UNITED STATES | |||
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION | |||
Washington, D.C. 20549 | |||
| |||
SCHEDULE 14A | |||
| |||
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of | |||
| |||
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 | ||
| |||
Regal-Beloit Corporation | |||
(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: | |
|
|
| |
REGAL-BELOIT CORPORATION
200 State Street
Beloit, Wisconsin 53511
Notice of 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
To Be Held April 27, 2015
To the Shareholders of Regal-Beloit Corporation:
You are hereby notified that the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Regal-Beloit Corporation will be held at the James L. Packard Learning Center located at our corporate headquarters, 200 State Street, Beloit, Wisconsin 53511, on Monday, April 27, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, for the following purposes:
1. To elect four Class A Directors for terms expiring at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
2. To approve an amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board of Directors.
3. To approve an amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name.
4. To consider a shareholder advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the accompanying proxy statement.
5. To ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending January 2, 2016.
6. To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.
The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on March 4, 2015 as the record date for the determination of the shareholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting.
We are furnishing our proxy materials to our shareholders over the Internet. This process expedites the delivery of proxy materials, maintains convenient access to the proxy materials by our shareholders and provides clear instructions for receiving proxy materials and voting your shares. It is also friendly to the environment.
On March 18, 2015, we mailed to our shareholders the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. That Notice contains instructions on how to access our 2015 Proxy Statement and 2014 Annual Report and how to vote online. In addition, the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials contains instructions on how our shareholders can (i) receive a paper copy of the Proxy Statement and Annual Report, if they received only a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials this year, or (ii) elect to receive their Proxy Statement and Annual Report only over the Internet, if they received them by mail this year.
We hope that you will be able to attend the meeting in person, but if you are unable to do so, it is important that your shares are represented at the Annual Meeting. You may vote your shares
over the Internet at the website identified in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or via the toll-free telephone number identified in that Notice. If you received a paper copy of the proxy card by mail, then you may sign and date the proxy card and return it by mail in the envelope provided. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials contains instructions for use of all three methods of voting. If, for any reason, you should subsequently change your plans, you may, of course, revoke your proxy at any time before it is actually voted.
|
By Order of the Board of Directors |
|
REGAL-BELOIT CORPORATION |
|
|
|
|
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
Beloit, Wisconsin
March 18, 2015
PROXY STATEMENT
This Proxy Statement relates to the solicitation by Regal-Beloit Corporation (we or the Company), on behalf of its Board of Directors (the Board), of your proxy to vote your shares of the Companys common stock at the 2015 annual meeting of shareholders and all adjournments or postponements thereof (the Annual Meeting). We mailed our Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials and we are making available this proxy statement on March 18, 2015. We solicit proxies to give all shareholders of record an opportunity to vote on matters that will be presented at the Annual Meeting. In this proxy statement, you will find information on these matters, which is provided to assist you in voting your shares.
COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING
Q: What am I being asked to vote on?
A: · The election of directors;
· An amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board;
· An amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name;
· An advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement; and
· Ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending January 2, 2016.
Q: Who can vote?
A: Holders of our common stock as of the close of business on the record date, March 4, 2015, may vote at the Annual Meeting, either in person or by proxy. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote.
Q: How do I vote?
A: On March 18, 2015, we mailed our Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, which includes instructions for accessing this proxy statement and our 2014 Annual Report, as well as instructions for our shareholders to vote over the Internet, via a toll-free telephone number or by mail by signing, dating and returning a paper proxy card. You can vote in the following ways:
By ProxyBefore the Annual Meeting, you can give a proxy to vote your shares of common stock in one of the following ways:
· by telephone;
· by using the Internet; or
· by completing and signing a proxy card and mailing it in time to be received prior to the Annual Meeting if you request to receive a paper copy of a proxy card.
The telephone and Internet voting procedures are designed to confirm
your identity, to allow you to give your voting instructions and to verify that your instructions have been properly recorded. If you wish to vote by telephone or Internet, please follow the instructions that are printed on the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.
If you mail your properly completed and signed proxy card to us, or vote by telephone or the Internet, then your shares of common stock will be voted according to the choices that you specify. If you sign and mail your proxy card to us without making any choices, your proxy will be voted:
· FOR the election of all persons nominated by the Board for election as directors;
· FOR the approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board;
· FOR the approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name;
· FOR the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers; and
· FOR the ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending January 2, 2016.
Other than the election of directors, approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board, approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name, approval of the compensation of our named executive officers and the ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm, we are not currently aware of any other matters that will be brought before the Annual Meeting. However, by giving your proxy, you appoint the persons named as proxies as your representatives at the Annual Meeting. If a matter comes up for a vote at the Annual Meeting that is not included in the proxy materials, then the proxy holders will vote your shares in accordance with their best judgment.
In PersonYou may come to the Annual Meeting and cast your vote there. If your shares are held in the name of your broker, bank or other nominee and you wish to vote at the Annual Meeting, then your broker, bank or other nominee will provide you with instructions for voting your shares.
Q: May I change or revoke my vote?
A: You may change your vote or revoke your proxy at any time prior to your shares being voted by:
· notifying our Secretary in writing that you are revoking your proxy;
· giving another signed proxy that is dated after the date of the proxy that you wish to revoke;
· using the telephone or Internet voting procedures; or
· attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person (attendance at
the Annual Meeting alone will not revoke your proxy).
Q: Will my shares be voted if I do not provide my proxy?
A: It depends on whether you hold your shares in your own name or in the name of a brokerage firm. If you hold your shares directly in your name, then they will not be voted unless you provide a proxy or vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Brokerage firms or other nominees generally have the authority to vote customers uninstructed shares on certain routine matters. If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage firm, the brokerage firm has the discretionary authority to vote your shares in connection with the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm if you do not timely provide your proxy because this matter is considered routine under the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) listing standards.
However, if you have not provided directions to your broker, your broker will not be able to vote your shares with respect to the election of directors, the approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board, the approval of the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name or the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers. We strongly encourage you to submit your proxy card and exercise your right to vote as a shareholder.
Q: What constitutes a quorum?
A: As of the record date, March 4, 2015, 44,720,037 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. To conduct the Annual Meeting, a majority of the shares entitled to vote must be present in person or by proxy. This is referred to as a quorum. If you submit a properly executed proxy card or vote by telephone or the Internet, then you will be considered present at the Annual Meeting for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted as present and entitled to vote for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum. A broker non-vote occurs when a broker or other nominee who holds shares for another person has not received voting instructions from the owner of the shares and, under NYSE rules, does not have discretionary authority to vote on a proposal.
Q: What vote is needed for these proposals to be adopted?
A: Proposal 1The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to elect each director (assuming a quorum is present). Withhold votes, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the effect of votes against the election of director nominees.
Proposal 2The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented and voted at the Annual Meeting
(assuming a quorum is present) is required to approve the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to declassify our Board. Abstentions will have the effect of votes against this proposal.
Proposal 3The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented and voted at the Annual Meeting (assuming a quorum is present) is required to approve the amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation to remove the hyphen from our legal name. Abstentions will have the effect of votes against this proposal.
Proposal 4The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (assuming a quorum is present). Because this vote is advisory, the results of the vote are not binding on our Board of Directors or our Compensation and Human Resources Committee. However, if there is a significant vote against the compensation of our named executive officers, then our Board of Directors and our Compensation and Human Resources Committee will carefully evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have the effect of votes against this proposal.
Proposal 5The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented and voted at the Annual Meeting (assuming a quorum is present) is required to ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending January 2, 2016. Abstentions will have the effect of votes against this proposal.
Q: Who conducts the proxy solicitation and how much will it cost?
A: We are requesting your proxy for the Annual Meeting and will pay all costs of soliciting shareholder proxies. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail and through the Internet, we may request proxies personally and by telephone, fax or other means. We can use our directors, officers and regular employees to request proxies. These people do not receive additional compensation for these services. We will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for their reasonable out-of-pocket and clerical expenses for forwarding solicitation materials to beneficial owners of our common stock.
Q: Are the Companys proxy materials available on the Internet?
A: Yes. The Companys proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and 2014 Annual Report to Shareholders are available at www.proxyvote.com.
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
The Board is currently comprised of ten directors, divided into two classes of three members each and one class of four members, with the terms of one class of directors expiring each year. The Board has nominated Stephen M. Burt, Anesa Chaibi, Henry W. Knueppel and Dean A. Foate, each of whom is currently serving as a director, for election at the Annual Meeting as Class A directors to serve until the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Ms. Chaibi was appointed to the Board on November 10, 2014 in connection with an increase in the size of the Board from nine to ten directors. All of our other directors are expected to serve on the Board until their respective terms expire as indicated below.
Unless shareholders otherwise specify, the shares represented by the proxies received will be voted in favor of the Boards nominees for election as directors. The Board has no reason to believe that any of the listed nominees will be unable or unwilling to serve as a director if elected. However, in the event that any nominee should be unable or unwilling to serve, the shares represented by proxies received will be voted for another nominee selected by the Board.
Our Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee periodically reviews and recommends to the Board the qualities, skills and attributes desired in our directors to reflect the unique challenges facing, and business strategies of, our company. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee reviews the qualities, skills and attributes of proposed nominees when it makes director nominee recommendations to the Board and compares them against the desired qualities, skills and attributes. The Board reviews this information when considering proposed nominees. Some of the challenges and strategies we face in our business, and the corresponding desired qualities, skills and attributes, are described in the following table.
