authority with respect to the compensation and benefits awarded to our named executive officers (each, an “NEO”) under our plans, including specific considerations applied and determinations made, is discussed below under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”
The Compensation Committee, from time to time, reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding non-employee director compensation and benefits consistent with the goals of recruiting the highest caliber directors to serve on the
5
Board, aligning directors’ and stockholders’ interests, and fairly paying directors for the work required to serve stockholder interests given our size, scope and complexity of operations.
In its oversight of executive and non-employee director compensation, the Compensation Committee seeks assistance from our management and has engaged its own outside compensation consultant, Frederick W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FWC”). FWC began serving as the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultant in July 2013. Semler Brossy Consulting Group LLC (“Semler Brossy”) served as the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultant during our 2013 fiscal year until May. FWC and Semler Brossy were the only outside compensation consultants to the Compensation Committee during our 2013 fiscal year. FWC’s and Semler Brossy’s services to the Compensation Committee are described below under the heading “Role of Compensation Consultants.” The Compensation Committee may delegate to a subcommittee or to our management any duties and responsibilities as the Compensation Committee deems to be appropriate and in our best interests, but it cannot delegate to our management the authority to grant equity-based awards.
Nominating/Governance Committee. The Nominating/Governance Committee (a) is responsible for (i) providing oversight of our corporate governance policies and practices; (ii) identifying, evaluating and recommending to the Board individuals who are qualified to become directors as described in the box nearby; and (iii) performing ongoing assessments of the Board’s size, operations, structure, needs and effectiveness; (b) reviews and makes recommendations to the Board on proposed changes to our Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws and Corporate Governance Principles; (c) periodically assesses and recommends action with respect to stockholder rights plans and other stockholder protections; (d) reviews and approves “related party transactions,” as further described below under the heading “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions;” and (e) is charged with the duties and responsibilities in its charter. The Nominating/Governance Committee has retained professional search firms from time to time to assist it with recruiting potential director candidates to the Board based on criteria the Nominating/Governance Committee provides to each such firm. These firms help identify, evaluate and select director candidates and are typically paid an agreed upon fee plus expenses for their work. Current directors or other persons may recommend candidates to the Nominating/Governance Committee. Mr. Wood was recommended as a candidate by a current director prior to his election to the Board on January 22, 2014. A professional search firm was not involved in recruiting him to the Board. Any security holder may recommend a director candidate for the Nominating/Governance Committee’s consideration by submitting the candidate’s name and qualifications to us in care of our Corporate Secretary at the address listed below under the heading “Communicating with the Board.” Director candidates recommended by a security holder are considered in the same manner as any other recommended candidates. | Consideration of Director Candidates |
The Nominating/Governance Committee considers director candidates at regular or special meetings and at any point during the year. In addition to the general qualifications described below under the heading “Director Qualifications,” and the attributes described below in the box titled “Selected Director Attributes,” the Nominating/Governance Committee considers a director candidate’s diversity of background and personal experience. In this context, diversity may encompass race, ethnicity, national origin and gender, geographic residency, educational and professional history, community or public service, expertise or knowledge base and/or other tangible and intangible aspects of a candidate in relation to the personal characteristics of current directors and other potential director candidates. There is no formal policy as to how diversity of background and personal experience is applied, and a candidate’s background and personal experience, while important, do not necessarily outweigh other attributes or factors considered in evaluating any particular candidate. | |
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions
Pursuant to its charter, the Nominating/Governance Committee must review and approve or ratify any transaction, arrangement or relationship (or series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which we participate and in which a director, a director nominee, an executive officer or a beneficial owner of five percent or more of our common stock (or, in each case, an immediate family member) had or will have a direct or indirect material interest (a “Covered Transaction”), except as provided below or as otherwise determined by the Board. Our directors, executive officers, and stockholders who beneficially own five percent or more of our common stock are expected to inform our Corporate Secretary of Covered Transactions, and we collect information from our directors and executive officers about their affiliations and affiliations of their family members so that we can review our records for any such transactions.
The Nominating/Governance Committee will approve or ratify a Covered Transaction if, based on a review of all material facts of the transaction and feasible alternatives, the Nominating/Governance Committee deems the transaction to be in our and our stockholders’ best interests. The Nominating/Governance Committee has determined each of the following Covered Transactions to be pre-approved or ratified (as applicable):
• | any transaction in which the total amount involved is less than or equal to $120,000; |
• | the employment and compensation (a) of a director or executive officer if the individual’s compensation is reported in our annual proxy statement, or (b) of any other executive officer who is not an immediate family member of one of the |
6
foregoing individuals or a director nominee if such executive officer’s compensation was approved, or recommended for approval, by the Compensation Committee;
• | any transaction that would not (a) need to be reported under federal securities laws, (b) be deemed to impair a director’s independence under our Corporate Governance Principles or (c) be deemed to be a conflict of interest under our Ethics Policy; and |
• | any transaction where an individual’s interest therein arises solely from ownership of our common stock and all holders of our common stock received the same benefit on a pro-rata basis. |
The Nominating/Governance Committee determined that there were no Covered Transactions during our 2013 fiscal year.
Director Qualifications We believe our directors should possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity, judgment and values, and be committed to representing the long-term interests of our stockholders. Our directors should also have an inquisitive and objective perspective, and be able and willing to dedicate the time necessary to Board and Board Committee service. The Nominating/Governance Committee and the Board determined that each individual whom the Board will present at the 2014 Annual Meeting as a director nominee possesses these characteristics. In addition, the Nominating/Governance Committee regularly evaluates the skills and characteristics of current and potential directors, and may consider the attributes noted in the box nearby, among others. Through its evaluation, the Nominating/Governance Committee identified for the Board certain specific skills and qualifications possessed by each director nominee that supported the Board’s determination that each should serve as directors. These qualifications are described below along with other biographical information for each director nominee under the heading “Election of Directors.” | Selected Director Attributes |
• Personal qualities, accomplishments and reputation in the business community. • Financial literacy, financial and accounting expertise and significant business, academic or government experience in leadership positions or at senior policy-making levels. • Geographical representation in areas relevant to our business. • Diversity of background and personal experience. • Fit of abilities and personality with those of current and potential directors in building a Board that is effective, collegial and responsive to the needs of our business. • Independence and an absence of conflicting time commitments. | |
Director Independence
We believe that a substantial majority of our directors should be independent. To be independent, the Board must affirmatively determine that a director does not have any material relationship with us based on all relevant facts and circumstances.
The Board makes independence determinations annually based on information supplied by directors and other sources, the Nominating/Governance Committee’s prior review and recommendation, and certain categorical standards contained in our Corporate Governance Principles. These standards are consistent with NYSE listing standards. The Board has determined that all non-employee directors who served during our 2013 fiscal year and all non-employee director nominees are independent under the Board’s director independence standards. Accordingly, Mmes. Alexander and Lora, Messrs. Bollenbach, Finchem, Jastrow, Johnson, McCaffery, Nogales and Wood and Dr. Gilligan are independent.
In addition, the Board has determined (a) that each current member of the Audit Committee is independent under our Corporate Governance Principles, NYSE listing standards and SEC rules; (b) that each current member of the Nominating/Governance Committee is independent under our Corporate Governance Principles and NYSE listing standards; and (c) that each current Compensation Committee member is independent under our Corporate Governance Principles and NYSE listing standards, is a “non-employee director” under SEC rules and is an “outside director” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).
In making its independence determinations, the Board considered our acquiring and/or potentially acquiring land and land development rights in Texas from Forestar Group Inc., for which Mr. Jastrow serves as non-executive chairman; our licensing access to an online minority-focused employment and procurement portal from a subsidiary of The RLJ Companies, for which Mr. Johnson serves as chairman; our receipt of consulting services and market research data from a firm in which Mr. Wood owns a passive equity interest of less than 1%; and our obtaining or potentially obtaining certain insurance coverage from a U.S. subsidiary of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd., where Ms. Alexander serves as a non-employee director. Each of Ms. Alexander and Messrs. Jastrow, Johnson and Wood was deemed not to have a direct or indirect material interest in the respective transaction or potential transaction, and the Board determined that their independence was not impaired.
7
Director Compensation |
The Board sets non-employee director compensation based on recommendations from the Compensation Committee. Non-employee director compensation is currently provided under our Amended and Restated 2009 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan (the “Director Plan”). Mr. Mezger is not paid for his service as a director.
Director Compensation Plan
Under the Director Plan, our non-employee directors are entitled to receive an annual Board retainer, an annual grant of stock options and stock units, and Board Committee-related retainers. Non-employee directors are also entitled to receive meeting fees under certain circumstances, and may elect to receive any cash retainers and meeting fees in the form of stock units. Cash retainers are paid in equal quarterly installments over a Director Year. A “Director Year” is the period between our annual meetings of stockholders. Accordingly, the 2013-2014 Director Year began on April 4, 2013. |
Annual compensation items correspond to a Director Year, and non-employee directors who are elected during a Director Year are entitled to pro-rated annual compensation based on the period remaining in the Director Year of election. The annual grant of stock options and stock units is made on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders to the non-employee directors serving on the Board on that date. A non-employee director who is elected during a Director Year receives a pro-rated grant of stock options and stock units on the date of the director’s first day of service on the Board. |
The Board set the following compensation under the Director Plan for the 2013-2014 Director Year. The compensation shown below has remained the same since the Director Plan was adopted in 2009.
• Annual Board Retainer: | $80,000 |
• Annual Grant of Stock Options and Stock Units: | Each valued at $67,500 on the date of grant |
• Annual Board Committee Chair Retainers: | $25,000 (Audit Committee) |
$18,000 (Compensation Committee) | |
$10,000 (Nominating/Governance Committee) | |
• Annual Board Committee Member Retainers: | $10,000 (Audit Committee) |
$7,000 (Compensation Committee) | |
$5,000 (Nominating/Governance Committee) | |
Committee-Related Fees and Meeting Fees. The differences between the Board Committee-related Chair retainers reflect the Board’s judgment of each Board Committee’s respective workload. The Non-Executive Chairman of the Board is not eligible for any Board Committee-related retainers. A meeting fee of $1,500 is payable for attendance at Board or Board Committee meetings beginning on the third additional meeting above its number of regular meetings, subject to approval by the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board (as to Board meetings) or the relevant Board Committee Chair. No meeting fees were paid during our 2013 fiscal year.
Director Plan Stock Options and Stock Units. Each Director Plan stock option represents a right to receive a payment equal to the positive difference between a stock option’s exercise price and the closing price of our common stock on an exercise date. Each Director Plan stock unit represents a right to receive a payment equal to the fair market value of one share of our common stock on a payment date. Based on amendments to the Director Plan and the irrevocable elections of our non-employee directors in 2013, each non-employee director will receive one share of our common stock in settlement of each of his or her Director Plan stock units, except that Mr. Jastrow will receive a cash payment in settlement of 3,260 stock units upon the vesting of those stock units on the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting. The non-employee directors’ elections changed only the method of settlement of the applicable Director Plan stock units and did not change any of the other terms of these awards or impact the value to the directors. The Director Plan amendments and non-employee director elections are expected to reduce the degree of variability in the expense that had previously been associated with the Director Plan stock units. In connection with the Director Plan amendments and non-employee director elections, and pursuant to a specific Board authorization, we repurchased shares of our common stock on the open market in 2013 to facilitate the settlement of Director Plan stock units. The repurchased shares were apportioned to non-employee directors per their respective elections, and the shares are subject to transfer restrictions to the non-employee directors until the respective settlement of their applicable Director Plan stock units, which, in most cases, will occur upon their leaving the Board. As a result, and notwithstanding the transfer restrictions, our non-employee directors will receive dividends from their apportioned shares of our common stock.
8
Director Plan stock options and stock units vest one year after the date of grant, and, except as described below under the heading “Director Equity-Based Compensation Granted Before the 2010-2011 Director Year,” Director Plan stock options have a 10-year term. A non-employee director cannot exercise vested Director Plan stock options until the director has met the non-employee director stock ownership requirement or, if earlier, has left the Board. Vested stock options held by a non-employee director must be exercised before the end of the stock options’ respective term or, if earlier, before the third anniversary of the date the non-employee director leaves the Board. A non-employee director can elect to receive Director Plan stock unit payouts upon leaving the Board or, if the director has met the non-employee director stock ownership requirement, immediately after the one-year vesting date or at a specified date after the stock units vest, but before the director leaves the Board. The non-employee director stock ownership requirement is described below under the heading “Stock Ownership Requirements.”
Director Equity-Based Compensation Granted Before the 2010-2011 Director Year
Under the Director Plan, stock options granted to our non-employee directors before the 2010-2011 Director Year are fully vested, have a 15-year term and must be exercised before each option’s term expires or, if earlier, within one year of the date a non-employee director leaves the Board, and any stock units so granted will be paid out only upon a non-employee director’s leaving the Board, reflecting in each case the terms under which these options were originally granted.
Non-Executive Chairman of the Board Retainer
Mr. Bollenbach is paid an annual cash retainer of $300,000 for his service as the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. He may keep any retainer payment if removed from the Board without cause.
Indemnification Agreements
We have entered into agreements with each of our non-employee directors that provide them with indemnification and advancement of expenses to supplement what is provided under our Certificate of Incorporation and insurance policies, subject to certain requirements and limitations.
