Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
The following table sets forth certain information as to unexercised options and stock awards held at the end of fiscal 2017 by the named executive officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Name
|
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable
(#)
|
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable
(#)
|
Option Exercise Price
($)(1)
|
Option Expiration Date
(2)
|
Number of Shares or Units that have not Vested
(#)
|
Market Value of shares or Units of stock that have not vested
($)(3)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
26,900 (4)
|
—
|
$23.38
|
7/31/2022
|
—
|
—
|
|
|
48,018 (5)
|
—
|
$32.54
|
7/31/2023
|
—
|
—
|
|
|
37,765
|
12,592 (7)
|
$43.44
|
7/31/2024
|
15,108 (7)
|
834,868
|
|
|
36,342
|
36,344 (8)
|
$44.38
|
8/2/2025
|
33,800 (8)
|
1,867,788
|
|
|
21,536
|
64,620 (10)
|
$45.46
|
8/31/2026
|
58,157 (10)
|
3,213,756
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
1,270
|
181 (6)
|
$38.71
|
11/24/2023
|
218 (6)
|
12,047
|
|
|
1,402
|
468 (7)
|
$43.44
|
7/31/2024
|
564 (7)
|
31,167
|
|
|
1,232
|
1,239 (8)
|
$44.38
|
8/2/2025
|
1,152 (8)
|
63,660
|
|
|
9,307
|
11,966 (9)
|
$37.91
|
9/30/2025
|
11,128 (9)
|
614,933
|
|
|
5,728
|
17,186 (10)
|
$45.46
|
8/31/2026
|
15,468 (10)
|
854,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
1,045 (5)
|
—
|
$32.54
|
7/31/2023
|
—
|
—
|
|
|
5,394
|
1,800 (7)
|
$43.44
|
7/31/2024
|
2,160 (7)
|
119,362
|
|
|
4,768
|
4,772 (8)
|
$44.38
|
8/2/2025
|
4,440 (8)
|
245,354
|
|
|
2,748
|
8,251 (10)
|
$45.46
|
8/31/2026
|
7,427 (10)
|
410,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (11)
|
4,983 (10)
|
—
|
$45.46
|
8/31/2026
|
—
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Each option has an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock at the time of grant based on the market closing price of our stock on the trading day prior to the grant date.
|
|
|
|
(2) The expiration date of each option occurs ten years after the grant of such option.
|
|
|
|
(3) The closing price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on June 30, 2017 was $55.26.
|
|
|
|
(4) These options were granted on August 1, 2012. The shares underlying these options vested in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on September 28, 2012 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) These options were granted on August 1, 2013. The shares underlying these options vested in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on September 30, 2013 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(6) These options and stock awards were granted on November 25, 2013. The shares underlying these options and stock awards vest in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on March 31, 2014 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(7) These options and stock awards were granted on August 1, 2014. The shares underlying these options and stock awards vest in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on September 30, 2014 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(8) These options and stock awards were granted on August 3, 2015. The shares underlying these options and stock awards vest in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on September 30, 2015 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(9) These options and stock awards were granted on October 1, 2015. The shares underlying these options and stock awards vest in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on December 31, 2015 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(10) These options and stock awards were granted on September 1, 2016. The shares underlying these options and stock awards vest in 16 equal quarterly installments, commencing on March 31, 2016 and continuing on the last business day of each successive quarter thereafter, subject to the holder’s continued service with us.
|
|
|
(11) William T. Griffin served as our Executive Vice President Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017.
|
|
|
Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2017
The table below details options that were exercised by our named executive officers during fiscal 2017 and shares of common stock that vested during fiscal 2017 under RSUs held by those named executive officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
Name
|
Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise
(#)
|
Value Realized on Exercise
($)
|
|
Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting
(#)(1)
|
Value Realized on Vesting
($)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
11,955
|
$ 479,284
|
|
65,798
|
$3,537,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
—
|
—
|
|
11,670
|
$627,505
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
14,114
|
$ 275,529
|
|
9,355
|
$503,017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (2)
|
11,287
|
$ 276,440
|
|
10,783
|
$577,467
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) With respect to shares acquired upon vesting of RSUs, each named executive officer elected to have shares withheld to pay associated income taxes. The number of shares reported represents the gross number prior to withholding of such shares. The net shares received upon vesting are as follows: Antonio J. Pietri, 36,877; Karl E. Johnsen, 7,877; Frederic G. Hammond, 6,318; William T. Griffin, 6,231.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) William T. Griffin served as our Executive Vice President Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017.
|
|
|
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Overview
We have prepared the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis to provide you with information that we believe is helpful to understand our executive compensation policies and decisions as they relate to the compensation for fiscal 2017 of our chief executive officer and other executive officers included in the Summary Compensation Table on page 12. The chief executive officer and these other executive officers are referred to in this proxy statement as our "named executive officers." Our objectives and the philosophy of our executive compensation program are described starting on page 18, after the Executive Summary immediately below. We also describe actions regarding compensation taken before and after fiscal 2017 when it enhances the understanding of our executive compensation program.
Executive Summary
The compensation committee believes that our executive compensation program is responsibly aligned with the best interests of our stockholders, and is appropriately designed and reasonable in light of the executive compensation programs of our peer group companies. Our program correlates to long-term stockholder value in that it encourages our named executive officers to work for our long-term prosperity and reflects a pay-for-performance philosophy, but does not encourage our employees to assume unnecessary or excessive risks. We use executive compensation to drive continued improvement in corporate operating and financial performance, and to reward our executives for contributing to that performance.
The highlights of our company performance for fiscal 2017 that were directly linked to executive compensation decisions the compensation committee made in fiscal 2017 include achievement of the targets established by the board of directors for the three key metrics in our 2017 annual cash incentive plan.
|
|
•
|
Growth in Annual Spend (“GAS”) of 4.14% compared to our target of 4.50%
|
|
|
•
|
Corporate Operating Income (non-GAAP) of $235.8 million, compared to our target of $224 million (non-GAAP)
|
|
|
•
|
Free cash flow of $187.2 million, compared to our target of $167 million
|
The highlights of our executive compensation program for fiscal 2017 include:
|
|
•
|
Our executive compensation is heavily weighted toward at-risk, performance-based compensation designed to align the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. In fiscal 2017, an average of approximately 78.5% of the compensation of our named executive officers (excluding Mr. Pietri, our chief executive officer), and 90% of Mr. Pietri’s compensation, was at-risk compensation in the form of variable cash compensation and equity awards. The actual economic value of our named executive officers’ equity awards will depend directly on the performance of our stock price over the period during which the awards vest and, with respect to stock options, could be as little as zero if our stock price were less than the exercise price of such stock options.
|
|
|
•
|
To provide long-term incentives and ensure that our executives maintain a long-term view of stockholder value, equity awards generally vest over four years.
|
|
|
•
|
We require our executives to maintain specified levels of ownership of our stock to ensure that our executives' interests are effectively linked to those of our stockholders.
|
|
|
•
|
Our executive retention agreements contain "double triggers" requiring termination of service other than for cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control to trigger benefits. Those agreements do not provide for tax gross-up payments intended to offset the cost of excise taxes that could be imposed if any payments are considered "parachute payments" under the Internal Revenue Code.
|
|
|
•
|
In line with our pay-for-performance philosophy, we do not offer multi-year guarantees for salary increases or non-performance-based guaranteed bonuses or equity compensation.
|
|
|
•
|
We do not provide our executives benefits under a supplemental executive retirement plan, or perquisites such as access to personal security, private aircraft, automobiles, financial planning advice, or club memberships.
|
|
|
•
|
Our policies prohibit hedging by an executive, or engaging in speculative transactions with respect to our stock, including by engaging in short sales; pledging our company's securities in margin accounts; or engaging in transactions in put or call options, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars, exchange funds or other financial instruments designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of our equity securities.
|
At our annual meeting of stockholders in 2016, approximately 99% of the votes cast supported the say on pay proposal. While this vote was advisory only, the compensation committee considered the results of the vote in the context of our overall compensation philosophy, policies and decisions. The compensation committee believes that this 2016 stockholder vote strongly endorsed our compensation philosophy and the decisions we made for fiscal 2016 and the performance goals we selected for fiscal 2017. The compensation committee decided to maintain a consistent course for fiscal 2017 compensation decisions.