Challenges/Strategies |
|
Desired Qualities, Skills, Attributes |
|
|
|
We are a global company with operations and customers around the world |
|
· Diversity of gender, race, nationality, cultural and/or professional experience · Experience in global markets · Experience as a current or former chief executive or chief operating officer, or significant operations experience |
|
|
|
We have grown substantially through acquisition and future acquisitions are a core component of our capital deployment strategy |
|
· Business development/M&A experience · Knowledge of investment banking and/or capital markets |
|
|
|
Our presence and sales in multiple global jurisdictions and across several business platforms results in a wide variety of transactions in many different currencies |
|
· Experience as a current or former chief financial officer · Expertise in matters of public accounting |
|
|
|
We believe that good corporate governance will improve our operating performance and aligns with the interests of our shareholders |
|
· Public company board experience · Knowledgeable in corporate governance |
Challenges/Strategies |
|
Desired Qualities, Skills, Attributes |
|
|
|
Our industry has numerous unique challenges associated with manufacturing our products as well as conducting our business |
|
· Knowledge and experience in our industry · Current or past experience with manufacturing |
The following sets forth certain information, as of March 4, 2015, about each of the Boards nominees for election at the Annual Meeting and each director whose term will continue after the Annual Meeting. Except as otherwise noted, each nominee has engaged in the principal occupation or employment and has held the offices shown for more than the past five years.
Nominees for Election at the Annual Meeting
Name |
|
Age |
|
Director |
|
Principal Occupation; Office, if any, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A Directors Terms Expiring at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen M. Burt |
|
50 |
|
2010 |
|
Managing Director of Duff & Phelps (a provider of independent financial advisory and investment banking services) and President of Duff & Phelps Securities, LLC (a provider of merger and acquisition advisory services) since 1994. Mr. Burt is an NACD Governance Fellow. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Burt has
· Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; · Corporate governance knowledge; · Global experience; and · Experience in our industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henry W. Knueppel |
|
66 |
|
1987 |
|
Non-Executive Chairman of Harsco Corporation (a diversified, multinational provider of industrial services and engineered products); Interim Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Harsco Corporation from February 2012 to September 2012; Former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from April 2006 to May 2011; elected Chief Executive Officer April 2005; President and Chief Operating Officer from 2002-2005; Executive Vice President from 1987-2002; director, Harsco Corporation, Snap-on Incorporated, and Wisconsin Energy Corporation. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Knueppel has
· Experience in our industry; · Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; · Public company board experience; and · Corporate governance knowledge. |
Name |
|
Age |
|
Director |
|
Principal Occupation; Office, if any, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dean A. Foate |
|
56 |
|
2005 |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer of Plexus Corporation (an electronics manufacturing services company) since 2002; Chairman of the Board of Plexus Corporation since 2013; Chief Operating Officer of Plexus Corporation from 2001-2002; director of Plexus Corporation. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Foate has
· Experience in manufacturing; · Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; · Public company board experience; and · Corporate governance knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anesa Chaibi |
|
48 |
|
2014 |
|
Ms. Chaibi currently serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of HD Supply Facilities Maintenance, a division of HD Supply Holdings, Inc. (an industrial supplier), a position she has held since September 2005. Prior to this role, she served as General Manager of Global Quality and Commercial Operations for GE Water & Process Technologies. From 1989 to 2004, Ms. Chaibi held a variety of roles of increasing responsibility in manufacturing, operations, production, marketing, corporate initiatives, global sourcing, Six Sigma Quality, and as a Business Leader within GE Silicones, Plastics, Power Systems, Industrial Systems, Water & Process Technologies and Infrastructure. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Ms. Chaibi has
· Experience in manufacturing; · Global experience; · Significant operational experience; and · Gender, ethnic or racial diversity. |
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THE FOREGOING NOMINEES FOR ELECTION AS CLASS A DIRECTORS AND URGES EACH SHAREHOLDER TO VOTE FOR ALL NOMINEES.
Directors Continuing in Office:
Name |
|
Age |
|
Director |
|
Principal Occupation; Office, if any, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class B DirectorsTerms Expiring at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher L. Doerr |
|
65 |
|
2003 |
|
Co-CEO of Passage Partners, LLC (a private investment company) since 2001; former Co-CEO of Sterling Aviation Holdings, Inc. (aircraft management and charter company) 2004-2014; Former Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Karls Rental, Inc. (global manufacturer and supplier of portable event structures and related equipment) from 2009 to December 2011; former President and Co-CEO, Leeson Electric Corporation from 1986-2001. Mr. Doerr is currently a director of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc., and has served as director of several privately-held and publicly-traded companies and as a chief executive officer of a number of privately-held companies. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Doerr has
· Experience in manufacturing; · Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Public company board experience; and · Experience in our industry. |
Name |
|
Age |
|
Director |
|
Principal Occupation; Office, if any, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
54 |
|
2007 |
|
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company; was appointed Chairman of the Board in January 2012 and became Chief Executive Officer in May 2011; served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company from December 2006 to May 2011; Vice President and President-Electric Motors Group of the Company from January 2005 to December 2005; prior thereto employed by General Electric Company (a diversified industrial and commercial manufacturing corporation) as the General Manager of GE Motors & Controls in the GE Consumer & Industrial business unit from 2000-2004. Mr. Gliebe joined the board of Joy Global Inc. in May 2014. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Gliebe has
· Experience in our industry; · Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; and · Public company board experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis W. Stoelting |
|
55 |
|
2006 |
|
Former Chief Executive Officer of TOMY International (formerly RC2 Corporation, a designer, producer and marketer of high-quality toys, collectibles and infant and toddler products), from 2003 to 2013; prior thereto served as Chief Operating Officer of RC2 Corporation from 2000-2003 and Executive Vice President from 1998-2003; director, TOMY Company, Ltd. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Stoelting has
· Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; · Public company board experience; · Corporate governance knowledge; and · Expertise in matters of public accounting. |
Class C DirectorsTerms Expiring at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Thomas J. Fischer |
|
67 |
|
2004 |
|
Corporate financial, accounting and governance consultant since 2002; retired Deputy Managing Partner for the Great Plains Region and Milwaukee office managing partner, Arthur Andersen LLP; director, Badger Meter Inc., Actuant Corporation and Wisconsin Energy Corporation. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Fischer has
· Extensive M&A experience; · Public company board experience; · Experience in our industry; · Corporate governance knowledge; and · Expertise in matters of public accounting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rakesh Sachdev |
|
58 |
|
2007 |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer of Sigma-Aldrich Corporation (a life science and technology company that develops and sells biochemical and organic chemical products and kits) since November 2010; prior thereto served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Sigma-Aldrich Corporation since October 2008; prior thereto worked in various positions with ArvinMeritor, Inc. since 1999, including Senior Vice President and President of Asia Pacific from 2007 to October 2008, Senior Vice President-Strategy and Corporate Development from 2005 to 2007 and Vice President and Corporate Controller/Interim CFO from 2003 to 2005. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Sachdev has
· Global experience; · CEO experience; · Extensive M&A experience; · Investment banking and capital markets expertise; · Public company board experience; · Corporate governance knowledge; · Expertise in matters of public accounting; · CFO experience; and · Gender, ethnic or racial diversity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jane L. Warner |
|
68 |
|
2013 |
|
Retired Executive Vice President, Decorative Surfaces and Finishing, of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (a manufacturer of engineered fasteners and components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products); employed by Illinois Tool Works Inc. from 2005 to 2013. Prior thereto, she served as President of Plexus Systems LLC from 2004 to 2005. (One of our directors, Dean A. Foate, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Plexus Corporation. Plexus Systems LLC is not affiliated with Plexus Corporation.) She also served in various capacities with Electronic Data Systems Corporation from 2000 to 2004, including serving as President, Global Manufacturing Industry Group, from 2002 to 2004. Ms. Warner also served as Executive Vice President for first tier supplier Textron Automotive from 1994 to 1999. Prior thereto, she held executive positions in manufacturing, engineering and human resources over a 20-year span at General Motors Corporation. Ms. Warner is a director of Tenneco Inc. Among the qualities, skills and attributes desired by our Board, Ms. Warner has
· Global experience; · Experience in manufacturing; · Public company board experience; · Corporate governance knowledge; and · Gender, ethnic or racial diversity. |
Corporate Governance and Independent Directors
The Board has in effect Corporate Governance Guidelines that, in conjunction with the Board committee charters, establish processes and procedures to help ensure effective and responsive governance by the Board. The Corporate Governance Guidelines are available, free of charge, on our website at www.regalbeloit.com. We are not including the information contained on or available through our website as a part of, or incorporating such information by reference into, this Proxy Statement.
The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a majority of the members of the Board must be independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE. The Board has also adopted certain categorical standards of director independence to assist it in making determinations of director independence and which are contained in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The categorical standards of director independence adopted by the Board are available on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.
Based on these standards, the Board has affirmatively determined by resolution that Messrs. Burt, Doerr, Fischer, Foate, Sachdev and Stoelting and Ms. Warner and Ms. Chaibi have no material relationship with the Company, and, therefore, each is independent in accordance with the NYSE listing standards and with the categorical standards of director independence adopted by the Board. The Board will regularly review the continuing independence of the directors.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
The Board has adopted the Regal-Beloit Corporation Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to our directors, officers and employees. The Code is available, free of charge, on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.
Board Leadership Structure
Our Board does not have a policy on whether or not the roles of CEO and Chairman should be separate. Our Board reserves the right to vest the responsibilities of the CEO and Chairman in different individuals or in the same individual if in the Boards judgment a combined CEO and Chairman position is in the best interest of our company. In the circumstance where the responsibilities of the CEO and Chairman are vested in the same individual, or where the Chairman is not considered independent, the Board will designate a Presiding Director from among the independent directors to preside at non-employee director executive sessions.
Our Board believes that Mr. Gliebe, as Chairman of the Board, best serves the needs of the Board and our shareholders. Our Board made this determination in part because it believes that Mr. Gliebes extensive experience and qualifications within our industries and in-depth knowledge of our markets and customer base allows him to provide strong leadership and act as a unified spokesperson on behalf of the Company. Our Board also believes that having Mr. Gliebe serve as both our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman of the Board will allow him to leverage the information gained from both roles to lead the Company most effectively.
Presiding Director
To supplement the combined Chairman and CEO position, our Board created a Presiding Director role. The position of the Presiding Director rotates periodically among the non-employee directors as determined by the Board upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee. Mr. Stoelting currently serves as the Presiding Director. The Presiding Director is an independent and empowered director who is appointed by the independent directors and who works closely with the Chairman.
In addition to serving as the principal liaison between the independent directors and the Chairman in matters relating to the Board as a whole, the primary responsibilities of the Presiding Director are as follows:
· Preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including any executive sessions of the independent directors, and establish agendas for such executive sessions in consultation with the other directors and the Chairman;
· Review and approve proposed Board meeting agendas;
· Review and approve Board meeting schedules to help assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items;
· Have the authority to call meetings of the independent directors as appropriate;
· Participate, with the Chair of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, in communicating to the CEO the results of the Boards annual review of the CEOs performance; and
· Be available, as deemed appropriate by the Board, for consultation and direct communication with shareholders.
Oversight of Risk Management
Our full Board is responsible for the oversight of our companys operational and strategic risk management process. The Board believes that oversight of risk management belongs at the full Board level rather than with any one particular committee primarily because of the importance of understanding and mitigating risk to the overall success of the Company. In furtherance of the Boards risk management oversight goals, the Board oversees the work of a Risk and Compliance Committee comprised of senior management and key managers of certain of our companys business units and functions around the world. The Risk and Compliance Committee is charged with, among other things, identifying, assessing and developing a mitigation strategy for significant risks that could impact our ability to meet our objectives and execute our strategies.
The Risk and Compliance Committee identifies and clarifies significant risks that may impact our company and assesses those risks, resulting in the establishment of a plan response/mitigation strategy for significant risks. The Risk and Compliance Committee delivers a summary of its activities and findings directly to our CEO, the Audit Committee, and our full Board. The summary is also used by our
management team as part of our disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information regarding risks applicable to our company are appropriately disclosed in our public filings.
While our Board has determined to maintain responsibility for oversight of risk management, it relies on our Audit Committee to address significant financial risk exposures facing our company and the steps management has taken to monitor, control and report such exposures, with appropriate reporting of these risks to be made to the full Board. Our Board also relies on our Compensation and Human Resources Committee to address significant risk exposures facing our company with respect to compensation programs and incentives, also with appropriate reporting of these risks to be made to the full Board. Our Boards role in our companys risk oversight has not affected our leadership structure.
Executive Sessions
The Board will have at least four regularly scheduled meetings per year at which the non-employee directors will meet in executive session without members of our management being present, and at least one regularly scheduled meeting per year at which the independent directors will meet in executive session without members of management or other directors present. The non-employee directors may also meet without management present at such other times as they determine appropriate. Members of the Companys senior executive management who are not members of the Board will participate in Board meetings to present information, make recommendations, and be available for direct interaction with members of the Board.
Communications with the Board
Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with the full Board, the Chairman of the Board, non-management directors as a group or individual directors, including the Presiding Director, by delivering a written communication to Regal-Beloit Corporation, Attention: Board of Directors, 200 State Street, Beloit, Wisconsin 53511, or by sending an e-mail communication to board.inquiry@regalbeloit.com. The communications should be addressed to the specific director or directors whom the shareholder or interested party wishes to contact and should specify the subject matter of the communication. The Companys Secretary will deliver appropriate communication directly to the director or directors to whom it is addressed. The Secretary will generally not forward to the director or directors communication that he determines to be primarily commercial in nature or concerns our day-to-day business activities, or that requests general information about the Company.
Concerns about accounting or auditing matters or possible violations of the Regal-Beloit Corporation Code of Business Conduct and Ethics should be reported pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which is available on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.
Committees
We have standing Audit, Compensation and Human Resources, and Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committees of the Board. Each committee is appointed by and reports to the Board. The Board has adopted, and may amend from time to time, a written charter for each of the Audit, Compensation and Human Resources, and Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committees. We make copies of each of these charters available free of charge on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.
Audit Committee. The Audit Committee consists of Messrs. Fischer (Chairperson) and Stoelting and Ms. Warner. Each of the members of the committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Board has determined that each of Messrs. Fischer and Stoelting qualifies as an audit committee financial expert as defined in SEC rules and meets the expertise requirements for audit committee members under the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions performed by the Audit Committee, which met five times in person in 2014, are to assist the Board in monitoring the overall quality of the Companys financial statements and financial reporting, our independent registered public accounting firms qualifications and independence, our accounting controls and policies, the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm, and our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee has the sole authority to appoint, retain, compensate and terminate our independent registered public accounting firm and to approve the compensation paid to our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has presented to shareholders for ratification at the Annual Meeting its selection of our independent registered public accounting firm for 2015. See Proposal 5: Ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP as Our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2015.
One member of the Audit Committee, Mr. Fischer, serves on the audit committees of three other public companies. On January 24, 2015, the Board of Directors considered what it believes to be all of the relevant facts and responsibilities relating to such simultaneous service by Mr. Fischer and affirmatively determined that the simultaneous service would not impair Mr. Fischers ability to serve effectively on our Audit Committee.
Compensation and Human Resources Committee. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee consists of Messrs. Doerr (Chairperson), Foate and Burt. Each of the members of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, which met five times in 2014, are to help develop our overall compensation philosophy; administer our incentive compensation plans (including our equity incentive plans); determine and approve the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer and the other principal corporate officers; review and monitor succession and leadership development planning; and review, formulate, recommend and administer short- and long-range compensation programs for the principal corporate officers and key employees. A more complete description of our Compensation and Human Resources Committees practices can be found in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee from time to time uses independent compensation consultants to assist the Committee in the performance of its responsibilities. As part of its evaluation of potential compensation consultants, the Committee considers all factors relevant to the consultants independence from management and potential conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. After selecting an independent compensation consultant, the Committee periodically meets with that consultant throughout the year at such times as the Committee deems appropriate, and receives reports and advice from the consultant on matters of executive compensation. In 2014, the Committee selected Towers Watson & Co to serve as its independent compensation consultant. Towers Watson & Co does not perform any other services for us or our named executive officers other than the services provided at the direction of the Committee.
Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee consists of Messrs. Sachdev (Chairperson) and Burt and Ms. Chaibi. Ms. Chaibi replaced Mr. Foate on the Committee upon her appointment to our Board in November 2014. Each of the members of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs
Committee, which met five times in 2014, are to develop and recommend to the Board a set of corporate governance principles applicable to our company, including matters of Board organization, membership, compensation, independence and function, and committee structure and membership; take a leadership role in shaping our corporate governance; identify directors qualified to serve on the committees established by the Board; and to recommend to the Board the members and the chairperson for each committee to be filled by the Board. This Committee also serves as the nominating committee of the Board and is responsible for identifying individuals qualified to become directors (consistent with the criteria approved by the Board) and to recommend candidates for all directorships to be filled by the Board or by our shareholders.
Nominations of Directors
The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will consider persons recommended by shareholders to become nominees for election as directors in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines under the heading The Directors-Qualifications. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will only review recommendations for director nominees from any shareholder or group of shareholders beneficially owning in the aggregate at least 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock for at least one year as of the date that the recommendation is made. Recommendations with respect to the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders must be submitted between January 8, 2016 and February 2, 2016 for the recommendation to be considered by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee.
In identifying and evaluating nominees for director, the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee believes that all directors should be financially literate and must be committed to understanding the Company and its industry, and must also possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and commitment to representing the long-term interest of the shareholders. Directors must also possess a diverse set of skills and experience with a background in areas that are relevant to our activities. Directors should also be inquisitive and have an objective perspective, a practical wisdom and mature judgment. Directors must be willing and able to devote whatever time is necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively. Directors will not be nominated unless they are willing to serve for an extended period of time.
While the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee does not have a formal policy relating specifically to the consideration of diversity in its process to select and evaluate director nominees, the Committee does consider diversity of viewpoint, background, industry knowledge and perspectives, as well as ethnic and gender diversity, as part of its overall evaluation of candidates for director nominees. Specifically, our criteria for director nominees, included as Appendix A to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, provide that directors should be selected so that our Board represents diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
For a timely recommendation submitted by a shareholder to be considered by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee, the candidate recommended by a shareholder must be independent as defined in the NYSE independence standards and the SEC regulations, and meet the minimum expectations for a director set forth in the Companys Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will have sole discretion whether to nominate an individual recommended by a shareholder. As to any candidate identified by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee to become a nominee, the candidate must possess the requisite qualifications, although the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee need not require
such nominee to be independent. Nevertheless, we strive to have all directors, other than those directors who are current or former members of our management, be independent as defined by the NYSE independence standards and the SEC regulations.
Policies and Procedures Regarding Related Person Transactions
Our Board of Directors has adopted written policies and procedures regarding related person transactions. For purposes of these policies and procedures:
· a related person means any of our directors, executive officers, nominees for director or greater than 5% shareholder, and any of their immediate family members, as well as any entity in which any of these persons is employed or is a partner or principal or in a similar position or in which such person has a 5% or greater beneficial ownership interest; and
· a related person transaction generally is a transaction in which we were or are to be a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in which any related person had or will have a direct or indirect interest.
The related person, the director, executive officer, nominee or beneficial owner who is an immediate family member of a related person, or a business unit or function/department leader of the Company responsible for a proposed related person transaction must notify our General Counsel of certain information relating to proposed related person transactions. If our General Counsel determines that a proposed transaction is a related person transaction subject to the policy, then he will submit the transaction to the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee for consideration at the next committee meeting or, if expedited consideration is required, to the committee chairperson. The committee or chairperson, as applicable, will consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances available regarding the proposed related person transaction and will approve only those related person transactions that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of our company and our shareholders. The chairperson is required to report to the committee at the next committee meeting any approval granted under the policy.
The policy also provides for ongoing review by the General Counsel of any amounts paid or payable to, or received or receivable from, any related person. Additionally, at least annually, the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee is required to review any previously approved or ratified related person transactions that remain ongoing and have a remaining term of more than six months or remaining amounts payable to or receivable from us of more than $60,000. Based on all relevant facts and circumstances, the committee will determine if it is in the best interests of our company and our shareholders to continue, modify or terminate the related person transaction.