Expenses
We pay the non-employee directors’ expenses, including travel, accommodations and meals, for attending Board and Board Committee meetings and our annual meetings of stockholders and other activities related to our business.
Director Compensation During Fiscal Year 2013
Name(a) | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(b) | Stock Awards ($)(c) | Option Awards ($)(c) | All Other Compensation ($)(d) | Total ($) | ||||||||||
Ms. Alexander | $ | 90,000 | $ | 67,500 | $ | 67,500 | $ | 591 | $ | 225,591 | |||||
Mr. Bollenbach | 300,000 | 147,500 | 67,500 | 3,263 | 518,263 | ||||||||||
Mr. Finchem | — | 159,500 | 67,500 | 21,799 | 248,799 | ||||||||||
Dr. Gilligan | 90,000 | 67,500 | 67,500 | 547 | 225,547 | ||||||||||
Mr. Jastrow | 90,000 | 67,500 | 67,500 | 18,848 | 243,848 | ||||||||||
Mr. Johnson | 81,250 | 72,500 | 67,500 | 2,181 | 223,431 | ||||||||||
Ms. Lora | — | 177,500 | 67,500 | 16,857 | 261,857 | ||||||||||
Mr. McCaffery | — | 165,500 | 67,500 | 18,632 | 251,632 | ||||||||||
Mr. Nogales | 97,000 | 67,500 | 67,500 | 6,166 | 238,166 | ||||||||||
(a) | Mr. Wood was elected to the Board on January 22, 2014 and therefore did not serve on the Board during our 2013 fiscal year. Pursuant to the Director Plan, for the remaining period of the 2013-2014 Director Year, which ends on the date of our 2014 Annual Meeting, Mr. Wood will be paid $20,000 in cash (consisting of pro-rated Board and Audit Committee retainers). In addition, upon his election to the Board, Mr. Wood was granted 930 stock units and 2,221 stock options, based in each case on a pro-rated grant-date value of $16,875. |
(b) | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash. These amounts represent payments of Board and Board Committee-related retainers based on the elections of non-employee directors to receive such retainers in cash rather than in Director Plan stock units. The amount shown for Mr. Bollenbach also includes his Non-Executive Chairman of the Board retainer. |
(c) | Stock Awards and Option Awards. These amounts represent the aggregate grant-date fair value of the Director Plan stock unit and stock option awards granted to our non-employee directors during our 2013 fiscal year, computed in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic No. 718, “Compensation – Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”), as described in Note 19. Employee Benefit and Stock Plans in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report, except that estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions have been disregarded. Below are the |
9
amounts of Director Plan stock options and stock units granted to each non-employee director during our 2013 fiscal year based on each director’s compensation elections and Board Committee service. All such grants were made on April 4, 2013.
Name | Stock Units (#) | Stock Options (#) | ||
Ms. Alexander | 3,260 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. Bollenbach | 7,124 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. Finchem | 7,703 | 7,241 | ||
Dr. Gilligan | 3,260 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. Jastrow | 3,260 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. Johnson | 3,501 | 7,241 | ||
Ms. Lora | 8,572 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. McCaffery | 7,993 | 7,241 | ||
Mr. Nogales | 3,260 | 7,241 | ||
Below are each non-employee director’s total Director Plan stock unit and stock option holdings as of February 14, 2014.
Name | Stock Units (#) | Stock Options (#) | Total Holdings (#) | |||
Ms. Alexander | 6,311 | 44,804 | 51,115 | |||
Mr. Bollenbach | 45,884 | 134,946 | 180,830 | |||
Mr. Finchem | 71,405 | 46,193 | 117,598 | |||
Dr. Gilligan | 8,378 | 17,732 | 26,110 | |||
Mr. Jastrow | 70,706 | 46,193 | 116,899 | |||
Mr. Johnson | 30,253 | 84,186 | 114,439 | |||
Ms. Lora | 94,823 | 57,413 | 152,236 | |||
Mr. McCaffery | 70,494 | 160,195 | 230,689 | |||
Mr. Nogales | 83,300 | 48,323 | 131,623 | |||
Mr. Wood | 930 | 2,221 | 3,151 | |||
(d) | All Other Compensation. These amounts represent dividend payments with respect to Director Plan stock units during our 2013 fiscal year and premium payments of $16,390, $13,545, $13,545 and $9,960 we paid for the life insurance policies we maintain with respect to Messrs. Finchem, Jastrow and McCaffery and Ms. Lora, respectively, in connection with the Directors’ Legacy Program, which is described below. Non-employee directors with larger Director Plan stock unit holdings based on their tenure and compensation elections received greater dividend payments. In our 2013 fiscal year, we paid a total of $69,829 in premiums for the life insurance policies we maintain to fund charitable donations under the Directors’ Legacy Program, including for the policies maintained with respect to Messrs. Finchem, Jastrow and McCaffery and Ms. Lora and participants who are former directors. Some of the life insurance policies we maintain for the Directors’ Legacy Program did not require premium payments to be made in our 2013 fiscal year. Premium payments, where required, vary depending on participants’ respective ages and other factors. The total dollar amount payable under the Directors’ Legacy Program at November 30, 2013, with all participating directors having vested in the full donation amount, was $15.4 million. |
Directors’ Legacy Program
We established the Directors’ Legacy Program in 1995 to recognize our and our directors’ interests in supporting worthy educational institutions and other charitable organizations. In making adjustments to our philanthropic activities, the Board elected in 2007 to close the program to new participants. Ms. Alexander, Messrs. Bollenbach, Johnson, Mezger and Wood and Dr. Gilligan do not participate in the program. Under the program, we will make a charitable donation on each participating director’s behalf of up to $1,000,000. A participating director may allocate the donation to up to five qualifying institutions or organizations. Donations are paid in ten equal annual installments directly to designated organizations after a participating director’s death with proceeds from the life insurance policies we maintain on each participating director’s life. Participating directors and their families do not receive any proceeds, compensation or tax savings associated with the program.
10
Election of Directors | ||||
At the 2014 Annual Meeting, the Board will present as nominees and recommend to stockholders that Ms. Lora, Messrs. Bollenbach, Finchem, Jastrow, Johnson, McCaffery, Mezger, Nogales, Wood and Dr. Gilligan each be elected as a director to serve for a one-year term ending with the election of directors at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Each nominee is currently a director, has consented to being nominated and has agreed to serve as a director if elected. Other than Mr. Wood, who was was elected to the Board on January 22, 2014, each nominee is standing for re-election. Ms. Alexander has decided not to seek re-election and will retire from the Board effective as of the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting, when her current term as a director expires. Should any of the nominees become unable to serve as a director prior to the 2014 Annual Meeting, the individuals named as proxies for the meeting will, unless otherwise directed, vote for the election of such other person as the Board may recommend in place of any such nominee. On the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting, following the election of directors, the Board will have ten members.
Vote Required
Under our By-laws, the election of each director nominee will require a majority of votes cast at the 2014 Annual Meeting to be in favor of the nominee (i.e., the votes cast for a nominee’s election must exceed the votes cast against the nominee’s election).
Consistent with this director election standard, our Corporate Governance Principles require that each director nominee in an uncontested election at a meeting of stockholders receive more votes cast for than against his or her election in order to be elected to the Board. An “uncontested election” is one in which there is no director nominee that has been nominated by a stockholder in accordance with our By-laws. This election is an uncontested election.
Our Corporate Governance Principles also provide that a director nominee who fails to win election to the Board in an uncontested election is expected to tender his or her resignation from the Board (or to have previously submitted a conditional tender). If an incumbent director fails to receive the required vote for election in an uncontested election, the Nominating/ Governance Committee will act promptly to determine whether to accept the director’s resignation and will submit its recommendation for consideration by the Board. The Board expects the director whose resignation is under consideration to abstain from participating in any decision regarding that resignation. The Nominating/Governance Committee and the Board may consider any factors they deem relevant in deciding whether to accept a director’s resignation.
Your Board recommends a vote FOR the election to the Board of each of its presented nominees.
A brief summary of each director nominee’s principal occupation, recent professional experience, the specific qualifications identified as part of the Board’s determination that each such individual should serve on the Board, and directorships at other public companies for at least the past five years, if any, is provided below.
 | Stephen F. Bollenbach, age 71, is our Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. He was the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilton Hotels Corporation, a hotel developer and operator, positions he held from May 2004 and February 1996, respectively. He retired from Hilton in October of 2007. Prior to joining Hilton, Mr. Bollenbach was Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for The Walt Disney Company from 1995 to 1996. Before Disney, Mr. Bollenbach was President and Chief Executive Officer of Host Marriott Corporation from 1993 to 1995, and served as Chief Financial Officer of Marriott Corporation from 1992 to 1993. From 1990 to 1992, Mr. Bollenbach was Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization. Mr. Bollenbach serves as a director of Time Warner Inc., Macy’s, Inc. and Mondelēz International, Inc. He previously served as a director of American International Group Inc., and Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. Mr. Bollenbach joined the Board in 2007 and has since served as its Non-Executive Chairman. Mr. Bollenbach has several years of experience and expertise as a senior corporate executive and public company board member, including as a lead independent director, and has demonstrated exemplary leadership as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. | |
11
 | Timothy W. Finchem, age 66, has been Commissioner of the PGA TOUR, a membership organization for professional golfers, since 1994. He joined the TOUR staff as Vice President of Business Affairs in 1987, and was promoted to Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer in 1989. Mr. Finchem served in the White House as Deputy Advisor to the President in the Office of Economic Affairs in 1978 and 1979, and in the early 1980’s, co-founded the National Marketing and Strategies Group in Washington, D.C. He joined the Board in 2005. Mr. Finchem has demonstrated success in broadening the popularity of professional golf among the demographic groups that make up our core homebuyers, and has experience in residential community development. He also has a substantial presence in Florida, one of our key markets. | |
 | Dr. Thomas W. Gilligan, age 59, has served as the Dean of the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin since 2008. Prior to his appointment at the McCombs School of Business, Dr. Gilligan held several key administrative roles at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California (USC), including as interim Dean, as the Vice-Dean of Undergraduate Education, as director of the Ph.D. program, and as the Chair of the Finance and Business Economics Department. Dr. Gilligan holds the Centennial Chair in Business Education Leadership. He received his B.A. in 1979 at the University of Oklahoma and his Ph.D. in Economics at Washington University in 1984. He taught Economics at the California Institute of Technology (1984-1987) and during his tenure at USC he held visiting appointments at Stanford University (1989-1990 and 1994) and Northwestern University (1995-1996). He has served as a consultant to businesses in the entertainment, agriculture, service and construction industries, dealing with antitrust and contract issues, as well as pricing strategies. He was the recipient of a National Fellowship at the Hoover Institution of War and Peace and was a staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House (1982-1983). He also served in the United States Air Force from 1972-1976. Dr. Gilligan has deep knowledge of and significant academic credentials in the fields of finance, economics and business administration, and brings extensive leadership skills and experience from his many years of service as a dean at two of the premier post-graduate business schools in the country. In addition, he is well-known and highly regarded, professionally and personally, in both Texas and Southern California, which are key markets for us. | |
 | Kenneth M. Jastrow, II, age 66, is Non-Executive Chairman, Forestar Group Inc., a real estate and natural resources company. Mr. Jastrow is also a director of MGIC Investment Corporation and Genesis Energy, LLC, the general partner of Genesis Energy, L.P., a publicly traded master limited partnership. He joined the KB Home Board in 2001. Mr. Jastrow has several years of experience and leadership in the paper, building products, forestry, real estate and mortgage lending industries, providing critical perspective in businesses that impact the homebuilding industry, and on sustainability practices. He also brings a significant knowledge of corporate governance matters from his service on a number of public company boards, and has a substantial presence in Texas, a key market for us. | |
 | Robert L. Johnson, age 67, is founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies, an innovative business network that owns or holds interests in a diverse portfolio of companies in the consumer financial services, private equity, real estate, hospitality, professional sports, film production, gaming, and automobile dealership industries. Prior to forming The RLJ Companies, Mr. Johnson was founder and chief executive officer of Black Entertainment Television (BET), which was acquired by Viacom Inc. in 2001. He continued to serve as chief executive officer of BET until 2006. In July 2007, Mr. Johnson was named by USA Today as one of the 25 most influential business leaders of the past 25 years. Mr. Johnson currently serves on the board of directors or trustees of the Lowe’s Companies, Inc., RLJ Entertainment, Inc., RLJ Lodging Trust, and Strayer Education, Inc. He previously served as a director of RLJ Acquisition, Inc. He joined the Board in 2008. Mr. Johnson has significant experience in real estate, finance, mortgage banking and brand-building enterprises and a unique and diverse background in a number of industry sectors. He also has a substantial presence in Washington D.C. and the mid-Atlantic region, which is an important market for us. | |
 | Melissa Lora, age 51, is the President of Taco Bell International and the Global Chief Financial and Development Officer of Taco Bell Corp., a quick service restaurant chain. Ms. Lora joined Taco Bell Corp. in 1987 and since 2001 has served as Chief Financial Officer. Prior to that, she was Regional Vice President and General Manager from 1998 to 2000 for Taco Bell’s operations throughout the Northeastern United States. She joined the Board in 2004. Ms. Lora is very knowledgeable of and has substantial experience and expertise in financial matters as well as in managing real estate assets. She has made significant contributions to the work of the Audit Committee since joining the Board and has provided strong leadership as its Chair since 2008. | |
12
