Canada: At A Glance: Say-On-Pay In Canada In 2011

Last Updated: September 21 2011
Article by Ken Hugessen, Catherine McCall, Scott Munn and Georges Soare

Introduction

Approximately 70 companies in Canada, including a majority of the TSX 60, held a say-on-pay vote in 2011, making it the first year that a significant number of management advisory votes on executive compensation were submitted to shareholders. Leading up to the proxy season, many issuers and boards were concerned about the ramifications of say-on-pay and what might be in store:

  • How willing would shareholders be to vote against management and would shareholder concerns about executive compensation manifest itself through high levels of negative votes?
  • How should boards and compensation committees interpret and respond to different levels of shareholder support?
  • What could be expected from the proxy advisory firms, given that many had expressed concerns about the increase in influence that say-on-pay might provide to firms such as ISS and Glass Lewis?

Now that proxy season is over, what conclusions can be drawn from the say-on-pay voting results? It seems a fair assessment to say that the first year was uneventful. Based on the voting results filed by Canadian issuers that had an advisory vote this year:

  • None of the advisory votes failed
  • The average level of support was 94%
  • Only 11 companies received support below 90%, and of those only two were below 80%1
  • The lowest levels of support were 64% at Thompson Creek Metals, and 75% at Pan American Silver

How do these results compare with the U.S. experience, given 2011 was the first year that Dodd-Frank mandated say-on-pay vote for public companies? As the following table indicates, U.S. companies in general received lower levels of support than their Canadian counterparts:

Commentators in the U.S. have disagreed about how to interpret these results: they have been viewed variously as a "non-event", a success for shareholders, a bust, an endorsement by shareholders of the current executive pay model and finally as a distraction from more serious shareholder concerns3.

Most do agree, however, that say-on-pay in the U.S. has increased shareholder engagement and improved disclosure. A similar consensus about these consequences of say-on-pay seems to exist in Canada.

Fighting Back

In the U.S. say-on-pay has also given rise to a new phenomenon: companies responding publicly to negative voting recommendations from proxy advisors ISS and Glass Lewis, perhaps most notably the venerable GE (see our May 2011 briefing For Shareholders and their Advisors, Pay for Performance Remains a Work in Progress at: http://www.hugessen.com/pdf_docs/Briefings-Shareholder%20and%20advisor%20views%20-%20PFP%20May%202%202011.pdf). Over 100 companies either filed additional proxy materials or issued press releases rebutting the claims or analysis of the proxy advisors4. While we have seen no sign of this yet in Canada, it may only be a matter of time until the practice migrates north.

Impact of Proxy Advisors' Recommendations

U.S.

It is clear from the U.S. experience that proxy advisors, in particular ISS, have a significant impact on say-on-pay vote results. All of the companies whose say-on-pay vote failed had received a negative recommendation from ISS and the average support rate with a negative voting recommendation was 25% lower than for those without5. However, it is also clear that a negative recommendation is not determinative. Indeed, less than 15% of the issuers where ISS issued a negative voting recommendation (approximately 13% of the companies covered by ISS) failed their say-on-pay vote6.

Canada

It would not be surprising if proxy advisors have a similar influence in Canada though the smaller sample makes it harder to confirm, as does the fact that information on the number of negative recommendations made in Canada and the names of the companies affected does not become publicly available to the extent it does in the U.S.

It is our understanding that ISS issued a negative recommendation on say-on-pay for only two Canadian companies this year (or approximately 3% of the 71 companies covered), one of which was Thompson Creek, which received, as noted above, only 64% votes in favour, the lowest support in Canada reported this year. The name of the second company and its voting results are not public. Glass Lewis issued a negative recommendation on Pan American Silver‟s advisory vote, which received the second lowest support level of 75% (ISS had issued a positive voting recommendation). These results are consistent with the expectation that Glass Lewis‟ recommendations would not have as great an impact as those of ISS given the latter‟s market dominance.

Based on the 2011 results, Glass Lewis was apparently more willing to make negative voting recommendations on say-on-pay than was ISS, suggested by the fact that Glass Lewis issued eight negative recommendations on say-on-pay this year out of 56 companies covered (or 14%).

What Should Boards Do?

Keep up to date with changes in proxy advisors guidelines. Given the influence of advisors, boards of say-on-pay companies would be wise to stay up to date on advisors‟ policies with respect to executive compensation practices. Negative voting recommendations from ISS, for example, are in the majority of cases based on a company‟s failure to pass ISS‟ own pay for performance test, as was the case with Thompson Creek7. Other ISS policies that provide the basis for negative recommendations deal with "problematic pay practices", such as tax gross ups or excessive severance. It is our understanding that the second negative ISS recommendation on say-on-pay was the result of the company‟s having a tax gross up provision.