If any of our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or General Counsel becomes aware of a pending or ongoing related person transaction that has not been previously approved or ratified under the policy, then the transaction must be disclosed to the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee or its chairperson. The committee or the chairperson must then determine whether to ratify, amend or terminate the related person transaction, or take any other appropriate action. If the related person transaction is complete, then the committee or its chairperson will evaluate the transaction to determine if rescission of the transaction and/or any disciplinary action is appropriate.
In 2014, there were no proposed, pending or ongoing related person transactions subject to review by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee under the policy.
Meetings and Attendance
The Board held four quarterly meetings and four special meetings in 2014. Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (a) the total number of meetings of the Board and (b) the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board on which the director served during 2014, in each case during the period in which the director was serving on the Board or the applicable committee.
Directors are expected to attend our annual meeting of shareholders each year. All of our directors then serving on the Board, except Ms. Warner, attended the 2014 annual meeting in person.
Management
The following table sets forth information, as of March 4, 2015, regarding beneficial ownership of our common stock by each director and nominee, each of our current named executive officers as set forth in the Summary Compensation Table, and all of the directors and current executive officers as a group. As of March 4, 2015, no director or executive officer beneficially owned one percent or more of our common stock. On that date, the directors and executive officers as a group beneficially owned 2.1% of our common stock. Except as otherwise indicated in the footnotes, all of the persons listed below have sole voting and investment power over the shares of our common stock identified as beneficially owned.
Name of Beneficial Owner |
|
Amount and Nature of Beneficial |
|
Restricted Stock |
|
Stephen M. Burt |
|
7,180 |
|
1,518 |
|
Anesa Chaibi |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
68,793 |
|
3,650 |
|
Christopher L. Doerr |
|
14,255 |
|
1,518 |
|
Thomas J. Fischer |
|
13,905 |
|
1,518 |
|
Dean A. Foate |
|
20,580 |
|
1,518 |
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
368,152 |
|
44,250 |
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
42,232 |
|
10,100 |
|
Henry W. Knueppel |
|
232,459 |
|
1,518 |
|
Rakesh Sachdev |
|
16,180 |
|
1,518 |
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
72,969 |
|
11,500 |
|
Curtis W. Stoelting |
|
32,187 |
|
1,518 |
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
31,418 |
|
7,500 |
|
Jane L. Warner |
|
1,877 |
|
1,518 |
|
All directors and executive officer as a group (16 persons) |
|
966,808 |
|
93,169 |
|
(1) |
Includes shares subject to currently exercisable rights to acquire common stock and options exercisable within 60 days of March 4, 2015 as follows: Mr. Colvin, 60,370 shares; Mr. Gliebe, 298,300 shares; Mr. Hinrichs, 32,850 shares; Mr. Sachdev, 7,000 shares; Mr. Schlemmer, 54,780 shares; Mr. Stoelting, 13,000 shares; Mr. Underwood 24,800 shares; and all directors and executive officers as a group, 529,450 shares. |
|
|
(2) |
The amount shown for Mr. Knueppel includes 12,522 shares that are held in a non-Company sponsored individual retirement account. The amount shown for Mr. Knueppel also includes 217,055 shares held in a trust account. |
|
|
(3) |
The amount shown for Mr. Stoelting includes 9,202 shares held in the Curtis W. Stoelting 1994 Revocable Trust over which Mr. Stoelting retains sole voting and investment power during his lifetime and 805 shares held by Mr. Stoeltings children, over which he retains investment power. |
|
|
(4) |
Amounts shown for Messrs. Colvin, Gliebe and Schlemmer include 1,610 shares, 798 shares and 1,090 shares, respectively, held in trust under the Companys 401(k) plans as of December 31, 2014. |
|
|
(5) |
This column includes shares of restricted stock or restricted stock units that are subject to forfeiture until they vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant. |
Other Beneficial Owners
The following table sets forth information, as of January 3, 2015, regarding beneficial ownership by the only persons known to us to own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock. The beneficial ownership information set forth below has been reported on filings made on Schedule 13G with the SEC by the beneficial owners.
|
|
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership |
|
|
|
Percent |
| ||||||
Name and Address |
|
Voting Power |
|
Investment Power |
|
|
|
of |
| ||||
of Beneficial Owner |
|
Sole |
|
Shared |
|
Sole |
|
Shared |
|
Aggregate |
|
Class |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation One Wall Street, 31st Floor New York, NY 10286 |
|
2,525,974 |
|
0 |
|
3,349,957 |
|
53,508 |
|
3,403,465 |
|
7.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackRock, Inc. 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10022 |
|
3,193,529 |
|
0 |
|
3,336,886 |
|
0 |
|
3,336,886 |
|
7.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 |
|
3,103,923 |
|
371 |
|
3,238,077 |
|
791 |
|
3,253,171 |
|
7.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Vanguard Group 100 Vanguard Blvd. Malvern, PA 19355 |
|
30,187 |
|
0 |
|
2,416,904 |
|
25,987 |
|
2,442,891 |
|
5.5 |
% |
PROPOSAL 2: AMEND AND RESTATE OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO DECLASSIFY OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
We are asking our shareholders to approve a proposed amendment and restatement of our Articles of Incorporation, as amended (the Articles), to provide for a phased-in declassification of our Board (the Restatement). The following summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the proposed Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation attached as Appendix A to this proxy statement, which shows proposed additions indicated by underlining, and proposed deletions indicated by overstriking. This proposal amends Section 5(a) of the Articles. The Board has approved the Restatement. If shareholders approve the Restatement at the Annual Meeting, then the phased-in declassification of the Board will begin at our next annual meeting of shareholders to be held in 2016.
Declassification of the Board
Our Board has approved, and recommends that our shareholders approve at the Annual Meeting, the Restatement, which would amend the Articles to eliminate the classified Board structure to provide for an annual election of directors commencing in 2016. The Restatement provides that directors who have been or will be elected to three-year terms prior to the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders, including those elected at the Annual Meeting, will complete those terms. Any director elected to fill a vacancy who is replacing a director who was in the course of serving a three-year term shall serve for the remainder of the predecessors term. Beginning with the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders, and at all annual meetings of shareholders thereafter, directors whose terms are expiring will be subject to election for a one-year term expiring at the next annual meeting. As a result, current directors whose terms expire in 2016, 2017 and 2018 will first be elected for one-year terms beginning in those respective years. Beginning with the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders, the entire Board will be elected annually.
Rationale for Declassification
Our Board carefully reviewed the various arguments for and against a classified board structure. Our Board recognizes that a classified structure may offer several advantages, such as promoting continuity and stability, encouraging directors to take a long-term perspective and reducing our vulnerability to coercive takeover tactics. The Board also recognizes, however, that a classified structure may appear to reduce directors accountability to shareholders because such a structure does not enable shareholders to express a view on each directors performance by means of an annual vote. Our Board believes that implementing annual elections for all directors is consistent with our shareholders expectations and our ongoing commitment to corporate governance best practices where the Board believes that the same are in the best interests of our shareholders. In view of the considerations described above, our Board believes that it is in our and our shareholders best interests to eliminate the classified Board structure as proposed.
Effectiveness of the Restatement
If the foregoing proposal to amend and restate the Articles is approved by our shareholders, then the Restatement will be filed with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. If our shareholders approve one but not both of our proposals to amend and restate the Articles, then we will file the Restatement containing only the amendments that were approved.
Under Wisconsin law, if shareholders approve the Restatement, then the Restatement will become legally effective when we file the Restatement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, which we intend to do as soon as practicable following the Annual Meeting.
OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO DECLASSIFY OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
PROPOSAL 3: AMEND AND RESTATE OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO REMOVE HYPHEN FROM OUR LEGAL NAME
We are asking our shareholders to approve a proposed amendment and restatement of our Articles to amend Article I of the Articles to remove the hyphen in our legal name, thus changing our legal name from Regal-Beloit Corporation to Regal Beloit Corporation.
We conducted a review of our various trademarks, products, promotional literature, and other documents where our legal name is used, and it has become apparent that the hyphen in our name is used inconsistently and in some cases has fallen into disuse. We believe that removing the hyphen from our legal name will allow us to consistently present our name across production, marketing and legal platforms. Therefore, our Board believes it is in our and our shareholders best interests to remove the hyphen from our legal name.
Effectiveness of the Restatement
If the foregoing proposal to amend and restate the Articles is approved by our shareholders, then the Restatement will be filed with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. If our shareholders approve one but both of our proposals to amend and restate the Articles, then we will file the Restatement containing only the amendments that were approved.
Under Wisconsin law, if shareholders approve the Restatement, then the Restatement will become legally effective when we file the Restatement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, which we intend to do as soon as practicable following the Annual Meeting.
OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO REMOVE THE HYPHEN FROM OUR LEGAL NAME.
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Compensation Philosophy
What is your compensation philosophy?
Our overall compensation philosophy can be summarized as follows:
· In order to attract and retain talented executives, we believe we should offer overall compensation levels that are competitive in the marketplace. As a result, we seek to set compensation levels so that our named executive officers (whom we call our NEOs) can earn total compensation at approximately the median level compared to similarly situated executives in our peer group. We consider compensation within a 15% range above or below the fiftieth (50th) percentile of peer group data to be at approximately the median level.
· The compensation of our NEOs should be structured so that their interests are aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders. We have a pay-for-performance philosophy, meaning that we will pay higher compensation to the NEOs if the performance of the company delivers incremental value to the shareholders.
· To further align our NEOs interests with the interests of our shareholders, and to reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy, we believe our NEOs should have the opportunity to earn above-median total compensation if the company performs well, and should earn below-median total compensation if it does not.
We believe this to be a conservative approach to executive compensation.
Do you consider the results of the shareholders say on pay vote in your philosophy and in determining compensation?
Our shareholders cast a non-binding vote on our NEOs compensation annually (the say on pay vote). Each year we scrutinize the results of that vote and consider other shareholder inputs to determine whether our shareholders believe we need to change our compensation philosophy or practices. Most recently, in May 2014, our shareholders supported our NEOs compensation with more than 91% of votes cast in favor. Consistent with this strong vote of shareholder approval, we have not undertaken any material changes to our executive compensation philosophy or programs in response to the outcome of the vote. However, as described below under The Elements of Total Compensation Long-Term Incentives, we have modified the metric used to determine vesting of a portion of our performance share units to be awarded in 2015.