In setting executive compensation for fiscal 2017, the compensation committee decided to use GAS because comparing annual spend for different dates can provide insight into the growth and retention rates of our business. Since annual spend represents the estimated annualized billings associated with our active term license agreements, it provides insight into the future value of subscription and software revenue. Using this corporate performance objective that directly reflected our financial condition and results of operations was consistent with our pay for performance philosophy that we believe aligns with the best interest of our stockholders. Similarly, non-GAAP corporate operating income served as a useful indicator of the achievement of the execution of our operating plan in fiscal 2017, and combined with GAS, was important to increasing the value of our common stock, therefore aligning the financial interest of executives with those of our stockholders. Under our variable cash bonus plan for fiscal 2017, each eligible executive's bonus was based solely on achievement of the corporate performance metrics (GAS, non-GAAP corporate operating income and free cash flow), consistent with our philosophy to link executive compensation to corporate performance. However, the chief executive officer (in the case of his direct reports) and the compensation committee (in the case of the chief executive officer) may reduce any award by up to 10 percent in his or its discretion. The plan did not contain individual performance metrics.
Objectives and Philosophy of Our Executive Compensation Program
Our compensation philosophy for our executive officers is based on a desire to ensure sustained financial and operating performance, and to reward and retain talent that we believe is critical to our ongoing success. We believe that the compensation of our executive officers should align their interests with those of our stockholders and focus behavior on the achievement of both near-term corporate targets as well as long-term business objectives and strategies.
The primary objectives of our executive compensation program are as follows:
|
|
•
|
attract and retain talented and experienced executives in the highly competitive technology and software industries;
|
|
|
•
|
reward and retain executives whose knowledge, skills and performance are critical to our continued success, and simultaneously align their interests with those of our stockholders by motivating them to increase stockholder value;
|
|
|
•
|
balance retention compensation with pay-for-performance compensation by ensuring that a significant portion of total compensation is determined by financial operating results and the creation of stockholder value; and
|
|
|
•
|
motivate our executives to manage our business to meet short-term and long-term objectives and reward them appropriately for meeting or exceeding them.
|
Components of Our Executive Compensation Program
To achieve these objectives, we use a mix of compensation elements, including:
|
|
•
|
annual variable cash incentive bonuses;
|
|
|
•
|
long-term equity incentives in the form of stock options and RSUs;
|
|
|
•
|
severance and change in control benefits; and
|
|
|
•
|
benefits offered to all of our employees.
|
In determining the amount and form of these compensation elements, we may consider a number of factors, including the following:
|
|
•
|
compensation levels paid by companies in our peer group, with a particular focus on target levels for cash compensation based on cash compensation targets of similarly situated officers employed by the peer companies, as we believe this approach helps us to hire and retain the best possible talent while at the same time maintaining a reasonable and responsible cost structure;
|
|
|
•
|
corporate performance, particularly as reflected in achievement of key corporate strategic, financial and operational goals such as growth and penetration of customer base and financial and operational performance, as we believe this encourages our named executive officers to focus on achieving our business objectives;
|
|
|
•
|
the need to motivate executives to address particular business challenges unique to a particular year;
|
|
|
•
|
broader economic conditions, in order to ensure that our pay strategies are effective yet responsible, particularly in the face of any unanticipated consequences of the broader economy on our business; and
|
|
|
•
|
individual negotiations with named executive officers, particularly in connection with their initial compensation package, as these executives may be leaving meaningful compensation opportunities at prior employers—or may be declining significant compensation opportunities at other potential employers—in order to work for us, as well as negotiations upon their departures, as we recognize the benefit to our stockholders of seamless transitions.
|
While the compensation committee does not have a formal policy for determining the allocation between cash and non-cash compensation, or short-term and long-term compensation, historically the compensation committee has allocated the majority of an executive's total target compensation to variable and equity compensation as he assumes greater responsibility in the organization. The compensation committee determines the percentage mix of compensation it believes is appropriate for each executive taking into account specific responsibilities within the company, the talent and expertise necessary to achieve our corporate objectives and specific expected performance outcomes for the year.
Determining Executive Compensation
Role of the Compensation Committee
The compensation committee of the board of directors oversees our executive compensation program. In this role, the compensation committee is generally responsible for reviewing, modifying, approving and otherwise overseeing the compensation policies and practices applicable to our executives and non-employee directors, including the administration of our equity and employee benefit plans. As part of this responsibility, the compensation committee reviews and approves the compensation structure for our named executive officers (or in the case of the chief executive officer, recommends the compensation structure for approval by a majority of the independent directors). The board is responsible for establishing corporate objectives and targets for purposes of variable cash compensation. For fiscal 2017, the board established corporate targets for GAS, corporate operating income (non-GAAP) and free cash flow.
The compensation committee historically has, at its discretion, presented to the board information regarding executive compensation matters for all executives. Compensation matters for all executives other than the chief executive officer are approved by the compensation committee and presented to the board for informational purposes. The compensation committee presents to the board its recommendations on compensation matters for the chief executive officer, including base salary and target bonus levels, for approval by the independent directors. In fiscal 2017, the board approved the compensation committee's recommendations as presented.
As part of its deliberations, the compensation committee reviews and considers materials such as our operational data and projections of total compensation under various scenarios. Additionally, the compensation committee considers the total compensation that may become payable to executives in various hypothetical scenarios, executive and director stock ownership information, our stock performance data and analyses of historical executive compensation levels. Further, the compensation committee considers current compensation levels, industry and peer company benchmark data, recommendations from the company's human resources, accounting and finance and legal departments, and the recommendations of our chief executive officer with respect to the other executives. The compensation committee also reviews materials and advice provided by legal counsel, K&L Gates LLP, and an independent compensation consultant, Willis Towers Watson, in the committee's deliberations on the amount, form and other aspects of executive compensation. The compensation committee reviewed the independence of K&L Gates LLP and Willis Towers Watson pursuant to the SEC rules, and concluded that no conflict of interest existed that would affect either firm’s independence.
Role of Management
For named executive officers other than our chief executive officer, the compensation committee solicits and considers the performance evaluations and compensation recommendations submitted to the compensation committee by the chief executive officer. In the case of the chief executive officer, the board of directors (other than the chief executive officer) evaluates his performance and determines his compensation. Antonio J. Pietri, our chief executive officer and a member of our board, participated in the meetings of the compensation committee relating to the amount of the fiscal 2017 compensation arrangements for each of the named executive officers, other than for Mr. Pietri.
Our human resources, accounting and finance, and legal departments work with our chief executive officer to design and develop compensation programs that are applicable to named executive officers and other senior executives and that the chief executive officer recommends to the compensation committee. These departments also work with the chief executive officer to recommend changes to existing compensation programs, to recommend financial and other performance targets to be achieved under those programs, to prepare analyses of financial data, to prepare peer group data summaries, to prepare other compensation committee briefing materials, and ultimately to implement the decisions of the board and its compensation committee.
Compensation Benchmarking
In accordance with our executive compensation philosophy described above, the compensation committee reviews relevant market and industry practices on executive compensation to balance our need to compete for talent with our need to maintain a reasonable and responsible cost structure, as well as with the goal of aligning the interests of the named executive officers with those of our stockholders. In making compensation decisions, the compensation committee reviewed publicly available information on practices and programs and compensation levels of members of a peer group selected by the compensation committee. The composition of the peer group is reviewed and updated by the compensation committee annually, based in part on the recommendations of its independent compensation consultant, as well as the recommendations of our chief executive officer.
In general, the compensation committee sets cash compensation elements as follows, with compensation above this level possible for exceptional performance:
|
|
•
|
base salaries at or near the 50th percentile for our peer group;
|
|
|
•
|
target cash bonus compensation ranging from the 60th to the 75th percentile for our peer group; and
|
|
|
•
|
equity compensation ranging from the 50th to 75th percentile for our peer group.
|
The compensation committee believes targeting each element of cash compensation at these percentiles for our peer group is necessary in order to achieve the primary objectives, described above, of our executive compensation program. The higher percentile for target cash bonuses is intended to highly motivate our executives to achieve the corporate financial objectives that underlie our performance-based bonus plans. Similarly, the higher percentile for equity compensation is intended to align the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders because the economic value of equity compensation depends directly on the performance of our stock price over the period during which the awards vest. The compensation committee considers peer group data, including mean and distribution data for peer company officers, and analyzes such data as part of the process to determine compensation levels for named executive officers.