 | Michael G. McCaffery, age 60, is the Chairman of Makena Capital Management, an investment management firm. From December 2005 to December 2013, he was the Chief Executive Officer of Makena Capital Management. From 2000 to 2006, Mr. McCaffery was President and CEO of the Stanford Management Company (SMC), which was established in 1991 to manage Stanford University’s financial and real estate investments. Previous to joining SMC, Mr. McCaffery was President and Chief Executive Officer of Robertson Stephens Investment Bankers from January 1993 to December 1999, and also served as Chairman from January 2000 to December 2000. He previously served as a director of Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. and Venture Lending & Leasing V Inc., and as a trustee of RS Investment Trust. He joined the Board in 2003. Mr. McCaffery has a broad array of business, investment and real estate experience and recognized expertise in financial matters, as well as a demonstrated commitment to good corporate governance. | |
 | Jeffrey T. Mezger, age 58, has been our President and Chief Executive Officer since November 2006. Prior to becoming President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mezger served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, a position he assumed in 1999. From 1995 until 1999, Mr. Mezger held a number of executive posts in our southwest region, including Division President, Arizona Division, and Senior Vice President and Regional General Manager over Arizona and Nevada. Mr. Mezger joined us in 1993 as president of the Antelope Valley Division in Southern California. He joined the Board in 2006. He is a member of the Executive Board of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, is a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business, serves as Vice Chairman of the Policy Advisory Board for the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and was the founding Chairman of the Executive Committee for the Leading Builders of America. In 2012, Mr. Mezger was inducted into the California Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame. As our CEO, Mr. Mezger has demonstrated dedicated and effective leadership, and ownership of our business strategy and its results. He has also established himself as a leading voice in the industry through his 36 years of experience in the public homebuilding sector. | |
 | Luis G. Nogales, age 70, has been the Managing Partner of Nogales Investors, LLC, a private equity investment firm, since 2001. He was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Embarcadero Media, Inc. from 1992 to 1997, President of Univision Communications, Inc., from 1986 to 1988, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United Press International from 1983 to 1986. He is a director or trustee of Southern California Edison Co., Edison International and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He joined the Board in 1995. He previously served as a director or trustee of Arbitron Inc., Golden West Broadcasters, Levi Strauss & Co., Lucky Stores, The Bank of California, Coors Brewing Company, Kaufman & Broad S.A. (France), Stanford University, The Ford Foundation, U.S. World Cup Soccer Committee, the Mayo Clinic Trust, and the Pacific Council on International Policy. Mr. Nogales has substantial depth of experience in media and marketing enterprises and with business operations management and financial investments drawn from a diverse background and involvement in an array of industries. His long-time service on the Board has provided critical knowledge of our operations and corporate history. | |
 | Michael M. Wood, age 66, is Founder and Chairman of Redwood Investments LLC, a Washington, DC investment company established in 2005 and concentrating in media, real estate and alternative energy. From 2006-2009, Mr. Wood was the U.S. Ambassador to Sweden where he made cooperation between the U.S. and Sweden in alternative energy technology his top priority. In recognition for this work, in 2009, the King of Sweden bestowed on Mr. Wood the insignia of Commander Grand Cross, Order of the Polar Star, a medal given by Sweden’s Royal Family to people of foreign birth who make significant contributions to Sweden. Prior to becoming ambassador, Mr. Wood was co-founder and CEO of Hanley Wood LLC, the leading media company in the construction industry and one of the ten largest business-to-business media companies in the U.S. Mr. Wood is also Chairman of CSP Business Media, LLC, a private business-to-business publishing company serving the convenience retailing, restaurant, and on-the-go food industries, and serves on the Board of Trustees for The American-Scandinavian Foundation in New York and the Board of Directors of Capital Partners for Education in Washington, DC. Mr. Wood has extensive knowledge of the homebuilding industry and significant experience in real estate and alternative energy investing, providing substantial insight and expertise with respect to our business operations and longstanding commitment to sustainability. He is also a prominent and respected professional in Washington DC, an important market for us, and has a distinguished policymaking background. | |
13
Ownership of KB Home Securities | ||||
Ownership of Directors and Management
The following table shows, as of February 14, 2014, the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each director and each of our NEOs, and by all directors and executive officers as a group. Except as stated in footnotes to the table, beneficial ownership is direct and each director and executive officer has sole voting and investment power over his or her shares.
Non-Employee Directors | Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(a - f) | Percent of Class | ||
Ms. Alexander | 32,411 | * | ||
Mr. Bollenbach | 45,884 | * | ||
Mr. Finchem | 71,405 | * | ||
Dr. Gilligan | 8,378 | * | ||
Mr. Jastrow | 67,446 | * | ||
Mr. Johnson | 30,253 | * | ||
Ms. Lora | 96,866 | * | ||
Mr. McCaffery | 70,494 | * | ||
Mr. Nogales | 90,700 | * | ||
Mr. Wood | 930 | * | ||
Named Executive Officers | ||||
Jeffrey T. Mezger | 4,975,841 | 5.0 | % | |
Jeff J. Kaminski | 280,194 | * | ||
Brian J. Woram | 324,276 | * | ||
Albert Z. Praw | 159,316 | * | ||
William R. Hollinger | 589,861 | * | ||
All directors and executive officers as a group (17 people) | 7,051,768 | 7.0 | % | |
(a) | Included are the following shares of common stock that can be acquired within 60 days of February 14, 2014 through the exercise of stock options: Mr. Mezger 4,599,448; Mr. Kaminski 246,350; Mr. Woram 270,529; Mr. Praw 106,000; and Mr. Hollinger 486,316; and all current executive officers as a group 5,874,155. |
(b) | Included are shares of restricted common stock in the following amounts: Mr. Mezger 0; Mr. Kaminski 24,653; Mr. Woram 22,153; Mr. Praw 22,153; and Mr. Hollinger 12,135; and all current executive officers as a group 99,898. |
(c) | Included are the following Director Plan stock unit holdings of each non-employee director: Ms. Alexander 6,311; Mr. Bollenbach 45,884; Mr. Finchem 71,405; Mr. Gilligan 8,378; Mr. Jastrow 67,446; Mr. Johnson 30,253; Ms. Lora 94,823; Mr. McCaffery 70,494; Mr. Nogales 83,300; and Mr. Wood 930. |
(d) | Ms. Alexander holds 26,000 shares of our common stock in a trust in which she and her spouse are trustees and sole beneficiaries and over which they jointly exercise voting and investment power. She also has beneficial ownership of 100 shares of our common stock that are held by a family trust for which she is both a co-trustee and a beneficiary. |
(e) | Ms. Lora holds 2,043 shares of our common stock in a trust in which she and her spouse are trustees and sole beneficiaries and over which they jointly exercise voting and investment power. |
(f) | Mr. Wood holds the Director Plan stock units that comprise the ownership reflected in the above table in a trust in which he and his spouse are trustees and over which they jointly exercise voting and investment power, and he is the sole beneficiary as to the stock units. |
* | Indicates less than one percent ownership. |
Stock Ownership Requirements
Our non-employee directors and senior executives are subject to stock ownership requirements to better align their interests with those of our stockholders. Our Corporate Governance Principles require each of our non-employee directors to own at least $250,000 in value of our common stock or common stock equivalents within five years of joining the Board. Our executive stock ownership policy requires designated senior executives, including our NEOs, to own a certain number of shares within five years of becoming subject to the policy. The policy is discussed below under the heading “Equity Stock Ownership Policy.” Each of our non-employee directors and NEOs are in compliance with their respective requirements.
14
Beneficial Owners of More Than Five Percent of Our Common Stock
The following table shows each stockholder known to us as of February 14, 2014 to beneficially own more than five percent of our common stock:
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner | Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership | Percent of Class | ||
BlackRock, Inc., et al. (a) | 9,624,749 | 11.5%(b) | ||
40 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022 | ||||
KB Home Grantor Stock Ownership Trust (c) | 10,501,844 | 11.1 | % | |
Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement and Trust Executive Benefits | ||||
One West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 | ||||
FMR LLC and Edward C. Johnson 3d (d) | 9,189,509 | 11.0%(b) | ||
82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 | ||||
Odey Asset Management Group Ltd (e) | 5,278,310 | 6.3%(b) | ||
12 Upper Grosvenor Street, London, United Kingdom W1K 2ND | ||||
The Vanguard Group, Inc. (f) | 5,044,432 | 6.0%(b) | ||
100 Vanguard Blvd., Malvern, PA 19355 | ||||
(a) | The stock holding information is based solely on an amendment to Schedule 13G dated January 8, 2014 that BlackRock, Inc., a parent holding company, filed with the SEC to report its beneficial ownership. Of the reported amount, BlackRock, Inc. subsidiaries, collectively, had sole voting power as to 9,383,520 shares and had sole dispositive power as to 9,624,749 shares, and subsidiary, BlackRock Fund Advisors, beneficially owned more than 5% of our outstanding shares. |
(b) | These beneficial ownership and percent of class figures are from the respective Schedule 13G filings by the listed beneficial owners and reflect their respective determinations as of December 31, 2013. |
(c) | The GSOT holds these shares pursuant to a trust agreement, with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee. Both the GSOT and the trustee disclaim beneficial ownership of the shares. Under the trust agreement, our employees who hold unexercised common stock options under our employee equity compensation plans determine the voting of the GSOT shares. The number of GSOT shares that any one employee can direct the vote of depends on how many eligible employees submit voting instructions to the trustee. Employees who are also directors cannot vote GSOT shares; therefore, Mr. Mezger cannot direct the vote of any GSOT shares. If all eligible employees submit voting instructions, our other NEOs can direct the vote of the following amounts of GSOT shares: Mr. Kaminski 804,753; Mr. Woram 832,161; Mr. Praw 464,257; and Mr. Hollinger 1,256,628; and all current executive officers as a group (excluding Mr. Mezger) 3,916,524. |
(d) | The stock holding information is based solely on an amendment to Schedule 13G dated February 13, 2014 that FMR LLC, a parent holding company, filed with the SEC to report the beneficial ownership of FMR LLC and Mr. Edward C. Johnson 3d, FMR LLC’s chairman. Of the reported amount, Fidelity Management & Research Company (“Fidelity”), an investment adviser to various investment companies and an FMR LLC subsidiary, beneficially owns 8,774,609 shares. Each of Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR LLC, through its control of Fidelity and the various investment companies, has sole dispositive power as to the 8,774,609 shares, and has sole voting power as to 300 shares. Fidelity votes its beneficially owned shares under guidelines established by such investment companies’ Boards of Trustees. Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (“SelectCo”), an FMR LLC subsidiary and an investment adviser to various investment companies, beneficially owns 414,600 shares, and each of Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR LLC, through its control of SelectCo and the various investment companies, has sole dispositive power as to these shares. Strategic Advisers, Inc., an FMR LLC subsidiary and an investment adviser to individuals, beneficially owns 300 shares. |
(e) | The stock holding information is based solely on a Schedule 13G dated January 22, 2014 that Odey Asset Management Group Ltd, a parent holding company and investment adviser, filed with the SEC to report its beneficial ownership. Of the reported amount, Odey Asset Management Group Ltd had shared voting power and shared dispositive power of 5,278,310 shares with Odey Asset Management LLP, Odey Holdings AG and Mr. Crispin Odey. The shares represent holdings of Odey Asset Management LLP for the benefit of its investment advisory clients. Odey Asset Management Group Ltd is the managing member of Odey Asset Management LLP; Odey Holdings AG is the sole stockholder of Odey Asset Management Group Ltd; and Mr. Odey is the sole stockholder of Odey Holdings AG. Each of these persons disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares except to the extent of its or his pecuniary interest therein. |
(f) | The stock holding information is based solely on a Schedule 13G dated February 6, 2014 that Vanguard Group, Inc., an investment adviser to various investment companies (“VGI”), filed with the SEC to report its beneficial ownership. Of the reported amount, VGI had sole voting power as to 119,447 shares, had sole dispositive power as to 4,929,085 shares, and had shared dispositive power as to 115,347 shares. Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company and Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd., each VGI subsidiaries, beneficially own 115,347 and 4,100 shares, respectively. |
15
Executive Compensation | ||||
Management Development and Compensation Committee Report
The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has reviewed and discussed the following “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” with KB Home management. Based on this review and discussion, the Management Development and Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” be included in this Proxy Statement.
Management Development and Compensation Committee
Michael G. McCaffery, Chair | Stephen F. Bollenbach | |
Timothy W. Finchem | Luis G. Nogales | |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis | ||||
Introduction
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes our executive compensation and benefit programs, our engagement with our stockholders on executive compensation and benefits matters, the roles and decisions of those directly involved in executive compensation determinations, the material factors and considerations behind those determinations with respect to our 2013 fiscal year and the material components of the compensation and benefits for our five NEOs, who are:
• | Jeffrey T. Mezger, our President and Chief Executive Officer; |
• | Jeff J. Kaminski, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; |
• | Brian J. Woram, our Executive Vice President and General Counsel; |
• | Albert Z. Praw, our Executive Vice President, Real Estate and Business Development; and |
• | William R. Hollinger, our Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. |
At the core of our executive compensation and benefit programs is a pay-for-performance philosophy that emphasizes an appropriate alignment of executive pay with the achievement of our top strategic goals and stockholder interests. We believe the executive compensation and benefits programs we established for our 2013 fiscal year and the resulting pay outcomes for our NEOs demonstrate that the programs effectively provided such alignment. As illustrated in the table below, our stockholders experienced strong total return (“TSR”) performance for the second consecutive year, and we achieved meaningful improvement in a number of key financial and operational metrics, including our highest priorities of profitability and revenue growth.