What compensation policies and practices reflect your compensation philosophy?
What We Do
Pay for Performance (page 27) | |
Balance Long-Term and Short-Term Incentives (page 29) | |
Benchmark Compensation Against an Appropriate Peer Group (page 32) | |
Maintain a Clawback Policy (page 67) | |
Monitor for Risk-Taking Incentives (page 66) | |
Maintain Stock Ownership Requirements (page 40) | |
Prohibit Hedging (page 41) | |
Limit Perquisites (page 40) | |
Engage an Independent Compensation Consultant (page 31) | |
Hold Executive Sessions at Each Committee Meeting | |
|
|
What We Do Not Do | |
|
|
No New Agreements With Gross-Ups for Taxes (page 42) | |
|
|
No Employment Agreements with Pre-Change of Control Severance (page 41) | |
|
|
No Single Trigger Severance Agreements (page 41) | |
|
|
No Repricing of Options | |
|
|
No Guaranteed Bonuses or Salary Increases |
Did the NEOs compensation in 2014 align with corporate performance and the creation of shareholder value?
We believe our executive compensation in 2014 aligned well with the objectives of our compensation philosophy and with our corporate performance. Our company achieved revenues of $3.3 billion, the highest in our companys history, and completed or announced three acquisitions, the latest being the transformational acquisition of Emerson Electric Co.s Power Transmission Solutions Business. We paid our 218th consecutive quarterly dividend and increased the dividend 10% in 2014. The dividend increase of $.08 per share was double our historical dividend increases in recent years of $.04 per share. Further, we repurchased 500,000 shares of our common stock in 2014, fully offsetting the dilutive impact of management equity compensation for the year. Our total shareholder return for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2015 was 3.6%.
Despite the progress we made in 2014, we did not meet the performance thresholds set at the beginning of the year for our annual cash incentive awards under our shareholder-approved Shareholder Value Added (SVA) Plan, which we refer to as our SVA Cash Incentive Plan, and therefore no annual cash incentives were earned in 2014.
We believe our compensation of our NEOs aligns well with our performance, but we also believe that this alignment is not always reflected in the Summary Compensation Table in the same way we view the alignment for our internal purposes. This is because the Summary Compensation Table values are required by Securities and Exchange Commission rules to include the full grant date fair value of equity awards in the year the awards are granted. The grant date fair value is an accounting value that projects the potential value of awards based on assumptions about, among other things, certain future events. The grant date fair value is different from the economic value of the awards to our NEOs, which may be lower or higher than the grant date fair value depending on the price of our common stock. For this reason, we are including in this proxy statement, as a supplement to the required Summary Compensation Table, a comparison of our NEOs realizable pay for 2014 with their total compensation as shown in the Summary Compensation Table.
Name and Principal Position |
|
Summary |
|
Total Realizable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|
7,145,715 |
|
5,016,695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
1,543,052 |
|
1,057,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer |
|
1,923,401 |
|
1,357,582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
1,144,293 |
|
790,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President, Corporate Human Resources |
|
752,272 |
|
669,939 |
|
The realizable pay disclosure in the table above is the same as the compensation shown in the Summary Compensation Table except that it values equity-based compensation based on the price of our common stock at fiscal year end. Restricted stock units (RSUs) are valued as the product of the number of shares granted to the officer during the year multiplied by the year-end stock price, assuming for purposes of this disclosure that the grants were vested. Stock appreciation rights (SARs) are valued as the product of the number of rights granted to the officer during the year multiplied by the excess, if any, of the year-end stock price over the grant price of the rights, assuming for purposes of this disclosure that the grants were vested. In addition, the performance share units (PSUs) granted to the NEOs in 2014 have been valued using 32% of the target number of shares under the grants (which is approximately the number of shares that would vest if the companys total relative total shareholder return for the entire applicable performance period is the same as it was for 2014), multiplied by the year-end stock price.
To illustrate how the compensation of our CEO has aligned with our total shareholder return, we are also including the following supplemental graph, which compares our total shareholder return with
our CEOs compensation (as shown in the Summary Compensation Table and on a realizable basis as described above) over our fiscal years 2012 through 2014:
As described in footnote 3 to the Summary Compensation Table, a significant portion of 2014 Realizable Pay and Summary Compensation Table Pay is attributable to an actuarial calculation of the change in the accumulated benefit obligations under the Target Supplemental Retirement Plan, which increased by more than double the 2013 rate. Without the larger actuarial increase in such accumulated benefit obligations in 2014 compared to 2013, 2014 Realizable Pay and Summary Compensation Table Pay would have decreased in 2014 compared to 2013.
Since you have a pay-for-performance compensation philosophy, what percentage of your NEOs target compensation is at risk?
To focus on both our short and long-term success, our NEOs target compensation includes a significant portionmore than 60%, on averagethat is at risk because the value of such compensation is determined based on the achievement of specified results or subject to forfeiture. This at risk compensation includes compensation elements intended to reward the achievement of both short- and long-term financial goals. If such goals are not achieved, then performance-related compensation will decrease. If goals are exceeded, then performance-related compensation will increase.
Payments under our SVA Cash Incentive Plan are at risk because the payments are dependent on achievement of one-year performance goals. In addition, compensation paid in the form of equity awards, such as RSUs, SARs and PSUs, instead of cash is at-risk because its value varies with changes in the stock price. By creating a total compensation package where a considerable percentage is paid in equity awards that are subject to vesting over multiple years or dependent on achieving multi-year performance goals, our executive officers have a significant stake in the long-term success of the Company and gain financially along with our shareholders.
As shown in the following charts, in fiscal 2014, 61% of the CEOs target compensation and, on average, 62% of the other NEOs target compensation was at-risk. For purposes of this disclosure, target compensation includes base salary, target annual incentive awards, grant date fair value of equity awards, change in pension value and all other compensation.
Setting Executive Compensation
What is the role of the Board in setting NEOs compensation?
The Boards primary roles in setting our executive compensation are:
· to annually review and consider our compensation philosophy;
· to appoint the members of the Committee; and
· to review and approve certain recommendations of the Committee relating to compensation.
The Committee consists entirely of independent directors who are outside directors for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and non-employee directors for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The current members of the Committee are Messrs. Doerr (Chairman), Burt and Foate.
What is the role of the Committee in setting NEOs compensation?
The Committee is responsible for determining the components of our executive compensation program, consistent with the compensation philosophy determined by our Board, and the executive compensation packages offered to our NEOs. The Committee determines executive salaries, administers our SVA Cash Incentive Plan and administers our long-term equity incentive plans and makes awards under the plans.
The Committee reviews data from market surveys and proxy statements from our established peer group and retains an independent compensation consultant to assess our competitive position with respect to total executive compensation.
The Committee takes various factors into account in setting compensation levels and does not use a formulaic approach, but generally seeks to closely align target total direct compensation (i.e., the sum of base salary, target SVA opportunity, and target long-term incentives) with the peer group and survey median.
What is the role of the CEO in setting NEOs compensation?
In its decision-making process, the Committee receives and considers the recommendations of our CEO with respect to compensation to be paid to our executive officers other than himself. Our CEO makes no recommendation with respect to his own compensation.
Does the Committee use an independent compensation consultant to help in setting NEOs compensation?
Yes. The Committee periodically solicits proposals from independent compensation consultants to assist the Committee in the performance of its responsibilities. As part of its evaluation of potential compensation consultants, the Committee considers all factors relevant to the consultants independence from management and potential conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. After selecting an independent compensation consultant, the
Committee periodically meets with that consultant throughout the year at such times as the Committee deems appropriate, and receives reports and advice from the consultant on matters of executive compensation. Our CEO has access to the independent compensation consultant only at the direction of the Committee.
Towers Watson & Co. (Towers Watson) served as the Committees independent compensation consultant for 2014. In July 2014, the Committee reviewed the independence of Towers Watson and the individual representatives of Towers Watson who served as the Committee consultants, including considering factors contained in applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards.
The Committee concluded, based on the evaluation described in the preceding paragraph, that Towers Watson was independent and that no conflict of interest was raised by the services performed by Towers Watson. Towers Watson did not perform any services for our company other than the services provided at the direction of the Committee.
How did the compensation consultant help the Committee in setting NEOs compensation for 2014?
In setting compensation for 2014, the Committee directed Towers Watson to assemble compensation data for our NEOs and compare the data against aggregated proxy data and general industry survey data for persons holding similarly-situated positions in our peer group. The Committee approved an updated peer group for use in setting compensation for 2014, consistent with its policy of reviewing the composition of the peer group every three years for potential changes in light of acquisitions, changes in our size, or other factors it deems appropriate. Prior to the updates for 2014, the Committee had last updated our peer group in late 2011. For the 2014 peer group, the Committee selected companies that it believed to be comparable to our company by generally using the following criteria:
· Comparable revenue (target companies with annual revenues ranging from approximately 0.5 to 2.0 times our annual revenues and with an overall median revenue that approximates ours );
· Compete in an industry similar to ours and/or have the level of complexity and business model similar to ours; and
· Contains companies that we compete with for executive talent.
The Committee expects to revise the peer group next in 2015 to reflect the significantly increased size of the company following the acquisition of Emerson Electric Co.s Power Transmission Solutions business.
For 2014, the 21 companies in our peer group for purposes of NEO benchmarking were:
Acuity Brands, Inc. |
AMETEK, Inc. |
Briggs & Stratton Corporation |
Colfax Corporation |
Crane Co. |
Donaldson Company, Inc. |
Dresser-Rand Group Inc. |
Flowserve Corp. |
Harsco Corporation |
Hubbell Incorporated |
IDEX Corporation |
Kennametal Inc. |
Lennox International |
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. |
Owens Corning |
Rexnord Corporation |
Roper Industries Inc. |
Snap-On Incorporated |
SPX Corporation |
The Timken Co. |
Xylem Inc. |
Towers Watson benchmarked our executive compensation opportunities using (i) the above referenced peer group as the primary benchmark for our CEO, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel positions and (ii) general industry data from Towers Watsons Executive Compensation Database as the primary benchmark for our Chief Operating Officer and Vice President, Corporate Human Resources positions.