A number of other factors, such as economic conditions, individual performance assessment, and individual negotiations, may play an important role (or no role) with respect to the cash or equity compensation offered to any named executive officer in a given year. In setting actual compensation levels for a named executive officer, the compensation committee, in addition to considering peer group data, also considers the named executive officer's duties and responsibilities and ability to influence corporate performance. In addition to peer group analysis, the compensation committee also reviews global industry survey data to confirm the reasonableness of proposed compensation levels. The compensation committee believes this general approach helps us to compete in hiring and retaining the best possible talent while at the same time maintaining a reasonable and responsible cost structure.
Peer Group
For fiscal 2017, the compensation committee engaged its independent compensation consultant, Willis Towers Watson, to review the peer group proposed by management and provide observations and suggestions for change as appropriate. The fiscal 2017 peer group selected by the compensation committee after consultation with Willis Towers Watson consisted of U.S. publicly-traded enterprise software companies that had revenue within a specified range of our trailing twelve-month revenue, a business model and size similar to ours (or were otherwise in the same geographical location), and that the compensation committee believed competed with us for executive talent. At the time the compensation committee reviewed peer group data for purposes of fiscal 2017, the peer group had annual revenue of between $274 million and $1.949 billion and market capitalization between $562 million and $8 billion.
For fiscal 2017, the 21 companies included in the peer group were:
ACI Worldwide Inc.
ANSYS, Inc.
Bottomline Technologies, Inc.
BroadSoft, Inc.
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
CommVault Systems, Inc.
Ebix, Inc.
Ellie Mae, Inc.
Fair Isaac Corporation
Guidewire Software, Inc.
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
Manhattan Associates, Inc.
Microstrategy Inc.
Nuance Communications, Inc.
Progress Software Corporation
PTC Inc.
QAD Inc.
Splunk Inc.
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
Ultimate Software Group Inc.
Verisign Inc.
Five companies selected by the compensation committee for the peer group for fiscal 2016 were removed from the peer group for fiscal 2017 primarily because most of those companies were no longer publicly traded.
Reasons for Providing and Manner of Structuring the Key Compensation Elements
Base Salary
The compensation committee recognizes the importance of base salary as an element of compensation that helps to attract and retain our executives. We provide base salary as a fixed source of compensation for our executives, allowing them a degree of certainty as a significant portion of their total compensation is "at risk" and dependent upon the achievement of financial goals. Base salary is used to recognize the performance, skills, knowledge, experience and responsibilities required of all our employees, including our named executive officers. We target base salary levels at approximately the 50th percentile of our peer group.
Historically, the compensation committee has reviewed the annual salaries for each of our named executive officers on an annual basis, considering whether existing base salary levels continue to be at approximately the 50th percentile for our peer group and other global industry survey data. In addition to considering the peer group and other global industry survey data, the compensation committee may also, but does not always, consider other factors, including the experience, tenure and performance of a named executive officer, the scope of the such officer's responsibility, the salary level negotiated by such officer in any existing employment agreement, broader economic conditions, our financial health, and the extent to which the compensation committee is generally satisfied with such officer's past performance and expected future contributions. For fiscal 2017, the compensation committee initially consulted the peer group and other global industry data, as well as an analysis developed by the committee's independent compensation consultant, Willis Towers Watson, and then made an independent determination of base salary for each named executive officer. The base salaries thus established are set forth in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Fiscal 2016 Base Salary ($)
|
Fiscal 2017 Base Salary ($)(1)
|
Percentage Increase (%)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
600,000
|
|
600,000
|
|
0.0%
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen (2)
|
305,496
|
|
325,000
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
360,000
|
|
360,000
|
|
0.0%
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (3)
|
159,231
|
|
400,000
|
|
151.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) When determining fiscal 2017 base salaries, the compensation committee considered peer group data in accordance with the committee's general philosophy to target base salary levels at approximately the 50th percentile of our peer group. The compensation committee also considered other relevant data such as experience, tenure and performance.
|
|
|
|
(2) Amounts reported for fiscal year 2016 for Karl E. Johnsen, who served as our Vice President, Corporate Controller in fiscal 2016 until being named as our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective October 1, 2015.
|
|
|
(3) Amounts reported for William T. Griffin, who began serving as our Executive Vice President, Field Operations effective February 8, 2016.
|
Variable Cash Compensation
In addition to base salary, executives are eligible to earn additional cash compensation through annual variable cash bonuses. These are intended to motivate executives to work at the highest levels of their individual abilities and to achieve company-wide operating and strategic objectives. The compensation committee recognizes the important role that variable cash compensation plays in attracting and retaining executives and therefore generally seeks to set target levels for variable bonuses (that is, payouts for target performance achievement) so that target cash bonus compensation ranges from the 60th to the 75th percentile for target cash bonus compensation of similarly situated executives at our peer group.
The compensation committee generally starts the process of determining the target bonus levels by which performance will be measured under the bonus programs for executives (other than the chief executive officer, whose target bonus level is set by the board of directors), in the last quarter before the start of the applicable fiscal year. Typically, in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year, the compensation committee considers the target bonus percentages for the next fiscal year for executives (other than the chief executive officer). As part of this analysis, the compensation committee considers the likely bonus payouts for the ongoing fiscal year for executives (other than the chief executive officer) and reviews its preliminary analysis with the chief executive officer, in connection with their consideration of expected financial results for the prior year, budgets for the applicable year and the economic forecast for the applicable year. The compensation committee also considers peer group company data provided or confirmed by an independent compensation consultant. The chief executive officer then makes a recommendation to the compensation committee as to the target bonuses that the other executives should be eligible to earn for the applicable year, and the compensation committee reviews those recommendations. Generally, in the first quarter of a fiscal year, after financial results for the prior year have become available, the compensation committee reviews and finalizes its earlier discussions regarding the structure and elements of compensation for the new fiscal year. Among other things, the board approves the corporate performance goals for the year.
In addition to awards based on the performance metrics established in the applicable incentive bonus plan, the compensation committee may make discretionary awards under the plan to eligible employees in such amounts as the committee determines are appropriate and in our best interests. If an executive’s employment terminates prior to the end of the performance period, eligibility for any payment will be subject to the retention agreement then in effect between us and the executive as described in the discussion of the employee retention agreements below in "—Employment and Change in Control Agreements."
The process of establishing variable cash compensation for fiscal 2017 was completed in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. In addition to considering our corporate performance goals, the compensation committee performed a detailed analysis for each named executive officer against the peer group and other global industry data. On July 21, 2016, we approved the form of the Executive Bonus Plan for fiscal 2017, or the 2017 Executive Plan, a cash incentive bonus plan for our executives for fiscal 2017. The participants in the 2017 Executive Plan include Antonio J. Pietri, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and certain other members of our senior management, including each of our other executive officers: Karl E. Johnsen, who was named our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective October 1, 2015; William T. Griffin, who began serving as our Executive Vice President, Field Operations effective February 8, 2016 and left the company May 2, 2017; and Frederic G. Hammond, our Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
2017 Executive Plan
Any amounts earned under the 2017 Executive Plan were payable in cash and directly tied to achievement of corporate financial targets. Amounts payable under the 2017 Executive Plan are based and weighted as follows:
|
|
•
|
50% of the overall bonus was based on achievement of our GAS target of 4.50%;
|
|
|
•
|
25% of the overall bonus was based on achievement of our target corporate operating income of $224 million (non-GAAP); and
|
|
|
•
|
25% of the overall bonus was based on achievement of our free cash flow target of $167 million.
|
GAS, corporate operating income (non-GAAP) and free cash flow were selected as the primary corporate performance goals for fiscal 2017. GAS was determined to be a useful metric for analyzing our business performance because comparing annual spend for different dates can provide insight into the growth and retention rates of our business. Since annual spend represents the estimated annualized billings associated with our active term license agreements, it provides insight into the future value of subscription and software revenue. Corporate operating income (non-GAAP) was selected because combined with GAS, operating income is important to increasing the value of our common stock, therefore aligning the financial interests of executives with those of our stockholders.