Metric | 2013 Fiscal Year Result | Prior-Year Comparison |
Net income | $40 million | Improvement of $99 million. Generated full-year net income for the first time since 2006 |
Total revenues | $2.10 billion | 34% increase |
Homebuilding operating margin (ratio of homebuilding operating income to homebuilding revenues) | 4.4% | 570 basis point improvement |
Homes delivered | 7,145 | 14% higher |
Average selling price | $291,700 | Up 18% |
Net order value | $2.16 billion | Growth of 24% |
Year-end lot count | 61,095 | 37% increase, reflecting investments of $1.14 billion in land and land development in 2013, up from $565 million in 2012 |
TSR (includes reinvested dividends) | 23%, third highest (84th percentile) in our peer group | Our 2012 fiscal year TSR of 98% was between the 25th and 50th percentile of our peer group |
In addition to the solid financial and operational performance we achieved in our 2013 fiscal year, during the year we strengthened our balance sheet with several successful capital markets transactions that generated $775.5 million in total net proceeds. These net proceeds were used for general corporate purposes, including our substantial investment in land and land
16
development to facilitate and drive future growth, and to fund the retirement of over $215 million in aggregate principal amount of certain of our outstanding senior notes due in 2014 and 2015.
With our return to full-year profitability for the first time since 2006, strong results on a number of other financial and operational metrics and TSR that was the third highest in our peer group, our CEO’s compensation in 2013 was as follows:
• | No change in base salary; |
• | Based on above target and outstanding performance, an 80% formula-based annual cash incentive payout of 181.7% of his target payout amount, which was below his potential maximum amount under the 2013 fiscal year program; and |
• | Long-term equity awards with the majority of value consisting of PSUs that vest subject to three-year performance achievements, and the balance in stock options that only have value if our stock price rises. |
In this CD&A, we first provide a summary Stockholder Engagement on Our Executive Compensation Program During 2013, highlighting some of the key stockholder-focused aspects of our program. We then further discuss our 2013 Fiscal Year Financial Results and Pay Outcomes followed by the Executive Compensation Decision-Making and Other Compensation Policies that apply with respect to our executives’ compensation and benefits. Finally, we provide an overview of the Severance, Change in Control and Post-Termination Arrangements available to our executives.
Stockholder Engagement on Our Executive Compensation Program During 2013
During 2013, we continued our longstanding practice of proactive engagement with our stockholders to discuss our executive compensation program and other governance matters. After we published our 2013 Proxy Statement, our executive officers and other senior executives conducted conference calls and other discussions with holders of over 40% of our outstanding shares entitled to vote at our 2013 Annual Meeting to solicit their views on several adjustments we implemented to our executive compensation and benefits programs for our NEOs for both 2012 and 2013. Based on our dialogue with stockholders, we felt the adjustments were well received, and we considered the constructive feedback of our stockholders in assessing potential additional adjustments to the programs, as noted below.
The key adjustments included, but were not limited to, the following:
• | A more structured and formula-driven design for the annual incentive program in 2013 compared to prior years, with the majority of NEO annual incentive payouts determined solely by two financial metrics — a measure of pretax income and total revenues — and the balance of payouts determined by a mix of operational performance items and individual executive performance, all subject to the requirement that we generate a certain level of pretax income for any payouts to be made. |
• | Greater use of performance-based long-term incentives, including performance-based restricted stock units, that utilized a balanced set of absolute and relative performance measures and goals aligned with our business goals. |
We received overwhelming support for our NEOs’ 2012 fiscal year compensation from our stockholders at our 2013 Annual Meeting, with over 96% of the shares of our common stock present or represented, and entitled to vote on the matter, voting in favor of our advisory vote proposal. We and the Compensation Committee consider that outcome as reinforcing the way in which we designed our performance-driven executive compensation and benefits programs relating to our 2013 fiscal year as well as our and the Compensation Committee’s intended approach to implementing them. As a result, we used a similar structure for both the long-term incentive grants that were made to our NEOs in October 2013 and our 2014 fiscal year annual incentive program for our NEOs, as outlined below.
In addition, our engagement with stockholders in 2013 led us to review and update our executive stock ownership guidelines, as described below under the heading “Equity Stock Ownership Policy,” which we believe strengthened the alignment of our executives’ interests with those of our stockholders. In addition to the changes we have implemented to our executive compensation and benefits programs over the past two years, we have long adhered to the following stockholder-focused compensation policies, programs and practices:
• Limited Perquisites. We provide few perquisites to our NEOs and senior executives. Perquisites are limited to relocation assistance to recruit certain new hires, market-competitive supplemental medical and deferred compensation programs and certain death-related benefits, and, for a very few current senior executives, participation in a retirement plan that was closed in 2004. We do not provide any allowances or reimbursements for personal automobiles, automobile fuel cards and/or insurance, tax preparation or financial/estate planning services. | • No New Tax “Gross-Up” Benefits. In 2011, our Board approved a policy that no officer or employee who is hired or is promoted after April 7, 2011 will receive the tax “gross-up” payment benefit under our 2001 Change in Control Severance Plan (the “CIC Plan”) in connection with such hiring or promotion. Consistent with this policy, since April 7, 2011 we have not extended the benefit, or any other tax restoration benefit, to any newly hired or promoted officers or employees, or to any other officer or employee, who would have been eligible to receive it under the terms of the CIC Plan or otherwise. |
17
• Prohibition on Hedging/Pledging of Our Securities. Under our policy on transactions in company securities, our senior executives are prohibited from engaging in short sales of our securities and from buying or selling puts or calls on, or any other financial instruments that are designed to hedge or offset decreases or increases in the value of, our securities (including without limitation derivatives, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars and exchange funds). | • Compensation Clawbacks. Under his Employment Agreement, our CEO is required to repay certain compensation he receives if we are required to restate our financial results due to his misconduct, consistent with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In addition, we will recoup incentive-based compensation to the extent required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and any rules, regulations and listing standards issued under that act. |
• Severance Pay Limits. In response to our stockholders’ approval of an advisory proposal, in 2008 we adopted a policy under which we will obtain stockholder approval before paying severance benefits to an executive officer above 2.99 times the sum of the executive officer’s then-current base salary and target bonus under any severance arrangement made or materially changed after the policy was adopted. | • Equity-Based Award Grant Policy. Since 2007, all grants of equity-based compensation are subject to our equity-based award grant policy, which sets strict requirements as to the timing and manner in which equity-based awards are made, as well as certain internal controls over the grants of such awards. The policy is discussed below under the heading “Equity-Based Award Grant Policy.” |
• Stock Ownership Requirement. Our senior executives must comply with stock ownership requirements throughout the period of their employment with us. | |
2013 Fiscal Year Financial Results and Pay Outcomes
2013 Fiscal Year Performance
The table below illustrates the measurable improvements we made in key financial and operational results over our 2011-2013 fiscal years. The Annual Report provides further details on our 2013 fiscal year performance. Dollar figures in the table below are in thousands, except overall average selling price. As noted above, our TSR moved from the third quartile of our peer group for the 2012 fiscal year to the first quartile for the 2013 fiscal year.
Metric | 2013 Result | 2012 Result | 2011 Result | 2013-2012 Improvement | 2013-2011 Improvement | ||||||
Total revenues | $ | 2,097,130 | $ | 1,560,115 | $ | 1,315,866 | 34% | 59% | |||
Operating income (loss) | $ | 101,194 | $ | (11,564 | ) | $ | (96,282 | ) | (a) | (a) | |
Pretax income (loss) | $ | 38,363 | $ | (79,053 | ) | $ | (181,168 | ) | (a) | (a) | |
Selling, general and administrative expenses (as a percentage of housing revenues) | 12.3% | 15.3% | 16.9% | 300 bps | 460 bps | ||||||
Homebuilding operating margin (ratio of homebuilding operating income (loss) to homebuilding revenues) | 4.4% | (1.3)% | (7.9)% | 570 bps | 1,230 bps | ||||||
Homes delivered | 7,145 | 6,282 | 5,812 | 14% | 23% | ||||||
Average selling price | $ | 291,700 | $ | 246,500 | $ | 224,600 | 18% | 30% | |||
Net order value | $ | 2,157,065 | $ | 1,733,146 | $ | 1,511,654 | 24% | 43% | |||
Ending backlog value | $ | 682,489 | $ | 618,626 | $ | 458,950 | 10% | 49% | |||
(a) Percentage comparison not meaningful.
We accomplished our top strategic goal in 2013 of generating full-year profitability for the first time since 2006. As discussed in the Annual Report, this result, and the improvement in the other metrics shown in the table above, is largely due to the broad transformation and refocusing of our business, both geographically and operationally, that we have implemented over the past several years in response to prevailing market dynamics and to position for profitability and growth. Our actions strengthened our overall business and, as we continue to execute on the strategic initiatives that helped drive the success we achieved in 2013, we are confident that we can further improve profitability per home delivered and generate revenue growth, which remain our top strategic priorities, in 2014 as housing markets improve.
Since the beginning of our 2013 fiscal year, a key component of our efforts to achieve our strategic growth initiatives has been to attract and retain management resources to further bolster our team and deepen our bench of promotable leaders. In pursuing this, we have encountered growing competition for talent from our peer homebuilders, among other firms, particularly
18
at senior management levels, reflecting the increased housing market activity accompanying the present recovery. This heightened challenge of successfully attracting and retaining qualified personnel has become a key consideration in making compensation-related decisions, and we expect it to be even more pronounced in 2014 as housing markets continue to improve.
Pay-for-Performance Orientation
To illustrate our pay-for-performance philosophy and the general alignment of CEO compensation with stockholder return, the chart below compares our CEO’s total compensation as reported in the Summary Compensation Table in each of the last five fiscal years (using grant-date fair values for long-term incentives) to our indexed TSR as of November 30 of each year. TSR assumes $100 invested at market close on November 30, 2008.
2013 Pay Outcomes
As noted above, 2013 marked the second consecutive year of solid year-over-year improvement in our financial and operational performance, as well as in TSR. In particular, we posted significantly improved pretax income and a strong increase in revenues, our top priorities for our 2013 fiscal year. As a result, annual incentive payouts to our NEOs for 2013 were higher than the prior year largely because our 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program was based primarily and directly on our pretax income and revenue performance, underscoring the alignment of the program with our top strategic objectives. The Compensation Committee also approved increases in the base salaries of our NEOs other than our CEO, the first such increases in several years, and approved long-term incentive grants to our NEOs with slightly higher grant date values than in 2012, largely reflecting a rise in the market price of our stock.
The balance among the various elements of total direct compensation is depicted in the charts below, which show the proportional mix of the 2013 fiscal year compensation components of current base salary, and non-equity plan incentive compensation and grant date fair value of long-term incentives (each as reflected in the Summary Compensation Table) for our CEO and our other NEOs on an aggregate basis. The majority of our NEOs’ 2013 fiscal year compensation consisted of performance-based annual cash incentives and long-term equity incentives.
19
Base Salaries. The Compensation Committee annually reviews and approves the base salaries of our CEO and our other NEOs. The Compensation Committee approves NEO base salaries based on its consideration of several factors, including an NEO’s experience, specific responsibilities, individual performance and expected future contributions; our current and expected financial and operational results; and market rates to ensure competitiveness. In July 2013, each of our NEOs with the exception of the CEO received an increase to his base salary based on our improved financial performance, an evaluation of the factors listed above and the recommendations of the CEO. These base salary increases are reflected below in the Summary Compensation Table. Prior to 2013, none of our NEOs had received an increase in base salary since 2008.
2013 Fiscal Year Annual Incentives and Bonus Payments. The Compensation Committee approved the terms of the 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program in February 2013, and in January 2014, the Compensation Committee approved payouts to our NEOs under its terms. In comparison to our programs in prior years, the 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program was less flexible and reduced the degree of Compensation Committee discretion in determining payouts. To enhance alignment of the annual incentive program with stockholder interests, the Compensation Committee established a requirement that we had to achieve full-year pretax income for our 2013 fiscal year (excluding incentive and variable compensation expense and inventory impairment and land option contract abandonment charges, “Minimum Pretax Income”) for our NEOs to receive any annual incentive payouts. If we achieved Minimum Pretax Income, two pre-established financial performance measures and objective goals determined 80% of the annual incentive payout opportunity for each NEO in a formulaic fashion. A strategic performance component determined the remaining 20% of each NEO’s payout opportunity.