In reviewing and analyzing these data, Towers Watson considered information for each NEO position with respect to the following elements of compensation:
· Base salary;
· Target SVA annual cash incentive;
· Target total cash compensation (salary and actual annual cash incentive);
· Grant-date value of annual long-term incentives; and
· Target total direct compensation (sum of target cash and long-term incentives).
In keeping with the Committee approved methodology, Towers Watson analyzed each element of target total direct compensation for our NEOs compared to the market median from the two different data sources. Towers Watson reported on the methodology that it used in its analysis, provided a summary of its findings, and its observations on our programs relative to the data and market trends in executive compensation. In connection with this review, Towers Watson also analyzed our annual share utilization rate and dilution relative to market practice.
The Committee did not review peer group data relating to supplemental benefits and perquisites in 2014. The Committees policy is to review such data every three years and it last did so in 2013.
The Elements of Total Compensation
We achieve our executive compensation objectives through the following ongoing programs. All of our NEOs participate in these programs.
Program |
|
Description |
|
Participants |
|
Objectives |
Annual Cash Compensation | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Salary |
|
Annual cash compensation |
|
All employees |
|
Retention
Competitive Practices
· Individual contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Value Added (SVA) Annual Cash Incentive |
|
Annual cash incentive with target awards established at each employee level
Payments can be higher (subject to a 200% cap) or lower than target, based on business unit and total company annual results
Amounts earned above target are deferred and remain subject to forfeiture until they are paid; payment occurs in three equal annual installments beginning in the second year following the performance period |
|
All executive officers and key employees |
|
Drive superior performance
· Across total company
· Across business units
Competitive Practices
Retention
Shareholder Alignment |
Program |
|
Description |
|
Participants |
|
Objectives |
Long-Term Incentive Programs | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Equity Awards |
|
Long-term incentive awards paid in Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock Units and Performance Share Units |
|
All executive officers and key employees |
|
Drive superior performance
· Individual contribution
· Increase stock price
Focus on long-term success
Ownership
Retention
Shareholder Alignment |
| ||||||
Retirement Programs | ||||||
| ||||||
Retirement (401(k)) Savings Plan |
|
Company matching and annual contributions |
|
All U.S. Employees |
|
Retention
Competitive Practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target Supplemental Retirement Plan |
|
Retirement benefits for executives who have at least 10 years of service and work with us until the age of 58 |
|
Key Executives |
|
Retention
Competitive Practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Executive Benefits | ||||||
| ||||||
Perquisites and Executive Benefits |
|
Available to certain executives to assure protection of Company assets and/or focus on Company business with minimal disruption |
|
Specific benefits are offered to different groups of executive officers based on business purpose |
|
Retention
Competitive Practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Benefits |
|
Medical, welfare and other benefits |
|
All employees |
|
Retention
Competitive Practices |
Base Salaries
How do you determine base salaries, and what were the NEOs base salaries for 2014?
We determine base salaries for our executives based upon job responsibilities, level of experience, individual performance and expectations with respect to contributions to our future performance as well as comparisons to the salaries of executives in similar positions as compared to our peer group. In April 2014, except for the CEO, the Committee increased the base salaries of our NEOs in accordance with the factors identified in the preceding paragraph. The CEOs salary did not change. Effective as of April 1, 2014, the base salaries of our NEOs were as follows:
Name |
|
Base Salary |
| |
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
$ |
925,000 |
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
$ |
475,000 |
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
$ |
575,000 |
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
$ |
395,000 |
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
$ |
345,000 |
|
The Committee compared these adjusted base salary levels to the salary levels of the executive officers in our peer group based on proxy statement data as well as general industry data from Towers Watsons Executive Compensation Database. Compared to the median base salaries of similarly situated executive officers in the data reviewed by the Committee, Mr. Gliebes salary for 2014 placed him 5% below the median, and the salaries of Messrs. Hinrichs, Schlemmer, Underwood and Colvin for 2014 placed them 8% above, 4% below, 5% below and 3% below median, respectively. The base salary levels set by the Committee did not affect decisions regarding other compensation elements.
Annual Cash Incentives
Do you provide annual cash incentive awards? If so, how are they structured?
We provide annual cash incentive awards through our SVA Cash Incentive Plan. SVA is a calculation that attempts to approximate the value executives add to our company above our cost of capital. SVA is calculated by subtracting a charge for the average net capital employed by us during a fiscal year from the net operating profit after tax that we earn during that same year. The cost of capital we use for this purpose is our weighted average cost of capital, which is determined based on our cost of equity and our after-tax cost of debt. Pursuant to the terms of the SVA Cash Incentive Plan, all calculations of financial results for purposes of SVA exclude the impact of new acquisitions for the first 12 months following the closing of the acquisition. We chose SVA as the basis for annual cash incentive awards because we believe it is the corporate performance measure that is tied most directly, both theoretically and empirically, to the creation of shareholder value.
How does SVA work?
Each year, the Committee establishes an SVA target (the Target SVA) for the year. That target is determined pursuant to a formula described below. Our executives earn annual cash incentives based
on a comparison of the actual SVA amount achieved at the end of the year (the Actual SVA) compared to the Target SVA. If Actual SVA for the year is 50% or less of Target SVA, then our NEOs receive no cash incentive for that year. If Actual SVA equals Target SVA, then our NEOs receive the target cash incentive for that year. If Actual SVA equals 150% or more of Target SVA, then our NEOs earn double (or 200% of) the target cash incentive for that year. Actual SVA amounts in between 50% and 150% of Target SVA result in pro-rated cash incentives. Annual cash incentive amounts earned above 100% of the target amount are paid in installments, with one-third of the above-target amount being paid to the NEO in cash after the end of each of the following three years, as long as his or her employment with us has not been voluntarily terminated (other than upon retirement) or terminated for cause. We do not credit participants with interest on amounts subject to payment in installments.
Expressed as a table:
If Actual SVA Is |
|
Then Cash Incentive Will Be |
< 50% of Target SVA |
|
$ 0 |
Target SVA |
|
Target Cash Incentive |
> 200% of Target SVA |
|
200% of Target Cash Incentive |
How do you determine the Target SVA, and what was it for 2014?
The Target SVA for any given year is set by formula. The formula is as follows:
(Previous Year Target SVA + Previous Year Actual SVA) |
+ |
Improvement |
= |
New Target SVA |
2 |
|
Factor |
|
|
To encourage improved performance, the Committee establishes an expected improvement factor as reflected in the formula above. To determine the improvement factor in any given year, the Committee uses a formula established in 2010 with the help of Stern Stewart, an independent compensation consultant, and updated in 2012. Using that formula for 2014, the improvement factor would have been $6.2 million; however, the Committee increased the improvement factor for 2014 to take into account the effect of the reduction in goodwill on the companys balance sheet that resulted from a non-cash goodwill impairment charge the company recorded in 2013. The Committee concluded that the reduction in the capital base would, regardless of the companys financial performance in 2014, result in the addition of approximately $6.2 million to the total SVA amount in 2014. To offset the positive impact of this increase on total SVA, therefore, the Committee increased the improvement factor for 2014 by an additional $6.2 million, resulting in an improvement factor of $12.4 million for 2014.
So, for 2014, the Target SVA was $70.4 million, determined as follows:
(2013 Target SVA of $62.8 million + 2013 Actual SVA of $53.1 million) |
+ |
$12.4 million |
= |
$70.4 million |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the NEOs target cash incentive amounts for 2014 and how much did they earn?
For each NEO, the target cash incentive amount is based on a percentage of the base salary paid to him or her. The Committee, in consultation with Towers Watson and our CEO (other than with respect to his own compensation), set annual cash incentive targets under our SVA Cash Incentive Plan near the median level with respect to each respective position held by our NEOs relative to our peer group. As a result, our NEOs were given the opportunity to earn above median annual cash incentive awards for generating improvements in our SVA while at the same time facing below median awards (or no awards at all) for failing to meet that objective. For 2014, the target cash incentive amounts for each of our NEOs were as follows:
Name |
|
Target % of Base Salary |
|
Target Amount |
| |
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
115 |
% |
$ |
1,063,750 |
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
75 |
% |
$ |
356,250 |
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
75 |
% |
$ |
431,250 |
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
65 |
% |
$ |
256,750 |
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
50 |
% |
$ |
172,500 |
|
Based on our performance in 2014, we achieved Actual SVA of $29.8 million. This was below the threshold performance goal, and the Committee therefore determined that no cash incentives would be earned for 2014.
The target cash incentive levels set by the Committee did not affect decisions regarding other compensation elements.
Long-Term Incentives
Do you provide long-term incentives? If so, how are they structured?
We provide long-term incentives to our NEOs in the form of equity-based compensation. Consistent with our compensation philosophy, we believe long-term equity incentives help to ensure that our NEOs have a continuing stake in the long-term success of our company and allow our NEOs to earn above-median compensation only if our shareholders experience appreciation in their equity holdings.
Other than in the case of newly hired executives, we generally make determinations concerning long-term equity-based awards in April of each year at the same time we complete our annual performance reviews. In any event, we grant all equity-based awards effective two days after the release of either our quarterly or annual company financial results.
What long-term incentives were provided to NEOs in 2014?
In 2014, as in 2013, the Committee granted stock appreciation rights, or SARs, restricted stock units, or RSUs, and performance share units, or PSUs. The proportion of overall long-term incentive target value represented by each form of award also remained the same, consisting of 40% SARs, 40% RSUs and 20% PSUs. The Committee granted SARs, RSUs and PSUs to each of our NEOs in 2014 in the amounts indicated in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for Fiscal 2014 and the narrative following the table. We value SARs using a Black-Scholes formula and PSUs using a Monte Carlo methodology. Consistent with our overall compensation philosophy, the Committee, after consultation with Towers Watson, granted long-term compensation awards in 2014 at levels approximating the median level of these awards granted by the companies in our peer group. The target long-term incentive levels set by the Committee did not affect decisions regarding other compensation elements.