The 2017 Executive Plan goals incorporated targets approved by the board as part of our fiscal 2017 operating plan. In order for any bonus to be payable to any executive for achievement of any metric, achievement of at least 70% of the applicable target metric was necessary. Each metric was measured independently. Achievement of above-target performance does not increase the bonus amount,
i.e
., the maximum bonus award is 100% of the target. The board generally sets the target performance level for the corporate financial objectives at a level that would only be achieved if we continued to substantially improve on our past levels of performance, and if our executives performed at very high levels. As a result, the board believed that 2017 Executive Plan GAS, corporate operating income (non-GAAP) and free cash flow targets would be difficult to reach but would be attainable with significant effort, while not entailing taking unnecessary or excessive risks.
In fiscal 2017, performance was evaluated at mid-year and at year-end, and each named executive officer was eligible to earn a bonus of up to 25% of his annual bonus target at mid-year and 75% at year-end under the 2017 Executive Plan. If less than 25% of the target bonus was earned at mid-year, the unrealized difference (up to the 25% mid-year potential) could be made up at year-end based on annual achievement against annual goals. The mid-year evaluation was based on mid-year performance of corporate performance goals only, and payments could not exceed 25% of the annual bonus targets. We met our mid-year corporate operating income (non-GAAP) and free cash flow metrics, and achieved 99.7% of our GAS metric. Based on our performance during the first half of the year, the named executive officers received 24.98% of their respective annual target bonuses.
The year-end payment was based on total annual performance against the annual performance targets less any payment received at mid-year. Annual company performance goals and achievement of such goals were as follows for fiscal 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Metric
|
|
Financial Target ($)
|
|
Actual Results ($)
|
Growth in annual spend
|
|
4.50%
|
|
4.14%
|
Non-GAAP corporate operating income
|
|
$224 million
|
|
$235.8 million
|
Free cash flow
|
|
$167. million
|
|
$187.2 million
|
As we achieved 92% of our GAS target and exceeded our corporate operating income (non-GAAP) and free cash flow targets, we paid the GAS element at 92% and the other elements at 100% for financial performance during fiscal 2017.
Accordingly, bonuses were paid as shown in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Fiscal 2017 Annual Target Cash Payment ($)
|
Total Bonus Received for Fiscal 2017 ($)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
700,000
|
|
672,000
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
325,000
|
|
312,000
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
260,000
|
|
249,600
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (1)
|
400,000
|
|
99,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Amounts reported for William T. Griffin, who served as our Executive Vice President Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017.
|
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
We provide a portion of our executive compensation in the form of stock options and RSUs that vest over time. We believe that this helps to retain our executives and aligns their interests with those of our stockholders by allowing the executives to participate in our longer-term success through stock price appreciation.
Our equity award program is the primary vehicle for offering long-term incentives to our executives. We believe that equity grants help to align the interests of our executives and our stockholders, provide our executives with a strong link to our long-term performance and also create an ownership culture. Our equity awards typically take the form of stock options and RSUs. Stock options typically require significant growth in stockholder value to generate long-term value to our executives which is in line with our performance-oriented culture. In addition, the vesting feature of our equity grants is intended to further our goal of executive retention by providing an incentive to an executive to remain in our employ during the vesting period. RSUs have intrinsic value which is important in retaining our executive talent. The compensation committee carefully considers the mix of equity instruments when determining annual equity awards to ensure that the executive's total compensation conforms to our overall philosophy and objectives.
In determining the size and mix of equity grants to our executives, the compensation committee considers comparative equity grants received by executives in our peer group and in the global industry survey data generally between the 50th and 75th percentiles (when available), and also considers the individual executive's performance, contributions and level of responsibility, and the executive's ability to significantly influence our growth and profitability. In addition, the compensation committee takes into account our company-level performance and the recommendations of the chief executive officer other than for himself.
Our equity awards typically have taken the form of stock options and RSUs. We generally make an initial equity award of stock options and/or RSUs to new executives and an annual equity program grant in the first quarter of each fiscal year as part of our overall
compensation program. All grants of options and RSUs to our executives are approved by the compensation committee. Equity awards for our chief executive officer are determined by the compensation committee and then recommended to the board of directors for approval.
The exercise price of all stock option grants is the fair market value, which is set at the closing price of our common stock on the day next preceding the date of grant. Typically, the equity awards we grant to our executives vest pro rata over the first sixteen quarters of a ten-year option term. Unvested awards are forfeited upon termination of employment, except in the case of death or disability. Exercise rights typically cease 90 days after termination of employment, except in the case of death or disability. Prior to the exercise of an option, or vesting of an RSU, the holder has no rights as a stockholder with respect to the shares subject to such equity awards, including voting rights and the right to receive dividends or dividend equivalents.
Following the closing of fiscal 2017, the compensation committee approved annual equity grants for our named executive officers other than the chief executive officer, and made a recommendation to the independent members of the board with respect to a grant to the chief executive officer. The compensation committee's grant approvals and recommendation were made after consideration and discussion about each individual's prior year performance, company performance for the year in question, and a review of peer group and global industry survey data. The compensation committee considered each of these parameters for each of our named executive officers and determined both the size of the equity awards and equity mix (the relative balance of options and RSUs).
Fiscal 2017 Equity Awards
As set forth in the table below, we granted equity awards to Messrs. Pietri, Johnsen and Hammond that vest in sixteen equal quarterly installments on the last business day of the quarter beginning on September 30, 2016. These awards were granted on September 1, 2016. The compensation committee considered the comparative data and individual performance factors described above when determining the value of each grant. The committee exercised its collective business judgment and experience in making these determinations, with the objective of recognizing each executive's level of responsibility and contributions during the past year, and retaining him and proving appropriate incentives for the future. The committee did not use an arithmetic scorecard in determining the appropriate value of each grant or each executive's performance, contribution or value to the Company, and instead developed a consensus based on committee discussions and interactions with the executive officers, including the chief executive officer. In determining the allocation of the awards between stock options and RSUs, the compensation committee considered the different goals intended to be achieved through these different types of awards as discussed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2017 Equity Awards
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Type of Equity Award
|
Number of Shares Subject to Award (#)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
Stock Options
|
86,156
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
77,541
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
Stock Options
|
22,914
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
20,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
Stock Options
|
10,999
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
9,899
|
|
|
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (1)
|
Stock Options
|
26,580
|
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
23,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) William T. Griffin served as our Executive Vice President Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017.
|
|
Fiscal 2018 Compensation Actions
The compensation committee took the following additional actions related to named executive officer compensation after the year ended June 30, 2017 through the date of this Proxy Statement.
Base Salary
In July 2017, the compensation committee, and in the case of Mr. Pietri, the board of directors, established base salaries for fiscal 2018 of our named executive officers, excluding Mr. Griffin, who left the company in fiscal 2017. In determining fiscal 2018 base salaries, the compensation committee considered data from our peer group. The base salaries thus established are set forth in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Fiscal 2017 Base Salary ($)
|
Fiscal 2018 Base Salary ($)(1)
|
Percentage Increase (%)
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
600,000
|
|
600,000
|
|
0.0%
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
325,000
|
|
365,000
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
360,000
|
|
360,000
|
|
0.0%
|
|
|
William T. Griffin (2)
|
368,205
|
|
—
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) When determining fiscal 2018 base salaries, the compensation committee considered peer group data in accordance with the committee's general philosophy to target base salary levels at approximately the 50th percentile of our peer group. The compensation committee also considered other relevant data such as experience, tenure and performance.
|
|
|
|
(2) Amounts reported for William T. Griffin, who served as our Executive Vice President Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017.
|
|
|
|
2018 Executive Plan
In July 2017, we approved an Executive Bonus Plan FY18, or the 2018 Executive Plan, for each of our executive officers and certain other members of senior management. Each such plan is identical in form, except for the amount of the executive's target awards.
The purpose of these plans is to motivate and reward performance for the achievement of certain corporate objectives for fiscal 2018. Payments under each plan are based upon the achievement of certain corporate performance metrics established by the board. The annual targets under the 2018 Executive Plan for each of the named executive officers are as follows.
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Fiscal 2018 Annual Target Cash Payment ($)
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
700,000
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
325,000
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
260,000
|
Fiscal 2018 Performance Goals
For fiscal 2018, we selected corporate objectives of GAS, non-GAAP corporate operating income and free cash flow. These three metrics were determined to be important to increasing the value of our common stock, therefore aligning the financial interests of executives with those of our stockholders.