Financial Performance Measures. The primary financial performance measure was adjusted pretax income (pretax income, excluding incentive and variable compensation expense, inventory impairment and land option contract abandonment charges and other extraordinary items to be approved by the Compensation Committee, “Adjusted Pretax Income”), which was weighted at 50% of each NEO’s total annual incentive payout opportunity. The Compensation Committee approved our loss on the early extinguishment of debt as an extraordinary item to be excluded in calculating Adjusted Pretax Income given that the loss related to the beneficial retirement of outstanding senior notes that had near-term maturities. The other financial performance measure was total revenues, weighted at 30% of each NEO’s total annual incentive payout opportunity. The financial performance measures were designed to support our top strategic profitability and revenue growth goals in our 2013 fiscal year. The financial performance measures had threshold, target and maximum payout opportunities directly scaled to threshold, target and maximum performance goals. Threshold performance levels were designed to be reasonably achievable, yet uncertain to be met under then expected market conditions. Target performance levels were designed to require strong management effort to achieve. Maximum performance levels were designed to be difficult to achieve. Under the terms of the 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program, the Compensation Committee could not use discretion to increase the annual incentive payout outcomes generated from our performance on the financial measures.
The table below shows the financial performance measures and goals the Compensation Committee established in February 2013, and the actual results for each measure for our 2013 fiscal year.
2013 Fiscal Year Annual Incentive Program Financial Performance Measures and Goals and Results | |||||
Financial Performance Measures | Performance Goals | Actual Result | |||
Threshold | Target | Maximum | |||
Adjusted Pretax Income* | $15.0 million | $42.5 million | $65.0 million | $75.3 million | |
Total revenues | $1.75 billion | $2.00 billion | $2.25 billion | $2.10 billion | |
*Annex I to this Proxy Statement contains a reconciliation of Adjusted Pretax Income to GAAP pretax income.
As we achieved Minimum Pretax Income, our NEOs became eligible for annual incentive payouts under the 2013 fiscal year program. Our Adjusted Pretax Income of $75.3 million exceeded the maximum performance goal the Compensation Committee established for the program. Our total revenues of $2.10 billion constituted performance between the target and maximum levels the Compensation Committee established for the program.
Based on our Adjusted Pretax Income and total revenues performance for our 2013 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee determined that our NEOs qualified to receive 141.7% (relative to a maximum of 160%) of their respective target payout opportunities for the financial performance component of the program. As noted above, this performance-based outcome was not subject to upward discretionary adjustment by the Compensation Committee under the structure instituted for the program.
Strategic Performance Measure. Under the strategic performance component of the 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program, payouts were to be determined from a mix of operational and individual performance. A maximum payout of 2.0 times of this 20% component was possible if we achieved the Minimum Pretax Income requirement under the program. From this maximum level, the Compensation Committee would determine the actual payouts to our NEOs for this component based
20
on its assessment of operational and individual performance factors, and could use negative discretion to reduce payouts to our NEOs below the maximum possible amount.
As we achieved Minimum Pretax Income, each NEO was eligible to receive up to the maximum of 40% of his overall target payout opportunity under the 2013 fiscal year annual incentive program (relative to the 20% weighting for the strategic performance component). In assessing individual NEO performance for the strategic performance component, the Compensation Committee took account of the contributions identified in the table below. Additionally, for our NEOs other than our CEO, the Compensation Committee considered the CEO’s assessment of their performance.
NEO | 2013 NEO Performance Contributions |
Mr. Mezger | Provided overall leadership that fundamentally drove our performance in 2013, including full-year profitability for the first time since 2006, 34% revenue growth, a 24% increase in net order value, and a $99 million improvement in net income. He also continued to effectively refine and oversee the execution of our long-term strategic re-positioning and growth initiatives, establishing a strong foundation for the future achievement of our top financial and operational goals; and further enhanced the KB Home brand and our competitive differentiation as a leading national company in environmental sustainability. Based on this exemplary performance, the Compensation Committee approved the maximum strategic performance component payout to Mr. Mezger of 40%. |
Mr. Kaminski | Led successful capital markets transactions, including our common stock offering and our senior notes issuances, and the establishment of a revolving credit agreement, which together strengthened our balance sheet and bolstered our liquidity to support our growth initiatives and improved our public debt maturity profile. He also continued to drive focus and oversight on improving the financial performance of our operating divisions through disciplined monthly reviews, among other steps. |
Mr. Woram | In 2013, major accomplishments included significant litigation outcomes and recoveries. He and his transactional team provided significant support to our substantial investments in land and land development during the year, and he continued to provide very strong oversight of the entire legal team. |
Mr. Praw | Continued to provide critical leadership of our operating divisions’ land investment activities in support of our community count growth objectives and to the development and execution of our overall asset optimization strategies. He also played a leading role in the successful resolution of the reorganization of our SouthEdge joint venture and the establishment of a new development plan for the associated Inspirada community, which preserved and enhanced the value of this strategic property. |
Mr. Hollinger | Played a primary and critical role in our continuing efforts to improve the profitability of the business. Worked collaboratively with our divisions and our IT department to evaluate new technology applications to improve business planning and reduce direct costs to the business. |
In considering the above relative individual contributions and operational performance, the Compensation Committee determined that the CEO had performed at the maximum strategic payout level. Based on the CEO’s strategic performance and maximum strategic payout level, the Compensation Committee assessed the above relative contributions of the other NEOs and used its negative discretion to reduce their strategic performance payouts to between 18% and 60% of their respective maximum strategic payout levels. This use of negative discretion for the other NEOs by the Compensation Committee was consistent with prior years, in which the Compensation Committee had determined that it was appropriate to balance and contain annual incentive outcomes at levels lower than the potential maximum amounts.
2013 Fiscal Year Annual Incentive Payouts. As a result of the foregoing performance considerations, the Compensation Committee approved 2013 fiscal year annual incentive payouts to the NEOs that, in aggregate, were 66% above the program’s original target levels. Actual payment amounts are shown in the table below.
2013 Annual Incentive Program Payout Levels and Actual Awards | ||||||||||||||||
NEO | Threshold | Target | Maximum | Actual | ||||||||||||
Mr. Mezger | $ | 375,000 | $ | 1,500,000 | $ | 3,000,000 | $ | 2,725,500 | ||||||||
Mr. Kaminski | 150,000 | 600,000 | 1,200,000 | 952,200 | ||||||||||||
Mr. Woram | 135,000 | 540,000 | 1,080,000 | 800,820 | ||||||||||||
Mr. Praw | 131,250 | 525,000 | 1,050,000 | 780,675 | ||||||||||||
Mr. Hollinger | 76,000 | 304,000 | 608,000 | 503,728 | ||||||||||||
21
Bonus Payments. Each of our NEOs other than Mr. Praw received payouts in October 2013 of three-year restricted cash awards that were granted as part of the long-term incentives approved by the Compensation Committee in October 2010. These cash awards were granted to motivate and retain the executives at a time when we had very limited available grant capacity under our equity compensation plan and a relatively low stock price. In addition, in January 2014, the Compensation Committee approved a $100,000 bonus payment to Mr. Praw to specifically recognize Mr. Praw’s critical contribution to the successful turnaround and updated development plan approved in 2013 for the Inspirada community in Las Vegas, Nevada. Due in large measure to Mr. Praw’s efforts, the Inspirada community is expected to be a high-performing asset for us that will have a significant positive impact on our business for several years.
2014 Fiscal Year Annual Incentive Program. The 2014 fiscal year annual incentive program will utilize a similar framework as the 2013 fiscal year program. A minimum pretax income level must be achieved for our NEOs to receive any annual incentive payouts, and two financial measures will constitute the majority of each NEO’s annual incentive payout opportunity. As with the 2013 fiscal year program, the financial performance measures for the 2014 fiscal year program will have threshold, target and maximum payout opportunities directly scaled to threshold, target and maximum performance goals designed to require similar levels of achievement as described above under the heading “Financial Performance Measures,” taking into account our performance objectives for the current fiscal year. A strategic performance component will determine the remaining portion, and it will again take into account a mix of operational items as well as individual executive performance. Consistent with the 2013 fiscal year program, the Compensation Committee will have limited discretion to adjust the largely formula-driven payout results under the 2014 fiscal year annual incentive program performance measures to balance and/or contain annual incentive outcomes as it deems appropriate.
Long-Term Incentives. We provide long-term incentives to our NEOs and other senior executives that are designed to promote retention and alignment of pay with our performance and stockholder interests. Historically, the mix of long-term incentives has included grants of time-vesting common stock options, restricted stock and restricted cash, performance-based stock options and stock units, performance cash and cash-settled equity-based awards. These long-term incentives typically vest over a three-year period.
In October 2013, the Compensation Committee approved long-term incentive awards consisting of performance-based restricted stock units (each, a “PSU”), restricted stock and stock options. These vehicles were selected to further strengthen the alignment of the recipients’ interests with those of our stockholders. The majority of the long-term incentive value approved for our CEO, and approximately 30% of the award value approved for our other NEOs, is composed of PSUs and is therefore performance-based. The grants approved for our NEOs are shown in the table immediately below, and the grant-date fair values of all grants are shown below in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal Year 2013 table.
NEO Long-Term Incentives Granted in 2013 | |||||
NEO | PSUs (#) | Restricted Stock (#) | Stock Options (#) | ||
Mr. Mezger | 100,000 | — | 150,000 | ||
Mr. Kaminski | 15,000 | 15,000 | 50,000 | ||
Mr. Woram | 12,500 | 12,500 | 39,000 | ||
Mr. Praw | 12,500 | 12,500 | 39,000 | ||
Mr. Hollinger | 7,000 | 7,000 | 21,500 | ||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units. The PSUs are designed to appropriately reward, and condition payouts on, the achievement of improved absolute and relative results over several years in two key operating metrics associated with stockholder return. The PSU amounts shown in the table above reflect a target award of shares of our common stock (“Award Shares”). Each PSU entitles an NEO to receive a grant of between 0% to 200% of the NEO’s Award Shares. The PSUs will vest, based on our achieving, over the three-year period commencing on December 1, 2013 and ending on November 30, 2016, specified levels of (a) average return on equity performance and (b) revenue growth performance relative to our peer group. Vesting is also generally subject to the NEO’s continued employment with us through to and including a date that is no later than 90 days after the end of the performance period (the “Determination Date”). The framework of the PSU program is identical to the program utilized for our November 2012 grants, but the required levels of performance under the average return on equity measure were increased at each of the threshold, target and maximum levels. The applicable performance achievement standards are as follows:
22
Performance Measure | Performance | Target Award Multiplier |
Average Return on Equity | 20% | 200% |
15% | 100% | |
10% | 25% | |
Below 10% | 0% | |
Relative Revenue Growth (Adjustments to ranking levels and multipliers will be made if there are changes in the peer group size over time) | Rank | Target Award Multiplier |
First or Second | 200% | |
3 | 180% | |
5 | 140% | |
7 | 100% | |
9 | 60% | |
11 | 20% | |
Bottom 2 | 0% | |
The average return on equity performance measure will determine 60%, and the relative revenue growth performance measure will determine 40%, of the final number of shares of our common stock that may be granted to an NEO. Performance for each measure is to be determined by the Compensation Committee on the Determination Date. In addition, each NEO will be credited with an amount of cash (the “Dividend Equivalent”) equal to the NEO’s target Award Shares multiplied by the cash dividends that are paid in respect of one share of our common stock with a record date during the period beginning on the grant date and ending on the Determination Date. Upon the vesting of each PSU, each NEO will be eligible to receive a cash payment equal to the credited Dividend Equivalent multiplied by the applicable percentage of Award Shares that may be granted to the NEO after the Determination Date, if any. If performance over the performance period for both measures is below specific thresholds, each NEO will be granted no shares of common stock and will receive no cash Dividend Equivalent payment. In general, each NEO will forfeit any rights with respect to Award Shares and to any cash Dividend Equivalent payment if an NEO terminates service prior to the Determination Date.
Restricted Stock. Each share of restricted stock shown in the table above will vest at the conclusion of the three-year vesting period, and entitles the NEO to receive all cash dividends that are paid in respect of one share of our common stock with a record date during the period beginning on the grant date and ending on the vesting date. Each NEO will forfeit any unvested shares if the NEO’s employment with us is terminated before the applicable vesting date.
Common Stock Options. Each common stock option shown in the table above will vest ratably over the three-year period. Each NEO will forfeit any unvested shares if the NEO’s employment with us is terminated before an applicable vesting date.
Executive Compensation Decision-Making and Other Compensation Policies
Our executive compensation decision-making process and executive compensation and benefits programs are overseen by the Compensation Committee. In making executive compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee considers a variety of factors and data, with our performance and individual executive performance generally viewed as the most important inputs, and takes into account the totality of compensation that may be paid through base salaries and annual and long-term incentives. Among the data the Compensation Committee considers are financial and operational performance information and metrics for us, including comparisons to prior years’ performance and our current business plans, and for our peer group (which is described below); surveys and forecasts of comparative general industry and peer group compensation and benefits practices; and at least annually, management-prepared tally sheets for each NEO and certain other senior executives with up to five years of compensation data. The Compensation Committee, in consultation with its outside compensation consultant, also considers as to NEO compensation one-year and three-year pay and performance data regarding the members of our peer group.
Role of Our Management. Our CEO and senior human resources and legal department executives provide information and recommendations to assist the Compensation Committee’s decision-making, and also advise on compliance and disclosure requirements.