Award |
|
Description |
|
Other |
|
Vesting Period |
SARs |
|
The right to receive stock in an amount equal to the appreciation in value of a share of stock over the base price per share. |
|
The base price per share of all of the SARs is equal to the closing market price of our common stock on the date of grant so that SARs will have value only if the market price of our common stock increases after the grant date. The Committee granted SARs rather than stock options because it views SARs as less dilutive to our shareholders. |
|
Five years (40% on the second anniversary of the grant date and 20% on each of the third, fourth and fifth anniversaries of the grant date) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSUs |
|
The right to have us issue a share of our common stock upon the vesting date specified in the award, if the participant is still employed by us at the time of vesting. |
|
In addition to providing competitive compensation and an incentive to create shareholder value, these awards are intended to align management and shareholder interests as well as provide a retention incentive for the executive to remain employed by our company. |
|
Cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PSUs |
|
The right to have us issue a share of our common stock upon achievement of the performance conditions specified in the award |
|
The 2014 grants have a three-year performance period and will be earned or forfeited based on a performance metric of total shareholder return, or TSR, relative to our peer group over our fiscal years 2014-2017. |
|
For TSR at or below the 25th percentile of the peer group, no PSUs will be earned. For TSR at the 50th percentile of the peer group, the target number of PSUs will be earned. For TSR at the 75th percentile of the peer group, the maximum number of PSUs (which is 200% of the target PSUs) will be earned. For performance between the 50th and 75th percentile, the number of PSUs earned is interpolated between target and maximum |
In 2014, the Committee decided to modify the performance goal related to half of the PSUs to be granted in 2015. In contrast to the PSUs granted in 2014, the 2015 PSUs will have two performance metrics, TSR and adjusted operating profit margin rate. In the aggregate, the 2015 PSUs continue to represent 20% of the overall long-term incentive target value, with half of the 2015 PSUs being subject
to the TSR performance metric and half of them being subject to the adjusted operating profit margin rate performance metric.
Other Benefits and Perquisites
Do you provide any other benefits or perquisites to your NEOs?
We have certain other plans that provide, or may provide, compensation and benefits to our NEOs. The Committee considers all of these plans and benefits when reviewing total compensation of our NEOs. These plans include the following:
Plan or Benefit |
|
Description |
|
Other |
401(k) |
|
Participants are eligible to contribute a portion of their compensation on a pre-tax basis, up to the limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, and we make a matching contribution equal to 100% of the first 1% and 50% of the next 5% of base salary contributed by the employees into their 401(k) accounts. |
|
We also contributed an additional 2% of Mr. Schlemmers base salary to his account under our 401(k) plan pursuant to an arrangement established when the Marathon Electric Salaried Employees Pension Plan, in which he participated, was frozen at the end of 2008. |
|
|
|
|
|
Target Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) |
|
Provides a competitive retirement package by extending retirement benefits without regard to statutory limitations under tax-qualified plans. |
|
We include the Target SERP in our periodic benchmarking of benefits other than direct compensation. The most recent such review was in 2013 and, based on that review, the Committee determined not to modify the current Plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disability Benefits |
|
Provides short-term disability benefit in the form of up to six months of base salary replacement.
Provides long-term disability benefit of 60% of base salary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life Insurance |
|
We provide our NEOs with company-paid term life insurance. |
|
The premiums paid for each of our NEOs for this life insurance in 2014 are included below in the Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal Years 2012-2014 in the column entitled All Other Compensation. We do not provide a tax gross up in connection with this benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Perquisites |
|
Each of the NEOs had use of a company car for business and personal travel. |
|
|
Executive Stock Ownership Requirements
To underscore the importance of linking executive compensation and shareholder interests, we have implemented stock ownership requirements for certain executives, including our NEOs. Executives
subject to these stock ownership requirements must own a certain dollar value amount of stock before they are permitted to sell shares (other than shares sold to pay option exercise prices or shares sold or surrendered to cover taxes). Executives who sell shares in violation of these requirements may be ineligible for future long-term incentive awards. The stock ownership policy requires the following levels of ownership:
Position |
|
Ownership Required as |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
|
5x |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer |
|
3x |
|
Other Executive Officers |
|
1x |
|
Each of our NEOs are in compliance with this policy either because they own the target value of stock or because they have not sold shares.
Policy Against Hedging Transactions
We have adopted a policy prohibiting our employees, including our NEOs, and our directors from trading in puts, calls and other derivative securities relating to our common stock. The prohibition includes the purchase of any financial instruments designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of our common stock, whether or not such instruments are classified as derivative securities.
Severance and Change in Control Benefits
We have no employment agreements with any of our NEOs that provide benefits prior to a change in control of our company. However, we have entered into change in control and termination agreements with Messrs. Gliebe, Hinrichs, Schlemmer, Underwood and Colvin.
The Committee believes the change in control and termination benefits under the change in control and termination agreements and our equity incentive plans are consistent with the Committees overall objective of building shareholder value and contain terms that are similar to those offered to executives of comparable companies.
The purpose of the benefits is to focus our NEOs on taking actions that are in the best interests of our shareholders without regard to whether such action may ultimately have an impact on their job security, and to avoid the loss of key managers that may occur in connection with an anticipated or actual change in control.
All of our change in control agreements contain double trigger provisions, which means that, for an executive officer to receive severance benefits under the agreement, in addition to the change in control there must be some adverse change in the circumstances of the executive officers employment. The Committee selected the triggering events for change in control and termination benefits to our NEOs based on its judgment that these events were likely to result in the job security distractions and retention concerns described earlier in this paragraph.
Other than the change in control and termination agreements, we have no formal severance program in place for our NEOs.
The Committee has adopted a policy eliminating tax gross-ups from all new change in control and termination agreements that we enter into with our executive officers. This policy was applied to the change in control and termination agreements entered into with Messrs. Hinrichs, Schlemmer and Underwood, which contain no tax gross-ups.
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth for each of our NEOs: (1) the dollar value of base salary and annual cash incentive earned during the years indicated; (2) the full grant date fair value of RSUs, SARs and PSUs granted during the years indicated, computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718; (3) the dollar value of earnings for services pursuant to awards granted during the indicated year under non-equity incentive plans; (4) the change in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings during the years indicated; (5) all other compensation for the years indicated; and (6) the dollar value of total compensation for the years indicated. Our NEOs are our Chairman and CEO, our Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and each of our three other most highly compensated executive officers as of January 3, 2015, the last day of our most recent fiscal year. In accordance with the rules of the SEC, the table includes information for the fiscal years ended December 29, 2012, December 28, 2013 and January 3, 2015 for each NEO.
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014
Name and Principal Position |
|
Year |
|
Salary |
|
Bonus |
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
Non- |
|
Change in |
|
All Other |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
2014 |
|
925,000 |
|
0 |
|
2,368,846 |
|
1,558,954 |
|
0 |
|
2,261,069 |
|
31,846 |
|
7,145,715 |
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|
2013 |
|
925,000 |
|
0 |
|
2,280,680 |
|
1,467,807 |
|
334,693 |
|
941,835 |
|
20,591 |
|
5,970,606 |
|
|
2012 |
|
898,750 |
|
0 |
|
1,194,928 |
|
2,227,539 |
|
775,520 |
|
1,547,848 |
|
25,154 |
|
6,669,738 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
2014 |
|
472,500 |
|
0 |
|
539,901 |
|
355,072 |
|
0 |
|
154,325 |
|
21,254 |
|
1,543,052 |
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
2013 |
|
458,750 |
|
0 |
|
522,080 |
|
336,205 |
|
112,167 |
|
91,887 |
|
21,938 |
|
1,543,027 |
|
|
2012 |
|
435,000 |
|
0 |
|
286,020 |
|
559,121 |
|
202,893 |
|
0 |
|
11,015 |
|
1,494,049 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
2014 |
|
571,250 |
|
0 |
|
629,818 |
|
414,601 |
|
0 |
|
288,361 |
|
19,371 |
|
1,923,401 |
|
Chief Operating Officer |
|
2013 |
|
545,000 |
|
0 |
|
579,505 |
|
372,411 |
|
135,083 |
|
126,402 |
|
17,788 |
|
1,776,189 |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
478,000 |
|
0 |
|
298,732 |
|
581,486 |
|
272,480 |
|
65,899 |
|
18,445 |
|
1,715,042 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
2014 |
|
392,500 |
|
0 |
|
393,263 |
|
258,425 |
|
0 |
|
86,647 |
|
13,458 |
|
1,144,293 |
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
2013 |
|
379,750 |
|
0 |
|
393,643 |
|
252,872 |
|
72,969 |
|
44,661 |
|
13,159 |
|
1,157,054 |
|
|
2012 |
|
360,500 |
|
0 |
|
216,104 |
|
402,567 |
|
152,589 |
|
0 |
|
24,310 |
|
1,156,070 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
2014 |
|
342,500 |
|
0 |
|
201,466 |
|
132,364 |
|
0 |
|
159,886 |
|
14,477 |
|
850,693 |
|
Vice President, Corporate Human Resources |
|
2013 |
|
330,000 |
|
0 |
|
182,820 |
|
117,815 |
|
51,948 |
|
93,450 |
|
14,654 |
|
790,687 |
|
|
2012 |
|
308,750 |
|
0 |
|
100,107 |
|
183,392 |
|
105,638 |
|
74,318 |
|
16,874 |
|
789,079 |
|
(1) |
These amounts reflect the full grant date fair value of the RSU awards and PSU awards granted during the indicated fiscal year, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation. In the case of PSUs, the amounts shown are based on the probable outcome of performance conditions, consistent with the estimate of aggregate compensation cost to be recognized over the service period determined as of the grant date under ASC Topic 718 as follows: Mr. Gliebe $789,250; Mr. Hinrichs $180,041; Mr. Schlemmer $209,350; Mr. Underwood $131,891; and Mr. Colvin $66,992. The values of the PSUs at the grant date if the highest level of performance conditions were to be achieved would be as follows: Mr. Gliebe $1,428,076; Mr. Hinrichs $325,768; Mr. Schlemmer $378,800; Mr. Underwood $238,644; and Mr. Colvin $121,216. Pursuant to SEC rules, the amounts shown exclude the impact of estimated forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions. The assumptions made in valuing the stock awards for 2014, 2013 and 2012 are included under the caption Shareholders Equity in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2014, 2013 and 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and such information is incorporated herein by reference. |
|
|
(2) |
These amounts reflect the full grant date fair value of all option awards granted during the indicated fiscal year, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718. Pursuant to SEC rules, the amounts shown exclude the impact of estimated forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions. The assumptions made in valuing the stock awards for 2014, 2013 and 2012 are included under the caption Shareholders Equity in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2014, 2013 and 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and such information is incorporated herein by reference. |
|
|
(3) |
The values shown are not current cash benefits, but rather actuarial calculations of the change in the accumulated benefit obligations under the Target Supplemental Retirement Plan. Approximately 29% of the increase in Mr. Gliebes pension value in 2014 was the result of a change in the discount rate used in actuarial assumptions. Mr. Gliebe has 32 years of credited service with our company under the Target Supplemental Retirement Plan. |
|
|
(4) |
The amounts shown include payments for personal benefits and for the other items identified in the following sentences. We provide a modest level of personal benefits to NEOs. These personal benefits in 2014 included use of a company car and spousal travel on the corporate aircraft in connection with business travel by the NEO. Other items included in this column for 2014 included the payment of life insurance premiums and company contributions to the NEOs 401(k) plan accounts. |
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth information regarding all incentive plan awards that the Committee made to our NEOs during fiscal 2014, including incentive plan awards (equity-based and non-equity based) and other plan-based awards. Disclosure on a separate line item is provided for each grant of an award made to a NEO during the year. The information supplements the dollar value disclosure of stock, option and non-stock awards in the Summary Compensation Table by providing additional details about these awards. Non-equity incentive plan awards are awards that are not subject to ASC Topic 718 and are intended to serve as an incentive for performance to occur over a specified period.