Annual spend is an estimate of the annualized value of our portfolio of term license arrangements as of a specific date, and also includes the annualized value of standalone software maintenance and support agreements purchased in conjunction with term license arrangements. Comparing annual spend for different dates can provide insight into the growth and retention rates of our business, and since annual spend represents the estimated annualized billings associated with our active term license agreements, it provides insight into the future value of subscription and software revenue. Corporate operating income is another useful indicator of the achievement of the execution of our operating plan in fiscal 2018. Free cash flow is a useful financial measure to investors because it permits them to view our performance using tools that management uses to gauge progress in achieving our goals, and is an indication of cash flow that may be available to fund future investments.
The GAS performance metric is weighted at 50%, and the corporate operating income and free cash flow metrics are each weighted at 25% for purposes of determining each eligible executive's bonus. In order for a bonus to be payable for achievement of any metric, we must achieve at least 70% of that metric. We believe this is an appropriate and effective way to link incentive compensation to corporate performance. For fiscal 2018 these plans do not contain individual performance metrics. Instead, each eligible executive's bonus is based solely on achievement of the corporate performance metrics, which is consistent with our philosophy to link executive compensation to
corporate performance. In addition, the chief executive officer (in the case of his direct reports) and the compensation committee (in the case of the chief executive officer) may reduce any award otherwise payable hereunder by up to 10 percent in his or its discretion.
In fiscal 2018, performance against the financial metrics under each plan will be evaluated at mid-year and at year-end. There is the potential for a mid-year payment based on performance against mid-year targets, not to exceed 25% of the annual bonus target. If an executive's employment terminates prior to the end of the performance period, eligibility for any payment will be subject to the retention agreement then in effect between us and the executive. In addition to awards based on the performance metrics established under each plan, the compensation committee may make a discretionary award to the executive in such amount as the compensation committee determines to be appropriate and in our best interests.
Equity Awards
The compensation committee approved its annual program grant for fiscal 2018 in August 2017. The awards issued to our named executive officers in September 2017 are as follows.
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Type of Equity Award
|
Number of Shares Subject to Award (#)
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
Stock Options
|
70,582
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
59,289
|
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
Stock Options
|
18,351
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
15,415
|
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
Stock Options
|
9,599
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
8,063
|
In considering such awards for fiscal 2018, the compensation committee reviewed peer group data in line with the committee's general approach to target equity compensation between the 50th and 75th percentiles. The compensation committee also considered each individual's performance and level of contribution when determining the value of fiscal 2018 equity awards. The value of each equity award for fiscal 2018 was allocated 75% to RSUs and 25% to stock options.
Benefits and Other Compensation
We maintain broad-based benefits that are provided to all employees, including health and dental insurance, life and disability insurance and a 401(k) plan. Executives are eligible to participate in all of our employee benefit plans, in each case on the same basis as other employees. Our named executive officers are not entitled to benefits that are not otherwise available to all employees.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
We maintain stock ownership guidelines requiring each of our named executive officers and non-employee directors to own our stock (including long shares as well as the net value of vested, unexercised stock options) with a value related to each individual's annual salary or cash retainer, as applicable. Under these guidelines, our chief executive officer is required to own stock with a value equal to at least three times his annual salary; each of our other named executive officers is required to hold stock with a value of at least one times his annual salary; and each of our non-employee directors is required to own stock with a value of at least three times the director's annual cash retainer. New named executive officers and directors have five years from the date that they become named executive officers or directors to reach the applicable ownership threshold. As of the record date, all of our named executive officers and directors satisfied the applicable ownership thresholds, subject to the five-year window associated with Mr. Johnsen’s appointment as our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective October 1, 2015.
Severance and Change in Control Benefits
Pursuant to the executive retention agreements we have entered into with each of our named executive officers and to the provisions of our option agreements, those executives are entitled to specified benefits in the event of the termination of their employment under specified circumstances, including termination following a change in control of our company. We have provided more detailed information about these benefits, along with estimates of value under various circumstances, in the table below under "—Employment and Change in Control Agreements."
We believe these agreements assist in maintaining a competitive position in terms of attracting and retaining key executives. The agreements also support decision-making that is in the best interests of our stockholders, and enable our executives to focus on company priorities. We believe that our severance and change in control benefits are generally in line with prevalent peer practice with respect to severance packages offered to executives.
Change in control benefits under our executive retention agreements are structured as "double trigger" benefits. In other words, the change in control, standing alone, does not trigger benefits; rather, benefits are paid only if the employment of the executive is also terminated during a specified period after the change in control and under the circumstances described below in "—Employment and Change in Control Agreements."
Tax and Accounting Considerations
The accounting and tax treatment of particular forms of compensation do not materially affect our compensation decisions. However, we evaluate the effect of such accounting and tax treatment on an ongoing basis and will make appropriate modifications to compensation policies where appropriate. Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or IRC, generally disallows a tax deduction to a publicly-traded company for certain compensation in excess of $1,000,000 paid in any taxable year to the chief executive officer and the three other most highly paid executive officers, other than the chief financial officer. Qualifying performance-based compensation is not subject to the deduction limitation if specified requirements are met.
The compensation committee periodically reviews the potential consequences of Section 162(m), and we generally intend to structure the performance-based portion of our executive compensation, where feasible, to comply with exemptions in Section 162(m) so that the compensation remains tax-deductible to us. The compensation committee in its judgment may, however, authorize compensation payments that do not comply with the exemptions in Section 162(m) when it believes that such payments are appropriate to attract and retain executive talent.
Risk Analysis of Compensation Policies and Programs
The compensation committee has reviewed the compensation policies as generally applicable to our employees, and believes that these policies do not encourage excessive and unnecessary risk-taking and that the level of risk that they do encourage is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company. The design of the compensation policies and programs encourages employees to remain focused on both our short-and long-term goals. For example, while the cash bonus plan measures performance on an annual basis, the equity awards typically vest over a number of years, which we believe encourages employees to focus on sustained stock price appreciation, thus limiting the potential for excessive risk-taking. In addition, we believe our stock ownership guidelines for our directors and named executive officers may mitigate against excessive and unnecessary risk-taking by requiring directors and named executive officers to hold a significant position in our stock during their period of service to the company.
Conclusion
Through the compensation arrangements described above, a significant portion of each executive's compensation is contingent on our company-wide performance. Therefore, the realization of benefits by the executive is closely linked to our achievements and increases in stockholder value. We remain committed to this philosophy of paying for performance, recognizing that the competitive market for talented executives and the volatility of our business may result in highly variable compensation in any particular time period. The compensation committee gives careful consideration to our executive compensation program, including each element of compensation for each executive. The compensation committee believes the executive compensation program is reasonable relative to the peer group. The compensation committee also believes that the compensation program gives each executive appropriate incentives, based on the executive's responsibilities, achievements and ability to contribute to our performance. Finally, the compensation committee believes that our compensation structure and practices encourage management to work for real innovation, business improvements and outstanding stockholder returns, without taking unnecessary or excessive risks.
Employment and Change in Control Agreements
Agreements with Current Executive Officers
We have executive retention agreements with the following executive officers: Antonio J. Pietri, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Karl E. Johnsen, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Frederic G. Hammond, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; each of whom we refer to as a specified executive.