Role of Compensation Consultants. Each of the Compensation Committee and our management is assisted in the executive compensation decision–making process by an outside compensation consultant, who attends Compensation Committee meetings. In 2013, the Compensation Committee was assisted on executive compensation, and on compliance and disclosure requirements, by Semler Brossy (until May) and FWC (beginning in July), which, in each case, it retained directly. To maintain its independence and avoid any conflicts of interest, the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultant may not work directly for our management unless the Compensation Committee pre-approves the work, including fees. During 2013, the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultants did not provide any services that would have required such pre-approval. Based on its consideration of factors under NYSE listing standards, the Compensation Committee determined that FWC’s and Semler Brossy’s respective work did not raise any conflicts of interest, and each such outside compensation
23
consultant to be independent. Since 2012, our management has retained Mercer (US) Inc. to provide general advice and assistance with design of our executive compensation program, including, in an indirect fashion, the terms and conditions of our NEOs’ annual and long-term incentives. Based on its consideration of the NYSE factors, the Compensation Committee determined that any conflicts of interest in respect of Mercer’s supporting role as management’s outside compensation consultant were appropriately mitigated by the Compensation Committee’s outside compensation consultant’s integral role in reviewing and advising the Compensation Committee on management’s recommendations on executive compensation and benefits matters and the Compensation Committee’s reliance on its outside compensation consultant’s advice in making executive compensation and benefits decisions.
Peer Group. Our peer group is composed solely of public companies that, like us, are engaged in high production homebuilding as their primary business. We compete with these companies for both homebuyers and management talent. The competition with these companies for human resources reflects our, and their, need to attract and retain high caliber management and other personnel with strong high production homebuilding expertise and experience to execute business activities in distinct, local markets. Therefore, a principal focus in designing our compensation and benefits programs is to meet this critical, competitive need.
The Compensation Committee, in consultation with its outside compensation consultant and our management, reviews and considers changes to the makeup of our peer group annually. The Compensation Committee principally considers the competitive factors described above, and it also considers our total revenues and market capitalization relative to those of the companies in the peer group. The Compensation Committee determined in February 2014 to leave our peer group unchanged from the prior year, with the companies in our peer group shown in the table below. As of their most recently filed proxy statements before the date of this Proxy Statement, each member of our peer group included us in their own peer group.
Our Peer Group | ||
• Beazer Homes • Lennar Corporation • Meritage Homes Corp. • Ryland Group | • DR Horton • MDC Holdings • NVR Incorporated • Standard Pacific | • Hovnanian Enterprises • M/I Homes • PulteGroup, Inc. • Toll Brothers |
As of December 31, 2013, the reported total revenues (on a trailing 12-month basis) of the companies in our peer group was within a range of approximately one-half to 3.0 times our total revenues, and our total revenues approximated the median of the peer group. The market capitalization of our peer group was within a range of approximately one-third to 5.0 times ours.
Equity Stock Ownership Policy. We have had an executive stock ownership policy for several years. The policy is intended to encourage, and has encouraged, our executives to increase their ownership of our common stock over time and to align their interests with our stockholders’ interests. Under the policy, designated senior executives are expected to achieve specific levels of common stock ownership within five years of joining us and, once achieved, maintain such ownership throughout employment. In October 2013, the Compensation Committee, with input from FWC, approved amendments to our stock ownership policy that adjusted the required ownership levels from a specific share-based target to a multiple of salary-based target, which is a more commonly used approach for stock ownership guidelines. Under the amended policy, the targeted common stock ownership levels for our NEOs are as follows:
Executive Position | Ownership Guideline |
CEO | 6.0 times base salary |
Executive Vice President | 2.0 times base salary |
Senior Vice President | 1.0 times base salary |
The applicable ownership requirement will be reduced by 10% each year for five years once a covered executive has reached the age of 60. Common stock ownership includes shares owned outright or owned indirectly through our 401(k) Savings Plan, and shares are valued at the greater of the most recent closing price on a valuation date, or the closing price on the date the shares are acquired. In addition, under the amendments approved in October 2013, covered executives are required to hold all vested net (after tax) shares of time-vesting and performance-vesting restricted stock and up to 100% of net shares acquired through stock option exercises until their ownership requirement is met, absent a hardship or other qualified exception. Each of our NEOs is in compliance with the policy.
Prohibition on Hedging/Pledging of KB Home Securities. To further align their interests with those of stockholders, our senior executives cannot engage in short sales of our securities and cannot buy or sell puts, calls or any other financial instruments that are designed to hedge or offset decreases or increases in the value of our securities (including derivatives, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars and exchange funds).
Equity-Based Award Grant Policy. Our equity-based award grant policy governs the timing and establishes certain internal controls over the grant of equity-based awards. The policy requires that the Compensation Committee (or the Board) approve
24
all grants of equity-based awards, and their terms. The policy does not permit any delegation of granting authority to our management. The grant date of any equity-based award will be the date on which the Compensation Committee (or the Board) met to approve the grant unless a written resolution sets a later date. The exercise price of any stock option award will not be less than the closing price of our common stock on the NYSE on the grant date.
Recovery of Compensation. Under his Employment Agreement, our CEO must repay certain bonus and incentive- or equity-based compensation he receives if we are required to restate our financial statements as a result of his misconduct, consistent with Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We will also recoup incentive-based compensation to the extent required under the Dodd-Frank Act and any rules, regulations and listing standards issued under that act.
Tax Implications of our Executive Compensation Program. Section 162(m) of the Code generally disallows a tax deduction for compensation over $1 million paid to our highest paid executives unless it is qualifying performance-based compensation. We generally design our compensation plans in order to maintain federal tax deductibility for executive compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code, and the Compensation Committee considers the potential Section 162(m) impact when approving the compensation paid to our NEOs. The Compensation Committee, however, will approve compensation that may not be deductible under Section 162(m) of the Code where it believes it is in our and our stockholders’ best interests to do so.
Other Benefits. The majority of our health and welfare benefits are made available to all full-time employees, including our NEOs. During 2013, as in years past, our NEOs also received reimbursement for qualified out-of-pocket medical, dental and vision expenses that exceed amounts payable under our standard medical, dental and vision plans. In addition, in 2013, certain of our NEOs, and other employees, participated in our Deferred Compensation Plan, as described below under the heading “Retirement Programs.” These benefits are offered to attract key executive talent and to promote retention. We provided relocation benefits to Messrs. Kaminski and Woram in connection with recruiting them in 2010, as described below in the Summary Compensation Table. Other than those described in the foregoing sentences and the additional items described below under the headings “Death Benefits” and “Retirement Programs,” we do not provide any additional benefits or perquisites to our NEOs or other senior executives. We do not provide any allowances or reimbursements for personal automobiles, automobile fuel cards and/or insurance, tax preparation or financial/estate planning services.
Indemnification Agreements. We have entered into agreements with each of our NEOs and certain other senior executives that provide them with indemnification and advancement of expenses to supplement what is provided under our Certificate of Incorporation and insurance policies, subject to certain requirements and limitations.
Severance, Change in Control and Post-Termination Arrangements
Severance Arrangements. Mr. Mezger’s Employment Agreement provides him with certain severance benefits, and all of our current NEOs participate in our Executive Severance Plan, which provides certain severance benefits for non-change in control situations ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 times salary and bonus depending on a participant’s internal seniority level. These severance arrangements are discussed further below under the heading “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control.” In considering our stockholders’ approval of an advisory proposal, in 2008 we adopted a policy under which we will obtain stockholder approval before paying severance benefits to an executive officer under a future severance arrangement in excess of 2.99 times the sum of the executive officer’s then-current base salary and target bonus. Future severance arrangements do not include arrangements existing at the time we adopted the policy or that we assume or acquire unless, in each case, the severance arrangement is changed in a manner that materially increases its severance benefits.
Change in Control Arrangements. Since 2001, we have maintained the CIC Plan that, upon a change in control, provides participants with certain severance-related payments, accelerated vesting of equity awards and full vesting in any benefits under our Death Benefit Only Plan (if a participant also participates in that plan). The CIC Plan is intended to enable and encourage our management to focus its attention on obtaining the best possible result for our stockholders in a change in control; to promote management continuity; and to provide income protection in the event of involuntary loss of employment. In addition, if we experience a change in control, the vesting is accelerated for any unvested benefits under our Deferred Compensation Plan and our Retirement Plan, each of which is discussed below, and under certain of our employee benefit plans, including our equity compensation plans. The payments to which each of our NEOs may be entitled upon a change in control are further discussed below under the heading “Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control.”
Death Benefits. Our Death Benefit Only Plan, in which Messrs. Mezger, Praw and Hollinger participate, provides a death benefit to the participant’s designated beneficiary of $1 million (plus an additional tax restoration amount sufficient to pay taxes on the benefit and the additional amount). We closed the Death Benefit Only Plan to new participants beginning in 2004 (Mr. Praw fully vested in the death benefit during his previous service with us as a full-time employee), and only term life insurance, with a $750,000 benefit level payable to an executive’s designated beneficiaries, has been made available to incoming eligible executives. We maintain this term life insurance benefit for Messrs. Kaminski and Woram. We also maintain a $400,000 life insurance death benefit for designated beneficiaries of Mr. Mezger.
25
Retirement Programs. Our 401(k) Savings Plan, a qualified defined contribution plan, is the only program we offer to all full-time employees that provides post-employment benefits. Our NEOs and certain other employees also have the opportunity to participate in an unfunded nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which allows pretax contributions of base salary and annual incentive compensation. We provide a dollar-for-dollar match of 401(k) Savings Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan contributions on up to an aggregate amount of 6% of a participant’s base salary. NEO deferrals under the Deferred Compensation Plan are shown below in the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation During Fiscal Year 2013 table. We offer the Deferred Compensation Plan to give participating executives the ability to defer amounts above the 401(k) Savings Plan’s contribution limits. We maintain a Retirement Plan for certain executives, including Messrs. Mezger and Hollinger. The Retirement Plan, closed to new participants since 2004 with no additional benefit accruals to participants (other than cost-of-living adjustments), provides each vested participant with specific annual payments for 20 years that begin upon the later of reaching age 55, the tenth anniversary of a participation commencement date, or the termination of employment with us. Mr. Mezger’s original annual benefit amount under the Retirement Plan was $450,000; Mr. Hollinger’s was $100,000. To preserve the purchasing power of these frozen amounts, they are increased by the cost-of-living adjustments applied to federal social security benefits. NEO Retirement Plan participation is shown in the Pension Benefits During Fiscal Year 2013 table.
Summary Compensation Table
Name and Principal Position | Fiscal Year | Salary ($)(a) | Bonus ($)(b) | Stock Awards ($)(c) | Option Awards ($)(c) | Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)(d) | Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($) | All Other Compensation ($)(e) | Total ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Jeffrey T. Mezger President and Chief Executive Officer | 2013 | $ | 1,000,000 | $ | 500,000 | $ | 1,663,000 | $ | 1,044,660 | $ | 2,725,500 | $ | — | $ | 67,884 | $ | 7,001,044 | ||||||||
2012 | 1,000,000 | — | 2,475,000 | — | 1,250,000 | 800,763 | 66,859 | 5,592,622 | |||||||||||||||||
2011 | 1,000,000 | — | — | 1,779,331 | 1,950,000 | 1,153,277 | 63,671 | 5,946,279 | |||||||||||||||||
Jeff J. Kaminski Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 2013 | 570,833 | 260,000 | 498,900 | 348,220 | 952,200 | — | 45,848 | 2,676,001 | ||||||||||||||||
2012 | 550,000 | — | 525,000 | — | 450,000 | — | 41,469 | 1,566,469 | |||||||||||||||||
2011 | 550,000 | — | — | 317,738 | 400,000 | — | 117,607 | 1,385,345 | |||||||||||||||||
Brian J. Woram Executive Vice President and General Counsel | 2013 | 531,250 | 242,000 | 415,750 | 271,612 | 800,820 | — | 42,356 | 2,303,788 | ||||||||||||||||
2012 | 525,000 | — | 505,000 | — | 400,000 | — | 35,577 | 1,465,577 | |||||||||||||||||
2011 | 525,000 | — | — | 305,028 | 375,000 | — | 65,823 | 1,270,851 | |||||||||||||||||
Albert Z. Praw Executive Vice President, Real Estate and Business Development | 2013 | 510,417 | 100,000 | 415,750 | 271,612 | 780,675 | — | 12,376 | 2,090,830 | ||||||||||||||||
2012 | 500,000 | — | 505,000 | — | 400,000 | — | 9,890 | 1,414,890 | |||||||||||||||||
2011 | 125,000 | — | — | 381,285 | 100,000 | — | 684,953 | 1,291,238 | |||||||||||||||||
William R. Hollinger Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer | 2013 | 371,250 | 260,000 | 232,820 | 149,735 | 503,728 | — | 31,519 | 1,549,052 | ||||||||||||||||
2012 | 365,000 | — | 275,000 | — | 300,000 | 187,232 | 30,327 | 1,157,559 | |||||||||||||||||
2011 | 365,000 | — | — | 152,514 | 300,000 | 261,360 | 28,346 | 1,107,220 | |||||||||||||||||
(a) | Salary. Mr. Praw’s 2011 salary reflects a pro-rated amount, as he re-joined us as a full-time employee during that year. As discussed above under the heading “Base Salaries,” the annual base salaries of our NEOs other than the CEO were increased in July 2013 to the following levels: Mr. Kaminski $600,000; Mr. Woram $540,000; Mr. Praw $525,000; and Mr. Hollinger $380,000. |
(b) | Bonus. Except for Mr. Praw, the amounts in this column reflect the vesting and payout on October 7, 2013 of three-year restricted cash award grants. These payments and the bonus payment for Mr. Praw are discussed above under the heading “2013 Fiscal Year Annual Incentives and Bonus Payments.” |
(c) | Stock Awards and Option Awards. These amounts represent the aggregate grant-date fair value of stock awards (consisting of both restricted stock and PSUs) and option awards (consisting of stock options) computed in accordance with ASC 718, as described in Note 19. Employee Benefit and Stock Plans in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report, except that estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions have been disregarded. They do not represent realized compensation. The 2013 stock awards represent the grant-date fair value of restricted stock and the probable award of shares of our common stock underlying the PSUs granted. The grant-date value of the PSUs awarded to our NEOs if maximum performance is achieved is as follows: Mr. Mezger $3,326,000; Mr. Kaminski $498,900; Mr. Woram $415,750; Mr. Praw $415,750; and Mr. Hollinger $232,820. |
(d) | Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation. These amounts are the annual incentive compensation payouts to the NEOs. |
(e) | All Other Compensation. The amounts shown consist of the following items: |
• | 401(k) Savings Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan Matching Contributions. The respective aggregate 2013, 2012 and 2011 fiscal year 401(k) Savings Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan matching contributions we made to our NEOs |
26
were as follows: Mr. Mezger $55,300, $55,000 and $54,700; Mr. Kaminski $32,425, $30,125 and $14,700; Mr. Woram $28,613, $23,531 and $24,544; and Mr. Hollinger $22,275, $21,900 and $21,900. Mr. Praw did not make any 401(k) Savings Plan or Deferred Compensation Plan contributions in these fiscal years.
