SEC Staff Releases New C&DIs on CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure

Oct 21, 2016

Reading Time : 4 min

The pay ratio rules give companies reasonable latitude to determine a particular methodology for identifying the median employee and, in limited cases, permit the exclusion of certain non-U.S. employees. However, it is expected that compliance with the pay ratio rules will be burdensome and costly, particularly for large or multinational companies. The new C&DIs, which are summarized below, attempt to clarify and resolve some of the questions that companies have raised as they prepare to comply with the pay ratio disclosure rules.

Selecting a Consistently Applied Compensation Measure (C&DI 128C.01)

Item 402(u) does not specify a particular methodology for identifying the median employee, but instead allows companies to choose the appropriate methodology based on their own facts and circumstances. A registrant may identify the median employee using annual total compensation (as calculated using Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K (Annual Total Compensation)) or any other consistently applied compensation measure (CACM).

According to C&DI 128C.01, the appropriateness of any measure will depend on the registrant’s particular facts and circumstances. For registrants not using Annual Total Compensation to identify the median employee, any measure that reasonably reflects the annual compensation of employees could serve as a CACM. While the Division did not provide an exhaustive list of what it would consider a reasonable reflection of annual compensation, it did provide some parameters regarding what it believes may constitute a CACM:

  • Total Cash Compensation: According to the Division, total cash compensation could be a CACM so long as the registrant did not also distribute annual equity awards widely among its employee base.
  • Social Security Taxes: Calculating annual compensation of employees on the basis of withheld social security taxes would likely not be a CACM, according to the Division, unless all employees earned less than the Social Security wage base.

The Division did acknowledge that it would not necessarily expect the CACM to identify the same median employee as would be identified using Annual Total Compensation.

Using Hourly or Annual Rates of Pay as a CACM (C&DI 128C.02)

According to C&DI 128C.02, the Division does not believe that the use of an hourly or annual pay rate alone is an appropriate CACM to identify the median employee. Item 402(u) does not permit making a full-time equivalent adjustment for part-time employees, and, according to the Division, using an hourly rate without taking into account the number of hours actually worked would be an attempt to do just that. Also, Item 402(u) does not permit a registrant to annualize pay except in limited circumstances; using only an annual rate, without regard to whether employees worked the entire year and were actually paid that amount during the year, would essentially be annualizing pay.

Determining Employee Population Versus Identifying Median Employee (C&DI 128C.03)

Item 402(u) requires a registrant to select a date within three months following the end of its fiscal year to determine the population of its employees from which to identify the median. Once the employee population is determined, the registrant identifies the median employee from that population using either Annual Total Compensation or another CACM. According to C&DI 128C.03, a registrant is not required to use a period that includes the date on which the employee population is determined. Furthermore, according to the Division, the registrant is not required to use a full annual period. Annual Total Compensation from the registrant’s prior fiscal year may be considered a CACM, so long as there has not been a change in the registrant’s employee population or employee compensation arrangements that would result in a significant change of the registrant’s pay distribution to its workforce.

Furloughed Employees (C&DI 128C.04)

Item 402(u) identifies only four classes of employees: full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal. The rule does not specifically address furloughed employees. According to the Division, because “furlough” could have different meanings for different employers, registrants should, based on facts and circumstances, first determine whether the furloughed worker is, in fact, an employee. If the furloughed worker is determined to be an employee of the registrant on the date that the employee population is determined, then the registrant must determine the furloughed worker’s compensation using the same method as for a non furloughed employee. Because Item 402(u)(3) of Regulation S-K identifies four classes of employees—full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal - the registrant must determine in which class the furloughed employee belongs on that date and determine the individual’s compensation using Annual Total Compensation or another CACM.

Reiterating Instruction 5 of Item 402(u), C&DI 128C.04 points out that a registrant may annualize the total compensation for all permanent employees (full-time or part-time) who were employed by the registrant for less than the full fiscal year or who were on an unpaid leave of absence during that period. However, a registrant may not annualize the total compensation for employees in temporary or seasonal positions. Additionally, a registrant may not make a full-time equivalent adjustment for any employee.

Independent Contractors and Leased Workers (C&DI 128C.05)

According to the Division, a registrant should include a worker as an “employee” for the purposes of Item 402(u) if the worker compensation is determined by the registrant or one of its consolidated subsidiaries. This is true, according to the Division, regardless of whether such worker would be considered an “employee” for tax or employment law purposes. When a registrant obtains services of workers by contracting with an unaffiliated third party that employs the workers, the Division does not believe that the registrant is determining the workers’ compensation for purposes of Item 402(u) if the registrant specifies only that those workers receive a minimum level of compensation. Furthermore, the Division believes that an individual who is an independent contractor may be the “unaffiliated third party” who determines his or her own compensation.

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.