Pursuant to the terms of each executive retention agreement, if no change in control has occurred, and the specified executive's employment is terminated without cause, the specified executive will be entitled to the following:
|
|
•
|
payment of an amount equal to the specified executive's base salary then in effect (or, for Mr. Pietri, 1.5 times his base salary), payable over twelve months (or, for Mr. Pietri, over 18 months);
|
|
|
•
|
payment of an amount equal to the specified executive's total target bonus for the fiscal year, pro-rated for the portion of the fiscal year elapsed prior to termination, payable to the executive on the company’s normal payroll cycle over twelve months (or, for Mr. Pietri, in one lump sum);
|
|
|
•
|
payment of an amount equal to the cost to the specified executive of providing life, disability and accident insurance benefits, payable in one lump sum, for a period of one year (or, for Mr. Pietri, a period of 18 months); and
|
|
|
•
|
continuation of medical, dental and vision insurance coverage to which the specified executive was entitled prior to termination for a period of one year (or, for Mr. Pietri, a period of 18 months).
|
If within twelve months following a change in control, the executive's employment is terminated without cause, or the specified executive terminates his employment for good reason (which includes constructive termination, relocation, a reduction in salary or benefits, or our breach of any employment agreement with the specified executive or a failure to pay benefits when due), then the specified executive shall be entitled to the following:
|
|
•
|
payment of an amount equal to the sum of the specified executive's annual base salary then in effect (or, for Mr. Pietri, 1.5 times his annual base salary then in effect) and the higher of the specified executive's target bonus for the then-prior or then-current fiscal year, payable in a single installment;
|
|
|
•
|
payment of an amount equal to the cost to the specified executive of providing life, disability and accident insurance benefits, payable in a single installment, for a period of one year (or, for Mr. Pietri, a period of 18 months);
|
|
|
•
|
continuation of medical, dental and vision insurance coverage to which the specified executive was entitled prior to termination for a period of one year (or, for Mr. Pietri, a period of 18 months); and
|
|
|
•
|
full vesting of (a) all of the specified executive's options to purchase shares of our stock, which options may be exercised by the specified executive for a period of twelve months following the date of termination (subject to the original expiration date of such options) and (b) all restricted stock and RSUs then held by the specified executive.
|
Each executive retention agreement provides that the total payments received by the specified executive relating to termination of his employment will be reduced to an amount equal to the highest amount that could be paid to the specified executive without subjecting such payment to excise tax as a parachute payment under IRC Section 4999, provided that no reduction shall be made if the amount by which these payments are reduced exceeds 110% of the value of any additional taxes that the specified executive would incur if the total payments were not reduced.
Each executive retention agreement terminates on the earliest to occur of (a) July 31, 2018, (b) the first anniversary of a change in control, and (c) our payment of all amounts due to the specified executive following a change in control. Each agreement is subject to automatic renewal on August 1 of each year, unless we give notice of termination at least six months prior to the renewal date.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
The following table sets forth estimated compensation, if any, that would have been payable to each of our named executive officers as severance or upon a change in control of our company under three scenarios, assuming the termination triggering severance payments or a change in control took place on June 30, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL TABLE
|
Name
|
|
Cash Payment
($)(1) (2)
|
|
Accelerated Vesting of Stock Options
($)(3)
|
|
Accelerated Vesting of Restricted Stock Units
($)(4)
|
|
Welfare Benefits
($)(5)
|
|
Outplacement
($)(6)
|
|
Total
($)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio J. Pietri
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
● Termination without cause not related to a change in control
|
|
$1,600,621
|
|
|
|
|
|
$27,491
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$1,673,112
|
● Change in control only
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
● Termination without cause or by the executive for good reason following change in control
|
|
$1,600,621
|
|
$1,177,536
|
|
$5,916,412
|
|
$27,491
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$8,767,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karl E. Johnsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
● Termination without cause not related to a change in control
|
|
$690,414
|
|
|
|
|
|
$15,378
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$750,792
|
● Change in control only
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
● Termination without cause or by the executive for good reason following change in control
|
|
$690,414
|
|
$398,040
|
|
$1,576,568
|
|
$15,378
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$2,725,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederic G. Hammond
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
● Termination without cause not related to a change in control
|
|
$620,414
|
|
|
|
|
|
$18,241
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$683,655
|
● Change in control only
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
● Termination without cause or by the executive for good reason following change in control
|
|
$620,414
|
|
$154,055
|
|
$775,132
|
|
$18,241
|
|
$45,000
|
|
$1,612,842
|
|
(1) Amounts shown reflect payments based on salary and bonus as well as payment of estimated cost of life, disability and accident insurance benefits during the agreement period.
|
(2) William T. Griffin served as our Executive Vice President, Field Operations from February 8, 2016 until May 2, 2017. During fiscal 2017, Mr. Griffin received payments of $68,463 in accordance with his executive retention agreement.
|
(3) Amounts shown represent the value of stock options upon the applicable triggering event described in the first column. The value of stock options is based on the difference between the exercise price of the options and $55.26, which was the closing price of the common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market on the last trading day of fiscal 2017, June 30, 2017.
|
(4) Amounts shown represent the value of RSUs upon the applicable triggering event described in the first column, based on the closing price of the common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market on the last trading day of fiscal 2017, June 30, 2017.
|
(5) Amounts shown represent the estimated cost of providing employment-related benefits during the agreement period.
|
(6) Amounts shown represent the maximum value of outplacement benefits.
|
INFORMATION REGARDING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
This section provides further information regarding the board of directors and the independence of our directors and describes key corporate governance guidelines and practices that we have adopted. The board has adopted a written charter for each of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. You can access our current committee charters and code of business conduct and ethics in the "Investor Relations" section of our website located at www.aspentech.com; or by calling us at 781-221-6400; or by writing to our Investor Relations Department at our principal executive offices at 20 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730. Neither our website nor its contents are incorporated into this Proxy Statement.
Directors
Biographical information as of October 16, 2017, for our director nominees and continuing directors follows.
Nominees for Election for a Three-Year Term Expiring at Our 2020 Annual Meeting:
Joan C. McArdle
has served as one of our directors since 1994. Ms. McArdle served as a senior vice president of Massachusetts Capital Resource Company, an investment company, from 2001 through June, 2016, and served as a vice president of Massachusetts Capital Resource Company from 1985 to 2001. Ms. McArdle currently serves as a director of Datawatch Corporation, a provider of data visualization software. She holds an A.B. in English from Smith College. Ms. McArdle is 66 years old. We believe Ms. McArdle's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include her experience in building and financing companies from earliest stages of growth to mature technology companies. In addition, Ms. McArdle's knowledge of the technology industry and venture experience enable her to provide the board with valuable strategic advice.
Simon J. Orebi Gann
has served as one of our directors since February 2011. Dr. Orebi Gann worked for BP from 2000 until 2008, for most of that time serving as the Chief Information Officer and a member of the Executive Committee of BP Integrated Supply and Trading. From 1996 to 2000, Dr. Orebi Gann served as Managing Director of Technology for the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange. From 1979 to 1996, he served as one of the Chief Information Officers of Marks and Spencer plc, an international retailer. Dr. Orebi Gann served as a director of MapInfo Corporation, a provider of location intelligence solutions, from 2004 until its sale to Pitney Bowes Inc. in April 2007. He currently serves on the board of directors of the Low Carbon Contracts Company Ltd and the Electricity Settlements Company Ltd, sister companies that are wholly owned by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and that were created to deliver key elements of the government’s electricity market reform program. He holds a BA, MA (Oxon) and D. Phil from Oxford University where he studied Physics. Dr. Orebi Gann is 67 years old. We believe Dr. Orebi Gann's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include his experience in our largest industry segment and his proven track record in leveraging information technology to capture new commercial opportunities and to increase operational efficiencies in various industries.
Directors Continuing in Office Until Our 2019 Annual Meeting:
Robert M. Whelan, Jr.
was elected Chairman of our board of directors on January 29, 2013. He has served as one of our directors since May 2011. Mr. Whelan has been the President of Whelan & Company, LLC, which provides business and financial consulting and strategic services to a broad range of companies, since 2001. From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Whelan also served as Managing Director of Valuation Perspectives, Inc., a consulting firm. Prior to 2001, Mr. Whelan held a number of senior-level positions at various investment banking and brokerage firms. Among other positions, Mr. Whelan was Vice Chairman of Prudential Volpe Technology Group, the technology investment banking and research division of Prudential Securities, and prior to that, he was Chief Operating Officer, Managing Director, Head of Investment Banking, and a board member of Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, a private technology and healthcare investment banking, brokerage and asset management firm acquired by Prudential Securities in 1999. Mr. Whelan served as a director of ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed developer of small-molecule drugs to treat patients with aggressive cancers, from April, 2010 through September, 2014. Mr. Whelan holds a B.A. in History from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. from Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Mr. Whelan is 65 years old. We believe that Mr. Whelan's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include his executive management and technology investment banking experience.
Donald P. Casey
has served as one of our directors since 2004. From 2004 through 2009, Mr. Casey served as Chairman of the Board of Mazu Networks, a networking software startup. In 2004, Mr. Casey was also the chief executive officer of Mazu Networks. Since 2001, Mr. Casey has been an information strategy and operations consultant to technology and financial services companies. From 2000 to 2001, Mr. Casey served as president and chief operating officer of Exodus Communications, Inc., an Internet infrastructure services provider. From 1991 to 1999, Mr. Casey served as president and chief technology officer of Wang Global, Inc. Mr. Casey previously held executive management positions at Lotus Development Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation. Mr. Casey holds a B.S. in Mathematics from St. Francis College. He is 71 years old. We believe Mr. Casey's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include his many years of experience in the business software industry. His experience includes executive management and development roles. We believe Mr. Casey's extensive industry knowledge and industry perspective are beneficial for the board.
Directors Continuing in Office Until Our 2018 Annual Meeting:
Gary E. Haroian
has served as one of our directors since 2003. From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Haroian served in various positions, including as chief financial officer, chief operating officer and chief executive officer, at Bowstreet, Inc., a provider of software application tools. From 1997 to 2000, Mr. Haroian served as senior vice president of finance and administration and chief financial officer of Concord Communications, Inc., a network management software company. From 1983 to 1996, Mr. Haroian served in various positions, including chief financial officer, president, chief operating officer and chief executive officer, at Stratus Computer, Inc., a provider of continuous availability solutions. Mr. Haroian served as a director of EnerNOC, Inc., a provider of energy intelligence software and related solutions from 2015 to August 7, 2017; B456 Systems, Inc. (formerly known as A123 Systems), a battery systems company, from 2006 to 2012; and Network Engines, Inc., a provider of server appliance solutions, from 2003 to 2011. Mr. Haroian currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of BrightCove Inc., a provider of cloud-based services for video. Prior to 1983, Mr. Haroian was a Certified Public Accountant. He holds a B.A. in Economics and a B.B.A. in Accounting from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Mr. Haroian is 66 years old. We believe that Mr. Haroian's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include his extensive advisory experience to various emerging technology companies, his service on the boards of directors of other public companies and his financial and accounting expertise.
Antonio J. Pietri
was named our President and Chief Executive Officer effective October 1, 2013 and has served as one of our directors since July 2013. Before accepting his appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer, he had served as our Executive Vice President, Field Operations since July 2007. Mr. Pietri served as our Senior Vice President and Managing Director for our Asia-Pacific region from 2002 to June 2007 and held various other positions with our company from 1996 until 2002. From 1992 to 1996, he was at Setpoint Systems, Inc., which we acquired, and before that he worked at ABB Simcon and AECTRA Refining and Marketing, Inc. He holds an M.B.A. from the University of Houston and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Tulsa. Mr. Pietri is 52 years old. In his years of service to the company in various roles, including international assignments, Mr. Pietri has developed valuable working relationships with our customers and employees, and therefore provides a unique perspective on our growth strategy as well as our day-to-day operations.
R. Halsey Wise
was elected to our board on July 21, 2016. Mr. Wise is the founder and current chief executive of Lime Barrel Advisors, LLC, a private investment firm he founded in 2010. He served as chairman and chief executive officer of MedAssets, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed healthcare technology performance improvement company, from February, 2015 until the company was acquired by Pamplona Capital Management in January, 2016. Mr. Wise was also chairman, president and chief executive officer of Intergraph Corporation, a NASDAQ-listed global provider of engineering and geospatial software, from 2003 through 2010. Prior to his service at Intergraph, Mr. Wise was president and chief executive officer, North America of Solution 6 Holdings, Ltd., and president and chief operating officer of Computer Management Sciences, Inc., which was acquired by Computer Associates International, Inc. (now named CA, Inc.). At Computer Associates, he served as the General Manager, North America, for Global Professional Services. Prior to that, Mr. Wise was engaged in investment banking at The Robinson-Humphrey Company (a division of Smith Barney), specializing in software and services. Mr. Wise has served on boards of publicly-held companies, including MedAssets, Inc., Acxiom Corporation and Intergraph Corporation. Mr. Wise holds a Master's degree from Northwestern University and a B.A. from the University of Virgina. Mr. Wise is 52 years old. We believe that Mr. Wise's qualifications to serve on the board of directors include his service on the boards of directors of other public companies and his extensive executive management experience.
Board Determination of Independence
The board of directors uses the definition of independence established by The NASDAQ Stock Market. Under applicable NASDAQ rules, a director qualifies as an "independent director" if, in the opinion of the board, he or she does not have a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. The board has determined that Donald P. Casey, Gary E. Haroian, Joan C. McArdle, Simon J. Orebi Gann, Robert M. Whelan, Jr. and R. Halsey Wise do not have any relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director of our company, and that each of these directors therefore is an "independent director" as defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2).
Director Nomination Process
The process followed by the nominating and corporate governance committee to identify and evaluate director candidates includes requests to members of the board of directors and others for recommendations, meetings from time to time to evaluate biographical information and background material relating to potential candidates, and interviews of selected candidates by members of the nominating and corporate governance committee and other members of the board.
In considering whether to recommend a particular candidate for inclusion in the board's slate of recommended director nominees, the nominating and corporate governance committee considers factors it deems appropriate, which may include judgment, skill, diversity, character, experience with businesses and other organizations of comparable size, the interplay of the candidate’s experience with the experience of other members of the board of directors, and the extent to which the candidate would be a desirable addition to the board of directors and any committees of the board of directors. The nominating and corporate governance committee does not assign specific weights to particular criteria, and no particular component is a prerequisite for a prospective nominee.
The nominating and corporate governance committee also bases its recommendations on criteria set by the board of directors. These criteria include possessing relevant expertise upon which to be able to offer advice and guidance to management, having sufficient time to devote to the affairs of our company, demonstrated excellence in the candidate’s field, having the ability to exercise sound business judgment, and having the commitment to rigorously represent the long-term interests of our stockholders. In order to ensure that the board of directors has a diversity of skills and experience with respect to accounting and finance, management and leadership, vision and strategy, business operations, business judgment, industry knowledge and corporate governance, the board of directors (or the nominating and corporate governance committee on behalf of the board of directors) considers diversity, age, skills, and other factors deemed appropriate given the current needs of the board of directors and our company.
The board and the nominating and corporate governance committee believe that candidates for director should have certain minimum qualifications, including the ability to read and understand basic financial statements, being over 21 years of age and having the highest personal integrity and ethics. The board believes that the backgrounds and qualifications of our directors, considered as a group, should provide a composite mix of experience, knowledge and abilities that will allow the board to fulfill its responsibilities effectively. Candidates for director nominees are reviewed in the context of the current composition of the board, our operating requirements and the long-term interests of stockholders. In conducting this assessment, the board of directors (or the nominating and corporate governance committee on behalf of the board of directors) typically considers diversity, age, skills and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the current needs of the board and the company, to ensure the board has a diversity of skills and experience with respect to accounting and finance, management and leadership, vision and strategy, business operations, business judgment, industry knowledge and corporate governance. In the case of incumbent directors whose terms of office are set to expire, the board of directors (or the nominating and corporate governance committee on behalf of the board of directors) reviews these directors' overall service to the company during their terms, including the number of meetings attended, level of participation, quality of performance and any other relationships and transactions that might impair the directors' independence.
We have adopted a policy as part of our corporate governance guidelines that any nominee for director in an uncontested election who receives more withheld votes than votes in favor, must submit an offer of resignation. The nominating and corporate governance committee will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances and make a recommendation to the board on whether to accept the offer of resignation. The board will act on the recommendation of the nominating and corporate governance committee, and we will disclose that decision in a press release or filing with the SEC if required.
Stockholders may recommend individuals to the nominating and corporate governance committee for consideration as potential director candidates by submitting the individuals' names, together with appropriate biographical information and background materials and a statement as to whether the stockholder or group of stockholders making the recommendation has beneficially owned more than five percent of our common stock for at least a year as of the date such recommendation is made. Any such names should be submitted to our nominating and corporate governance committee in care of our Secretary at Aspen Technology, Inc. at 20 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730. Assuming that appropriate biographical and background material has been provided on a timely basis, the policy of the nominating and corporate governance committee is to evaluate stockholder recommended candidates by following substantially the same process, and applying substantially the same criteria, as the committee follows for candidates submitted by others. If the board determines to nominate a stockholder recommended candidate and recommends his or her election, then his or her name will be included in the Proxy Statement and proxy card for our next annual meeting.
Board Leadership Structure
The board of directors currently has an independent chair, Robert M. Whelan, Jr. We believe that having an independent board chair can create an environment that is conducive to objective evaluation and oversight of management's performance, and can increase management accountability and improve the ability of the board to monitor whether management's actions are in the best interests of our stockholders. As a result, we believe that having an independent board chair can enhance the effectiveness of the board as a whole.
Communicating with Independent Directors
The board of directors will give appropriate attention to written communications that are submitted by stockholders and will respond if and as appropriate. Our chairman of the board, with the assistance of our general counsel, is primarily responsible for monitoring communications from stockholders and for providing copies or summaries of those communications to the other directors as he considers appropriate.
Communications are forwarded to all directors if the communications relate to important substantive matters and include suggestions or comments that the chairman of the board or the chair of our nominating and corporate governance committee considers to be important for the directors to know. In general, communications relating to corporate governance and long-term corporate strategy are more likely to be forwarded than communications relating to ordinary business affairs, personal grievances, and matters as to which we tend to receive repetitive or duplicative communications.
Stockholders who wish to send communications on any topic to the board should address such communications to the board in care of our Secretary at Aspen Technology, Inc., 20 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730.
Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a written set of corporate governance guidelines, which provides additional details concerning our commitments and principles guiding our overall governance practices.
We have adopted a written code of business conduct and ethics that applies to our directors, officers and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions.
We have posted a copy of the code of business conduct and ethics in the "Investor Relations" section of our website located at www.aspentech.com. We intend to satisfy disclosure requirements regarding amendments to, or waivers from, our code by posting such information on our website.
Role of Board in Risk Oversight
One of the key functions of the board of directors is informed oversight of our risk management process. In particular, the board is responsible for assessing major risks facing our company and considering ways to address those risks.
The board administers this oversight function directly, as well as through the board's standing committees that address risks inherent in their respective areas of oversight, in compliance with the board's corporate governance policies. Both the board as a whole and the various standing committees receive periodic reports from the management, as well as incidental reports as matters may arise. It is the responsibility of the committee chairs to report findings regarding material risk exposures to the board as quickly as possible.
Our audit committee has the responsibility to assist the board of directors in its oversight of our policies for risk assessment and management. The audit committee also oversees our independent auditors and reviews our audited financial statements and other financial disclosures, in addition to overseeing the performance of our audit function. Typically, the audit committee receives and discusses with management a quarterly report regarding risk management and the areas of risk the company has addressed in such quarter.
In reviewing director compensation and making recommendations to the board of directors, our compensation committee considers the impact on the directors’ independence and objectivity. In addition, our nominating and corporate governance committee oversees evaluations of the board of directors and its committees to determine whether they are functioning effectively.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
In fiscal 2017, the compensation committee consisted of three directors, Donald P. Casey, Simon J. Orebi Gann, and Robert M. Whelan, Jr. Since July 1, 2016, none of our executive officers has served as a member of either the board of directors or compensation committee of any entity, one or more of whose executive officers served as a member of either our board of directors or compensation committee.
Director Attendance at Board and Stockholder Meetings
The board of directors met nine times during fiscal 2017, either in person or by teleconference. During fiscal 2017, each director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the board and the committees upon which he or she serves.
We do not have a policy regarding director attendance at our annual meetings of stockholders. Directors Robert M. Whelan, Jr. and Antonio J. Pietri each attended our annual meeting of stockholders held on December 8, 2016.
Board Committees
The board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee, and a nominating and corporate governance committee. All of the members of each of these standing committees are independent as defined under the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, or NASDAQ, and, in the case of the audit committee, the independence requirements set forth in Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act.
Audit Committee
The members of the audit committee are Donald P. Casey, Gary E. Haroian, Joan C. McArdle and R. Halsey Wise. Mr. Wise was appointed to the audit committee on July 21, 2016, and Robert M. Whelan, Jr. resigned from the audit committee on that date. Mr. Haroian chairs the audit committee. The audit committee held six meetings in fiscal 2017. The board of directors has determined that all the members of the audit committee are independent directors as defined under NASDAQ rules, including the independence requirements set forth in Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act. The board has determined that Mr. Haroian is an "audit committee financial expert" as defined in applicable SEC rules. The purpose of the audit committee is to assist the board’s oversight of the integrity of our financial statements; our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; the qualifications and independence of our independent auditors; the performance of our internal audit function and independent auditors; our policies for risk assessment and management; and our investment management and other treasury policies. The specific responsibilities of the audit committee include:
|
|
•
|
appointing, approving the compensation of, and overseeing the independence of our independent auditor;
|
|
|
•
|
oversight of our independent auditor, including the receipt and consideration of reports from such auditor;
|
|
|
•
|
reviewing and discussing our audited financial statements and related disclosures with management and our independent auditor;
|
|
|
•
|
directing the independent auditor to use its best efforts to perform all reviews of interim financial information prior to our disclosure of such information;
|
|
|
•
|
coordination of the board's oversight of our internal accounting controls for financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures, as well as the administration of our code of business conduct and ethics;
|
|
|
•
|
overseeing our internal audit function;
|
|
|
•
|
establishing policies for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints and concerns regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters;
|
|
|
•
|
meeting independently with members of our internal auditing staff and our independent auditor;
|
|
|
•
|
receiving and reviewing the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the auditor’s communication with the audit committee concerning independence, and discussing with the independent auditor any disclosed relationships between us and the auditor;
|
|
|
•
|
reviewing all related party transactions on an ongoing basis; and
|
|
|
•
|
preparing the audit committee report for our annual proxy statement required by SEC rules.
|
Compensation Committee
The members of the compensation committee are Donald P. Casey, Simon J. Orebi Gann, and Robert M. Whelan, Jr. Mr. Casey chairs the compensation committee. The compensation committee held six meetings in fiscal 2017. The board of directors has determined that all the members of the compensation committee are independent directors as defined under NASDAQ rules. The purpose of the compensation committee is to discharge the responsibilities of the board relating to compensation of executive officers. Specific responsibilities of the compensation committee include:
|
|
•
|
periodically reviewing the company’s overall compensation principles and structure;
|
|
|
•
|
reviewing and approving, or (in the case of the chief executive officer) recommending for approval by a majority of the independent directors of the board of directors, executive officer compensation, including salary, bonus and incentive
|
compensation levels; deferred compensation; executive perquisites; equity compensation (including awards to induce employment); severance arrangements; change-in-control benefits; and other forms of executive officer compensation;
|
|
•
|
overseeing an evaluation of executive officers;
|
|
|
•
|
exercising all rights, authority and functions of the board of directors under all of our stock option, stock incentive, employee stock purchase and other equity-based plans;
|
|
|
•
|
periodically reviewing and making recommendations to the board of directors with respect to incentive-compensation plans and equity-based plans;
|
|
|
•
|
periodically reporting to the board of directors on succession planning for our senior executives;
|
|
|
•
|
reviewing and making recommendations to the board with respect to director compensation; and
|
|
|
•
|
preparing the compensation committee report required by SEC rules.
|
To the extent permitted by applicable law and the provisions of a given equity-based plan, and consistent with the requirements of applicable law and such equity-based plan, the compensation committee may delegate to one or more executive officers of the company the power to grant options or other stock awards pursuant to such equity-based plan to employees of the company or any subsidiary of the company who are not directors or executive officers of the company.
In fiscal 2017, the compensation committee also engaged an independent consultant, Willis Towers Watson, to advise the committee on matters related to executive and director compensation. The compensation committee has assessed the independence of Willis Towers Watson pursuant to SEC rules and concluded that no conflict of interest exists that would prevent Willis Towers Watson from serving as an independent consultant to the compensation committee. Willis Towers Watson did not provide any additional services to the company in fiscal 2017.
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
The members of our nominating and corporate governance committee are Donald P. Casey, Gary E. Haroian, Joan C. McArdle, Simon J. Orebi Gann, Robert M. Whelan, Jr. and R. Halsey Wise, who was appointed to the committee on July 21, 2016. Mr. Whelan chairs the nominating and corporate governance committee. The nominating and corporate governance committee held one meeting in fiscal 2017. Our nominating and corporate governance committee's responsibilities include:
|
|
•
|
identifying individuals qualified to become directors;
|
|
|
•
|
recommending to the board the persons to be nominated for election as directors;
|
|
|
•
|
developing and recommending to the board corporate governance principles; and
|
|
|
•
|
overseeing the evaluation of the board and each of the board committees.
|