• | Premium Payments. The respective aggregate premiums we paid for our NEOs in our 2013, 2012 and 2011 fiscal years on supplemental medical expense reimbursement plans and life insurance policies, as described above under the heading “Other Benefits,” were as follows: Mr. Mezger $12,582, $11,856 and $8,971; Mr. Kaminski $11,099, $10,426 and $9,446; Mr. Woram $11,099, $10,426 and $9,446; Mr. Praw $10,614, $9,888 and $1,620; and Mr. Hollinger $7,816, $7,241 and $6,446. |
• | Relocation Assistance. In our 2011 fiscal year, Mr. Kaminski received $93,461, and Mr. Woram received $31,833 under their respective relocation reimbursement arrangements that we agreed to in connection with their hiring in 2010, which included in each case up to six months temporary housing and any personal income tax liability from relocation-related payments. |
• | Consulting Arrangement. For the first nine months of our 2011 fiscal year, Mr. Praw served as an outside consultant and received a total of $683,333 during that time under his consulting arrangement with us. |
Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal Year 2013
Name | Grant Date(a) | Type of Award | Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards | Estimated Possible Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards(b) | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) | All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#) | Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/Sh) | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($)(c) | |||||||||||||||||||
Threshold ($) | Target ($) | Maximum ($) | Threshold (#) | Target (#) | Maximum (#) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Mezger | 2/8/2013 | Annual Incentive | $ | 375,000 | $ | 1,500,000 | $ | 3,000,000 | |||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | PSUs | 23,000 | 100,000 | 200,000 | $ | 1,663,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Stock Options | 150,000 | $ | 16.63 | 1,044,660 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Kaminski | 2/8/2013 | Annual Incentive | 150,000 | 600,000 | 1,200,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | PSUs | 3,450 | 15,000 | 30,000 | 249,450 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Restricted Stock | 15,000 | 249,450 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Stock Options | 50,000 | 16.63 | 348,220 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Woram | 2/8/2013 | Annual Incentive | 135,000 | 540,000 | 1,080,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | PSUs | 2,875 | 12,500 | 25,000 | 207,875 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Restricted Stock | 12,500 | 207,875 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Stock Options | 39,000 | 16.63 | 271,612 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Praw | 2/8/2013 | Annual Incentive | 131,250 | 525,000 | 1,050,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | PSUs | 2,875 | 12,500 | 25,000 | 207,875 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Restricted Stock | 12,500 | 207,875 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Stock Options | 39,000 | 16.63 | 271,612 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Hollinger | 2/8/2013 | Annual Incentive | 76,000 | 304,000 | 608,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | PSUs | 1,610 | 7,000 | 14,000 | 116,410 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Restricted Stock | 7,000 | 116,410 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | Stock Options | 21,500 | 16.63 | 149,735 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
(a) | Grant Date. The date shown for each award is the date the Compensation Committee approved the award. |
(b) | Estimated Possible Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards. If there is a payout of the PSUs, “Threshold” represents the lowest possible payout if threshold performance is achieved for each performance measure, and “Maximum” reflects the highest possible payout (200% of the target number of shares granted). The performance measures are described above under the heading “Long-Term Incentives.” If threshold performance is not achieved on both measures, the NEOs will not receive any payout of the PSUs. |
(c) | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards. The grant-date fair value for each award is computed in accordance with ASC 718, as described in footnote (c) to the Summary Compensation Table. The 2013 stock awards represent the grant-date fair value of restricted stock and the probable award of shares of our common stock underlying the PSUs granted as of the grant date. |
27
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End 2013
Name | Grant Date | Option Awards | Stock Awards | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (#) | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (#)(a) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options (#) | Option Exercise Price ($) | Option Expiration Date | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) | Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(b) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#)(c) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($)(c) | |||||||||||||||||
Mr. Mezger | 10/30/2001 | 431,122 | $ | 13.95 | 10/30/2016 | ||||||||||||||||||||
10/30/2001 | 68,878 | 13.95 | 10/30/2016 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2/13/2002 | 102,090 | 20.07 | 2/13/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5/8/2002 | 44,516 | 25.63 | 5/8/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2002 | 400,000 | 21.51 | 10/7/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/24/2003 | 74,667 | 33.24 | (d) | 10/24/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/24/2003 | 149,333 | 34.05 | (d) | 10/24/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/22/2004 | 80,750 | 40.90 | 10/22/2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/22/2004 | 119,250 | 40.90 | 10/22/2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/18/2005 | 75,000 | 63.77 | 10/18/2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7/12/2007 | 325,050 | 36.19 | 11/30/2016 | (e) | |||||||||||||||||||||
7/12/2007 | 325,050 | 36.19 | 7/12/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/4/2007 | 137,500 | 28.10 | 10/4/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/1/2009 | 489,258 | 15.44 | 10/1/2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8/13/2010 | 397,818 | 19.90 | 10/2/2018 | (f) | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2010 | 240,000 | 11.06 | 10/7/2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2010 | 260,000 | (g) | 11.06 | 10/7/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/9/2010 | 412,500 | 28.10 | 10/4/2017 | (f) | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 223,333 | 111,667 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 243,333 | 121,667 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/8/2012 | 152,495 | $ | 2,673,237 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 150,000 | 16.63 | 10/10/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 100,000 | 1,753,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Kaminski | 7/15/2010 | 45,017 | 11.26 | 7/15/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2010 | 118,000 | 11.06 | 10/7/2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 83,333 | 41,667 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/8/2012 | 9,653 | $ | 169,217 | 17,868 | 313,226 | ||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 50,000 | 16.63 | 10/10/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 15,000 | 262,950 | 15,000 | 262,950 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Woram | 7/15/2010 | 79,529 | 11.26 | 7/15/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2010 | 111,000 | 11.06 | 10/7/2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 80,000 | 40,000 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/8/2012 | 9,653 | 169,217 | 16,636 | 291,629 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 39,000 | 16.63 | 10/10/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 12,500 | 219,125 | 12,500 | 219,125 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Praw | 10/18/2005 | 6,000 | 63.77 | 10/18/2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 100,000 | 50,000 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/8/2012 | 9,653 | 169,217 | 16,636 | 291,629 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 39,000 | 16.63 | 10/10/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 12,500 | 219,125 | 12,500 | 219,125 | |||||||||||||||||||||
28
Mr. Hollinger | 7/1/2002 | 58,058 | $ | 26.29 | 7/1/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2002 | 60,000 | 21.51 | 10/7/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/24/2003 | 9,334 | 33.24 | (d) | 10/24/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/24/2003 | 18,666 | 34.05 | (d) | 10/24/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/22/2004 | 24,000 | 40.90 | 10/22/2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/18/2005 | 6,000 | 63.77 | 10/18/2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/1/2009 | 68,147 | 15.44 | 10/1/2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8/13/2010 | 79,564 | 19.90 | 10/2/2018 | (f) | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/7/2010 | 60,000 | 11.06 | 10/7/2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11/9/2010 | 25,662 | 36.19 | 7/12/2017 | (f) | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/9/2010 | 36,885 | 28.10 | 10/4/2017 | (f) | |||||||||||||||||||||
10/6/2011 | 40,000 | 20,000 | 6.32 | 10/6/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||
11/8/2012 | 5,135 | $ | 90,017 | 9,242 | $ | 162,012 | |||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 21,500 | 16.63 | 10/10/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10/10/2013 | 7,000 | 122,710 | 7,000 | 122,710 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(a) | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options-Unexercisable. Stock option awards generally vest in equal installment amounts over a three-year period. |
(b) | Market Value of Shares That Have Not Vested. The market value shown is based on the price of our common stock on November 30, 2013, which was $17.53. |
(c) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number and Market Value of Unearned Units. The awards shown are the PSUs granted to our NEOs in 2012 and 2013, reflecting target award amounts as of November 30, 2013 and the market price of our common stock on November 30, 2013, which was $17.53. |
(d) | As a result of an internal review of our employee stock option grant practices in 2006, we adjusted the exercise prices of certain of our employee stock options in order to comply with Section 409A of the Code. The exercise price for a certain portion of the stock option grant made on October 24, 2003 was not adjusted. |
(e) | The expiration date for these stock options is set under Mr. Mezger’s Employment Agreement. |
(f) | Through participation in two exchange offers that we conducted in our 2010 fiscal year, these common stock options replaced cash-settled stock appreciation right awards that had been previously granted to the NEO as long-term incentives. Each common stock option has an exercise price equal to the replaced award’s exercise price, and the same number of underlying shares, vesting schedule and expiration date as each replaced award. The exchange offers did not include a re-pricing or any other changes impacting the value of the awards to the NEO, no additional grants or awards were made to the NEO, and the issuance of the common stock options did not result in any incremental fair value to the NEO. |
(g) | These are performance options that the Compensation Committee determined vested on January 23, 2014, and therefore all of these options vested on that date. |
Option Exercises and Stock Vested During Fiscal Year 2013
Name | Option Awards | Stock Awards | ||||||||
Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) | Value Realized on Exercise ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)(a) | Value Realized on Vesting ($)(b) | |||||||
Mr. Mezger | — | $ | — | — | $ | — | ||||
Mr. Kaminski | — | — | 11,487 | 203,479 | ||||||
Mr. Woram | — | — | 16,594 | 300,358 | ||||||
Mr. Praw | — | — | 4,826 | 77,119 | ||||||
Mr. Hollinger | — | — | 2,567 | 41,021 | ||||||
(a) | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting. The shares reported in this column represent restricted stock that vested in our 2013 fiscal year. For Messrs. Kaminski and Woram, the total number of acquired shares reflect the vesting of a three-year restricted stock grant on July 15, 2013 and the vesting of one-third of a restricted stock grant made on November 8, 2012. For the other NEOs, total number of acquired shares reflect the vesting of one-third of a restricted grant made on November 8, 2012. |
(b) | Value Realized on Vesting. The amount shown is the total gross dollar value realized upon the vesting of the restricted stock described above in footnote (a) to this table. Due to tax withholding obligations, however, the NEOs actually realized a lower total value. |
29
Pension Benefits During Fiscal Year 2013
Name* | Plan Name | Number of Years Credited Service (#)(a) | Present Value of Accumulated Benefit ($)(b) | Payments During Last Fiscal Year ($) | ||||
Mr. Mezger | Retirement Plan | 20 | $ | 9,300,477 | $ | — | ||
Mr. Hollinger | Retirement Plan | 26 | 2,066,773 | — | ||||
(a) | Number of Years of Credited Service. These are as of the valuation date. As of November 30, 2013, each participating NEO is fully vested in his respective Retirement Plan benefit. |
(b) | Present Value of Accumulated Benefit. These amounts represent the actuarial present value of the total retirement benefit that would be payable to each respective NEO under the Retirement Plan as of November 30, 2013. The following key actuarial assumptions and methodologies were used to calculate this present value: the base benefit for each participant is assumed to begin as of the earliest possible date for each participant (generally the later of age 55 or the tenth anniversary of the commencement of participation); the base benefit is adjusted by past and future cost of living adjustments including a 1.5% increase for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2014 and an assumed 2.5% increase thereafter, until the last benefits are paid for each participant. The discount rate used to calculate the present value of the accumulated benefit shown in table was 4.25%. |
* | Messrs. Kaminski, Woram and Praw are not participants in the Retirement Plan. |
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation During Fiscal Year 2013
Name* | Executive Contributions in Last Fiscal Year ($)(a) | Registrant Contributions in Last Fiscal Year ($)(b) | Aggregate Earnings in Last Fiscal Year ($)(c) | Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($)(d) | Aggregate Balance at Last Fiscal Year End ($)(e) | ||||||||||
Mr. Mezger | $ | 40,000 | $ | 40,000 | $ | 234,926 | $ | — | $ | 1,216,172 | |||||
Mr. Kaminski | 17,125 | 17,125 | 8,389 | — | 74,015 | ||||||||||
Mr. Woram | 44,813 | 13,313 | 22,113 | — | 153,175 | ||||||||||
Mr. Hollinger | 37,125 | 11,467 | (11,035 | ) | 62,443 | 1,614,788 | |||||||||
(a) | Executive Contributions in Last Fiscal Year. These amounts reflect compensation the NEOs earned in our 2013 fiscal year that they have voluntarily deferred and are included in the Summary Compensation Table. |
(b) | Registrant Contributions in Last Fiscal Year. These amounts are matching contributions we made to the NEOs’ voluntary contributions to our Deferred Compensation Plan and are included in the Summary Compensation Table. |
(c) | Aggregate Earnings in Last Fiscal Year. These amounts do not include any above-market or preferential earnings. Accordingly, these amounts are not reported in the Summary Compensation Table. |
(d) | Aggregate Withdrawals/Distributions. The amount reported for Mr. Hollinger reflects his receipt of a scheduled distribution from his Deferred Compensation Plan account in our 2013 fiscal year. |
(e) | Aggregate Balance at Last Fiscal Year End. These amounts reflect compensation the NEOs earned in our 2013 fiscal year or in prior years, but which they voluntarily elected to defer receipt, adjusted for changes in the value of their investments and distributions, if any. Messrs. Mezger and Hollinger are vested in the full amount of their respective balances. Mr. Kaminski is vested in $55,511 and Mr. Woram is vested in $135,407 of each of their aggregate balances. |
* | Mr. Praw did not make any Deferred Compensation Plan contributions in our 2013 fiscal year. |
Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control
As described further below, our CEO’s Employment Agreement and certain of our employee benefit plans, including our equity compensation plans, provide for payments and other benefits to our NEOs if we experience a change in control and/or on their termination of employment with us under certain circumstances. In our 2008 fiscal year, we modified some of our benefit plans to comply with Section 409A of the Code, which in certain cases requires that payments to key employees (such as our NEOs) not commence for six months following a termination of employment.