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS TABLE FOR FISCAL 2014
|
|
|
|
Date of |
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non- |
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under |
|
All Other Stock |
|
All Other |
|
Exercise or |
|
Grant Date Fair |
| ||||||||
Name |
|
Grant Date |
|
Committee |
|
Threshold |
|
Target ($) |
|
Maximum |
|
Threshold |
|
Target |
|
Maximum |
|
Shares of Stock |
|
Underlying |
|
Awards |
|
Value of Stock and |
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,425 |
|
9,425 |
|
18,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
789,250 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,579,596 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,650 |
|
75.76 |
|
1,558,954 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
1,063,750 |
|
2,127,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,150 |
|
2,150 |
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180,041 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
359,860 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,675 |
|
75.76 |
|
355,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
356,250 |
|
712,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
2,500 |
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
209,350 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
420,468 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,800 |
|
75.76 |
|
414,601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
431,250 |
|
862,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,575 |
|
1,575 |
|
3,150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131,891 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
261,372 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,225 |
|
75.76 |
|
258,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
256,750 |
|
513,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800 |
|
800 |
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,992 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,775 |
|
|
|
|
|
134,474 |
|
|
|
5/07/2014 |
|
4/27/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,725 |
|
75.76 |
|
132,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
172,500 |
|
345,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) These columns reflect the estimated future payouts at the time these awards were granted under the SVA Cash Incentive Plan, based on the base salaries that become effective on April 1, 2014. No amounts were earned under these awards based on performance during fiscal year 2014.
(2) These columns show the range of potential payouts for the PSUs that we described in the section titled The Elements of Total Compensation Long-Term Incentives in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The number of PSUs that are earned, if any, will be based on performance for fiscal years 2014 to 2016 and will be determined after the end of fiscal year 2016.
(3) The amounts shown in this column reflect the number of RSUs we granted to each NEO pursuant to our 2013 Equity Incentive Plan.
Equity Incentive Plan Awards
As reflected in the tables above, the Committee granted equity-based awards to our NEOs in 2014. The Committee granted these awards under our 2013 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2013 Plan. Our equity incentive plans are administered by the Committee with respect to key employee participants, and the Committee generally has the authority to set the terms of awards under the plans except to the extent the plans specify such terms.
Effective May 2014, the Committee awarded the RSUs indicated in the table above under the 2013 Plan. Pursuant to its practice of granting equity-based awards only during an open window period following the release of our quarterly or annual financial results, the Committee awarded these RSUs with an effective grant date of May 7, 2014, which was the beginning of the first open window period following the Committees action. These RSUs had a grant date fair value of $75.76 per share as determined pursuant to ASC Topic 718, which is equal to the closing market price of a share of our common stock on the date of grant. All of the units granted to our NEOs during 2014 remain subject to forfeiture for three years following the date of grant.
The Committee also granted the SARs shown in the table above under the 2013 Plan at a per share base price of $75.76. Pursuant to its practice of granting equity-based awards only during an open window period following the release of our quarterly or annual financial results, the Committee awarded these SARs with an effective grant date of May 7, 2014, which was the beginning of the first open window period following the Committees action. The base price of the SARs equals the closing market price of a share of our common stock on the date of grant. The SARs vest and become exercisable over a five-year period, with 40% vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date and 20% vesting on each of the third, fourth and fifth anniversaries of the grant date. The SARs will expire on May 7, 2024.
The Committee also granted the PSUs shown in the table above under the 2013 Plan. The Committee approved the performance goals and maximum potential values for the awards in early 2014, and determined the final terms for the grants in April 2014. The PSUs have a three-year performance period, from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2016, and will be earned or forfeited based on a performance metric of total shareholder return relative to our peer group.
Awards under the 2013 Plan and any rights under such awards are generally not assignable, alienable, saleable or transferable by participants.
Shareholder Value Added Cash Incentive Plan
As reflected in the non-equity incentive columns of the tables above, our NEOs participated in the SVA Cash Incentive Plan, which is designed to promote the maximization of shareholder value over the long term. The SVA Cash Incentive Plan provides annual cash incentive opportunities based on a comparison of actual annual SVA to target SVA for the year in question. Performance above target SVA earns an annual cash incentive more than the target annual cash incentive while performance below target SVA earns an annual cash incentive less than the target annual cash incentive. Under the SVA Cash Incentive Plan, the annual cash incentives earned up to 100% of the target amount are fully paid in cash following the end of that year.
Annual cash incentive amounts earned above 100% of the target amount are paid in installments, with one-third of the above-target amount being paid to the participant in cash after the
end of each of the following three years, as long as the NEOs employment with us has not been voluntarily terminated (other than upon retirement) or terminated for cause. We do not credit participants with interest on amounts subject to payment in installments. In 2014, no annual cash incentives were earned.
Supplemental Retirement Plans
The column entitled Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings in the Summary Compensation Table includes amounts attributable to the change in the actuarial present value of the respective accumulated benefits under the Target Supplemental Retirement Plan for each of the NEOs.
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The following table sets forth information on outstanding option and stock awards and SARs held by our NEOs on January 3, 2015, including the number of shares underlying both exercisable and unexercisable portions of each stock option and SAR as well as the exercise or grant price and expiration date of each outstanding option and SAR.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL 2014 YEAR-END
|
|
Option Awards (1) |
|
Stock Awards |
| ||||||||||||
Name |
|
Number of |
|
Number of |
|
Option Exercise |
|
Option Expiration |
|
Number |
|
Market |
|
Equity |
|
Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Gliebe |
|
35,000 |
|
0 |
|
36.36 |
|
1/27/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
0 |
|
48.05 |
|
2/6/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
0 |
|
42.28 |
|
5/2/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
0 |
|
42.65 |
|
5/8/2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,000 |
|
8,500 |
(4) |
61.36 |
|
5/5/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,000 |
|
26,000 |
(5) |
72.29 |
|
5/4/2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,840 |
|
59,760 |
(6) |
63.56 |
|
5/3/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
63,850 |
(7) |
64.99 |
|
5/2/2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
55,650 |
(8) |
75.76 |
|
5/7/2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,050 |
(9) |
4,752,079 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,825 |
|
1,720,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles A. Hinrichs |
|
12,000 |
|
8,000 |
(10) |
72.29 |
|
5/4/2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
15,000 |
(11) |
63.56 |
|
5/3/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
14,625 |
(12) |
64.99 |
|
5/2/2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
12,675 |
(13) |
75.76 |
|
5/7/2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,600 |
(14) |
1,100,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,225 |
|
393,808 |
|
|
|
Option Awards (1) |
|
Stock Awards |
| ||||||||||||
Name |
|
Number of |
|
Number of |
|
Option Exercise |
|
Option Expiration |
|
Number |
|
Market |
|
Equity |
|
Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan J. Schlemmer |
|
8,000 |
|
0 |
|
36.36 |
|
1/27/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
0 |
|
44.12 |
|
5/1/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
0 |
|
42.28 |
|
5/2/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
0 |
|
42.65 |
|
5/8/2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,800 |
|
1,200 |
(15) |
61.36 |
|
5/5/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,900 |
|
6,600 |
(16) |
72.29 |
|
5/4/2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,400 |
|
15,600 |
(17) |
63.56 |
|
5/3/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
16,200 |
(18) |
64.99 |
|
5/2/2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
14,800 |
(19) |
75.76 |
|
5/7/2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,200 |
(20) |
1,220,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,900 |
|
444,683 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter C. Underwood |
|
9,600 |
|
6,400 |
(21) |
72.29 |
|
5/4/2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,200 |
|
10,800 |
(22) |
63.56 |
|
5/3/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
11,000 |
(23) |
64.99 |
|
5/2/2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
9,225 |
(24) |
75.76 |
|
5/7/2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,900 |
(25) |
821,533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,875 |
|
292,059 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry R. Colvin |
|
7,500 |
|
0 |
|
42.94 |
|
9/11/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
0 |
|
44.12 |
|
5/1/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000 |