Determine rationale for shareholder negative votes even when substantial majority in favour e.g. negatives greater than 10%. While the majority of support levels were high (greater than 90%), there is still sufficient variability among say-on-pay voting results in Canada that boards and compensation committees will want to remain vigilant. They will want to:

  • Satisfy themselves that the executive compensation policies in place are consistent with rewarding long term performance that is tied to company strategy
  • Confirm the high quality of disclosure in the CD&A
  • Consider, if they have not already done so, putting processes in place for communicating with shareholders beyond the annual meeting forum so that they are not blindsided by shareholder responses to compensation policies

Where appropriate, prepare for a negative scenario. Based on this year‟s reported voting results, shareholder support level below 80% is clearly anomalous, with only two of 71 companies in that category. The board of a company in that position should be prepared to:

  • Confirm that it is committed to the pay policies that prompted the negative votes
  • Reach out to the company‟s shareholders, and perhaps proxy advisors if appropriate, to determine which compensation practices are the source of shareholder dissatisfaction. We have seen direct engagement lead to resolution of shareholder concerns and a change in proxy advisor‟s recommendation. Engagement can also help to avoid a similar or more negative result the following year, in the form of a majority negative vote or withhold votes from compensation committee members.
  • If a reasonable effort to engage with proxy advisors does not lead to a common understanding, or if there is no opportunity to engage, consider the option of a public response to a negative proxy advisor recommendation, either through additional SEDAR filings or a press release. This allows the board to respond fully to criticism, present the board‟s position, and defend its compensation decisions.

Arguably, given that only 15% of Canadian say-on-pay companies received less than 90%, any level of support below 90% should also prompt some inquiry as to what concerns shareholders have and lead to discussions with shareholders and a potential re-affirmation of executive compensation policies and practices.

Conclusion

All in all, it was a relatively uneventful say-on-pay season for Canadian companies, particularly when compared to the U.S. experience (which arguably was in itself relatively tame). This is not surprising given the differing governance backdrops between the two countries – the Canadian environment is less confrontational and litigious and thankfully lacks the more fractious issuer-shareholder relationship frequently observed in the U.S.

To recap, to help ensure a continued calm, there are several relatively easy steps that boards and compensation committees may want to take:

  • Stay informed of the latest developments on the executive compensation and governance front
  • Periodically assess their issuer‟s plans and practices against guidelines set out by institutional shareholders and shareholder advisors
  • When making any executive pay decision, always ask "how will this be disclosed"
  • Where there may be a contentious matter, engage with shareholders as appropriate, and prepare contingencies, including a potential public defense of the board‟s position

Say-on-pay has arrived with none of the drama that some were expecting and most issuers will want to take reasonable steps to help ensure that it stays that way. For the majority of situations, the few steps outlined above should allow the calm to continue. In some cases, further engagement with shareholders and their advisors will be warranted. We expect very few situations will require that differences be addressed in a public forum.

Footnotes

1 Note that because some companies choose to disclose only whether the advisory vote passed and not levels of approval and disapproval, there may be additional companies with less than 90% support

2 U.S. data is from James Barrall of Latham & Watkins LLP, Say-on-pay in 2011: Lessons and Coming Attractions, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, August 5, 2011

3 See for example:

  • James Barrall, (ibid) "those that expected Say-on-pay to be a non-event‟, as it has historically been in the UK, have been sorely disappointed‟"
  • Say-on-pay – A Victory for Shareholders and the Executive Pay Model, Ira Kay, Pay Governance LLC, The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, August 8, 2011 - voting results show that Say-on-pay is a success, that the results demonstrate an endorsement by shareholders of the current executive compensation model
  • Investors 'Say-on-pay" is a Bust John Helyer, Businessweek.com, June 16, 2011
  • Governance eminence grise Robert Monks has said that the results show that Say-on-pay is a "cruel hoax" and a distracting sideshow from the real issue of providing shareholders with the ability to effectively remove directors. Regulation Whack-a-Mole: Bob Monks' Take on Say-on-pay, Governance Metrics International blog, July 12, 2011
  • Others have parsed the results and concluded that support level below 80% is the threshold below which companies should be concerned and view the results as a failure. The Votes Are in - Deconstructing the 2011 Say-on-pay Vote, Michael R. Littenberg, of Schulte Roth &

4 Say-on-pay Results: Russell 3000 - Shareholder Voting and Responses to Proxy Advisers, Semler Brossy, May 11, 2011

5 Latham & Watkins

6 Semler Brossy

7 Briefly, ISS has a two part pay for performance test: a company will fail if (i) its one and three year TSR are below the median of companies in its four digit GICS group, and (ii) CEO compensation has gone up in the last fiscal year.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions