Practical Considerations for Preparing Your 2015 CD&A

Feb 17, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min
  • Compliance with SEC requirements.  Although the trend among companies is to make the CD&A into more of a “sales pitch” that can be persuasive to shareholders, companies should remember that the primary purpose of the CD&A is to present disclosure mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which will be incorporated by reference into the Form 10-K and indirectly into certain registration statements. Companies should remember first and foremost to be mindful of required disclosures and reporting principles.
  • Executive Summary.  The use of executive summaries has become the norm for companies, in part, because it is an effective way to make a clear argument for the appropriateness of the executive compensation program.  However, companies should remember to be concise and consistent with the rest of the document.  The executive summary should provide an accurate preview of what will follow in the CD&A.
  • Compliance with Non-GAAP Rules.  If non-GAAP financial measures are going to be used in the executive summary or the CD&A, companies must remember to comply with Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K.  Although the SEC provides some relief from Regulation G and Item 10(e) with respect to the use of non-GAAP financial measures that are performance target levels, companies will otherwise need to fully comply with Regulation G and Item 10(e) if non-GAAP financial information is included in the CD&A for other purposes.  Companies typically provide reconciliations either in an annex to the proxy statement or, if a reconciliation is provided in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K that is incorporating by reference the proxy statement’s Item 402 disclosure as part of its Part III information, by providing a prominent cross reference to the relevant pages of the Form 10-K.
  • Plain English.  As companies consider making enhancements to the CD&A, companies should remember to consider the plain English rules.  Keep the target audience in mind when explaining complicated incentive compensation arrangements and avoid unnecessary duplicative disclosures.
  • Comfortable Performance Precedent.  During years in which a company’s performance is very strong, it is tempting to supplement the CD&A with additional performance metrics that present performance and compensation levels in a positive light. However, companies should exercise caution, because whenever the CD&A is expanded to provide additional performance metrics or information, an expectation is created that such information is therefore material and will continue to be provided in future periods.  If this information is not essential to meeting CD&A disclosure obligations, companies may regret having included such additional information and setting such a presentation precedent if performance and compensation levels diverge in future periods. 
  • Avoid Lists of Best and Worst Pay Practices.  Best and worst compensation practices change and evolve over time, so be careful about what is labeled as a “best” or “worst” practice in the CD&A. For example, benchmarking was once a common practice used by many companies to set executive compensation, but it has recently come under scrutiny as a means for targeting compensation percentiles that could “ratchet up” total compensation.  In addition, a company’s specific situation may change in the future, and it may become beneficial to use certain “bad” practices to achieve certain results. For example, if a company labels perquisites such as golf club memberships, car leases or aircraft use as a bad practice, such company should be certain that it would never consider using such incentives to entice a crucial hire to join the company in the future.
  • Use of Graphics and Charts.  Many companies are now using graphics and charts in the CD&A to present visual disclosures of certain information. Graphics can sometimes be especially prone to many of the potential precedent pitfalls discussed above, as a company’s circumstances can change from year to year and cause a “good” graphic in one year to become a “bad” graphic in subsequent years.  Charts and graphics should be used, however, where they can enhance disclosures or increase a reader’s understanding of the information being presented.

In light of the increased attention being paid to CD&A disclosures, companies should strive to keep up with current trends and market expectations for disclosures regarding executive compensation, while also maintaining complete and accurate disclosures in compliance with SEC regulations.  As companies consider whether and how to implement evolving CD&A presentation practices, the foregoing factors should be considered in an effort to draft CD&A disclosures that are both appropriate for the particular company and compliant with applicable securities laws.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.