30
CEO Employment Agreement. Under his Employment Agreement, if we terminate Mr. Mezger’s employment involuntarily, he is entitled to the following benefits, subject to a release of claims against us:
• | a lump sum cash payment equal to 2.0 times the sum of his annual salary plus average annual bonus earned for the prior three years, with the total payment capped at $6,000,000; |
• | under certain circumstances, a pro-rated bonus for the year in which his employment terminates; |
• | health coverage that we pay for up to two years; |
• | with respect to equity compensation granted to him on or after February 28, 2007, (a) two years of additional service credited to compute equity vesting plus full vesting for any equity issued to him in lieu of cash bonuses, and (b) the earlier of 36 months and the original term duration of each equity grant to exercise any such outstanding equity; and |
• | performance shares paid as if the performance period closed on the termination date if the performance period would otherwise close in the next 24 months. |
Outstanding equity awards granted to Mr. Mezger before the effective date of the Employment Agreement are governed by their respective terms and conditions with respect to his termination of employment.
The following benefits are payable to Mr. Mezger in the case of a change in control:
• | full vesting of unvested equity granted to him on or after February 28, 2007, with earlier equity awards governed by their respective terms and conditions; |
• | performance shares paid as earned with the applicable performance period closing as of the date of the change in control; |
• | full vesting and lump sum cash payment of deferred compensation, retirement or other employee benefits per the relevant arrangements, provided that lump sum payments subject to Section 409A of the Code are permitted only as provided by the specific terms of those arrangements; |
• | if his employment is involuntarily terminated in connection with a change in control (generally, during the period starting three months before and ending twelve months after a change in control), payment of the same severance as provided above in the event of an involuntary termination of employment, except the applicable multiple is 3.0 times the sum of his annual salary and average bonus rather than 2.0 times and the total payment is capped at $12,000,000; under certain circumstances, a pro-rated bonus for the year in which his employment terminates; and health coverage that we pay for up to two years; and |
• | an additional amount to compensate for any excise taxes under Section 280G of the Code (“Section 280G”). |
Mr. Mezger is prohibited from soliciting our employees for two years after termination, regardless of the reason for termination, and he may not disparage or defame us.
For these purposes, an involuntary termination under his Employment Agreement is generally our termination of Mr. Mezger’s employment without “cause” or his resigning for “good reason.” Mr. Mezger’s termination of employment for any reason during the thirteen month period following a change in control will be treated as an involuntary termination, as will our election not to extend the term of the Employment Agreement to beyond Mr. Mezger’s normal retirement date.
“Cause” is generally defined in the Employment Agreement as a felony conviction materially harming us; willful failure to follow reasonable Board directions; material breach of the Employment Agreement; acts of fraud or dishonesty or misappropriation intended to result in substantial personal enrichment at our expense; and willful misconduct likely to materially damage our financial position or reputation. The Employment Agreement provides Mr. Mezger with a 30-day notice/cure period and gives him an opportunity to present his case to the full Board with respect to a possible for-cause termination of his employment. “Good reason” under the Employment Agreement includes a forced relocation of more than 50 miles; any reduction in Mr. Mezger’s base pay or his annual bonus opportunity that causes these pay components to become materially uncompetitive; any material diminution of Mr. Mezger’s duties or responsibilities; our material breach of the Employment Agreement; or the failure of a successor to assume the Employment Agreement.
“Change in control” is defined under the Employment Agreement to include reorganizations in which our controlling stockholders, if any, no longer hold a majority of our voting stock, or a sale of substantially all of our assets with substantially the same effect; a change in the majority of the Board without approval of the incumbent directors; and any transaction in which a third party becomes the beneficial owner of 35% or more of our total voting power.
Executive Severance Plan. Under our Executive Severance Plan, no severance will be payable to an NEO (or other participant) if he voluntarily terminates employment or his employment is terminated by us with cause. If the employment of an NEO (or other participant) is unilaterally terminated by us without cause, the plan provides a cash severance payment equal to a multiple of base salary and average bonus, as discussed below.
For Messrs. Kaminski, Woram and Praw, the severance amount is equal to 2.0 times the sum of base salary and average bonus. For Mr. Hollinger and for certain other senior executive participants, the severance amount is equal to 1.5 times the sum
31
of base salary and average bonus. With respect to other current participants, the severance amount is equal to 1.0 times base salary and average bonus. The severance amount is reduced by any other severance payments that a participant is entitled to receive from us.
If a participant is entitled to severance under the plan, the applicable base salary is the participant’s annual base salary in effect at the time of the termination of the participant’s employment. The applicable average bonus is the lesser of the amounts determined by the following two calculations:
• | the average of the annual cash bonuses, if any, paid to the participant for the three most recent completed fiscal years prior to the termination of the participant’s employment (or such shorter time as the participant has been employed). |
• | (i) 3.0 times base salary for participants entitled to a severance of 2.0 times the sum of base salary and average bonus, (ii) 2.5 times base salary for participants entitled to a severance of 1.5 times the sum of base salary and average bonus, and (iii) 2.0 times base salary for participants entitled to a severance of 1.0 times the sum of base salary and average bonus. |
Participants entitled to a severance under the plan are also entitled to a continuation of health benefits that we will pay for a period of years equal to their particular severance multiple.
“Cause” is defined under the plan as the commission by a participant of any of the following: (a) serious violation or deliberate disregard of our policies, including our Ethics Policy; (b) gross dereliction in the performance of job duties and responsibilities; (c) material misappropriation of our property; (d) commission of any act of fraud, bad faith, dishonesty or disloyalty; (e) material breach of non-solicitation, non-disparagement, confidentiality and cooperation covenants contained in the plan; (f) an act (or failure to act) of egregious misconduct involving serious moral turpitude; or (g) an act or omission that is determined to prejudice our best interests significantly. All benefits under the plan are subject to execution of a release and non-solicitation, non-disparagement and confidentiality obligations.
Change in Control Severance Plan. The CIC Plan provides specified benefits to designated participants, which include our current NEOs and a very limited number of our other senior executives. Mr. Mezger is entitled only to CIC Plan benefits that do not duplicate benefits provided under his Employment Agreement if there is a change in control, and the total severance payment benefit that he may be entitled to under the CIC Plan is capped at $12,000,000.
If we experience a change in control, each of our NEOs is entitled to the following benefits under the terms of the CIC Plan:
• | if in the 18 month period following the change in control his employment is terminated other than for cause or disability, or he terminates his employment for good reason, a severance benefit equal to 2.0 times the sum of his average base salary and average actual annual cash bonus for the three fiscal years prior to the year in which the change in control occurs; |
• | accelerated vesting of any options and the lapse of any restricted period with respect to any restricted stock or other equity awards awarded to him; and |
• | full vesting in any benefits under our Death Benefit Only Plan (which is described below under the heading “Other Change in Control and Employment Termination Provisions”) if he participates in that plan. |
In addition, under the CIC Plan, only Messrs. Mezger and Hollinger and five other senior executives are currently eligible to potentially receive an additional amount to compensate for any excise taxes under Section 280G and for any taxes on the additional amount. Pursuant to a Board policy, since April 7, 2011, we have not extended this tax restoration benefit to any other officer or employee, including Messrs. Kaminski, Woram and Praw, who are participants under the CIC Plan. As noted below, no additional amounts for taxes would have been due to Messrs. Mezger or Hollinger, if a change in control had occurred on November 30, 2013.
Certain CIC Plan participants are entitled to a lower severance payment of 1.0 times the sum of their average base salary and average actual bonus. All benefits under the CIC Plan are subject to execution of a release and non-solicitation of our employees for one year and to the terms of any other agreement a participant may have with us that provides similar benefits.
A “change in control” is generally defined under the CIC Plan to include any change in ownership, change in effective control or a change in the ownership of a substantial portion of assets, in each case relating to us and consistent with the definition of such event under Treasury Department regulations issued under Section 409A of the Code.
The CIC Plan defines “cause” to include (a) acts of fraud or misappropriation intended to result in substantial personal enrichment at our expense; and (b) willful and deliberate violations of a participant’s obligations to us which result in material injury to us. “Good reason” is defined under the CIC Plan to include materially inconsistent changes in a participant’s duties and responsibilities as they were prior to the change in control; any reduction in the participant’s salary or aggregate incentive compensation opportunities; any required relocation of more than 50 miles; a material increase in a participant’s business travel obligations; or a successor’s failure to assume the CIC Plan.
32
Other Change in Control and Employment Termination Provisions. The individual award agreements governing outstanding unvested common stock options provide for accelerated vesting upon a change in control and upon retirement, as defined under the agreements. The individual award agreements governing outstanding restricted stock awards provide for accelerated vesting upon a change in control, as defined under the agreements. The individual award agreements governing outstanding PSU awards provide for pro-rata vesting if the recipient retires under certain circumstances, provided that payout, if any, is delayed until the performance period is completed. In addition, different provisions govern the length of time a participant has to exercise a common stock option after termination of his or her employment, depending upon the reason for termination and the particular agreement. For example, in the case of a termination of employment for cause, the time to exercise may be limited to five days. In the case of a retirement, the participant may have until the end of a common stock option’s original term in which to exercise.
Our Deferred Compensation Plan and Retirement Plan provide for full vesting of benefits in the event of a change in control, as that term is defined under the plans. The Retirement Plan further provides that a participant will immediately receive the actuarial value (as specified under the Retirement Plan) of the participant’s plan benefits in the event of a change in control. The Retirement Plan also provides for vesting and lump sum payment of the actuarial value of the full Retirement Plan benefit in the event of death.
Our Death Benefit Only Plan provides in the event of a change in control, as defined in the plan, for (a) distribution of an insurance contract to a participant sufficient to pay the death benefit (if the participant dies any time before age 100); and (b) an additional tax restoration amount sufficient to pay taxes caused by the distribution of the insurance contract and the additional amount. We also maintain term life insurance policies that pay benefits to the designated beneficiaries of certain of our NEOs upon their deaths as described above under the heading “Death Benefits.”
The following tables show payments we may be required to make under various employment termination and change-in-control scenarios, assuming they occurred on November 30, 2013. Some amounts in the tables and footnotes have been rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Post-Employment Payments — Mr. Mezger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Payments and Benefits upon Termination or Change in Control | Voluntary Termination | Involuntary Termination for Cause | Involuntary Termination Without Cause/ Termination for Good Reason | Change in Control Without Termination(a) | Change in Control With Termination for Good Reason or Without Cause(a) | Death | Disability | |||||||||||||||||||||
Compensation: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 7,950,000 | (b) | $ | — | $ | 10,933,333 | (c) | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Acceleration of Unvested Equity (d) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 4,432,874 | (e) | — | 4,432,874 | (e) | 4,432,874 | 4,432,874 | 4,342,874 | 4,342,874 | |||||||||||||||||||
PSUs | 1,056,282 | (e) | — | 2,825,732 | (f) | 2,825,732 | (f) | 2,825,732 | (f) | — | — | |||||||||||||||||