Filing of Definitive Additional Materials
On
A copy of the Proxy Statement and the Additional Materials can be found on the
About
With our proprietary technologies and comprehensive solutions, we are transforming our clients’ project economics, helping them unlock new possibilities to develop energy resources while reducing carbon intensity and supporting their energy transition ambitions.
Organized in two business segments —
Each of our approximately 20,000 employees is driven by a commitment to our clients’ success, and a culture of strong execution, purposeful innovation, and challenging industry conventions.
RE: 2021
Proposal 1(i) – Election of
Proposal 4 – Prospective Directors’ Remuneration Policy.
In order to assist Glass Lewis’ review of these voting recommendations, it should be noted that, although the Company is incorporated in the
Proposal 1(i) – Election of
We urge Glass Lewis to recommend that shareholders vote “FOR”
The Report’s current recommendation to vote against
- the director’s attendance record at all companies;
- the size of the companies on whose board the director nominee serves; and
- other sufficient rationale for continued board service, such as contributions to the Board, including specialized knowledge of the Company’s industry, strategy or key markets, diversity of skills, perspective and background, and other relevant factors.
Ms. Zurquiyah’s skills, experience, expertise, and characteristics make her a uniquely qualified and transformative director.
In addition,
The Report’s recommendation to vote against
Ms. Zurquiyah’s attendance record and contributions to the boards on which she serves are exemplary.
We acknowledge and concur with Glass Lewis’ views “that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders” and an “overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis.”
The Company’s views on Board composition and criteria for Board membership, as disclosed in its Proxy Statement on pages 45-48, include numerous requirements, including an “ability to commit the time required for service on our Board.” We evaluate not only a director’s skills and experience relevant to the Company, but also changes in professional status, outside commitments, and other public company directorships to assess the potential impact on our Board’s effectiveness.
As disclosed in our Proxy Statement, the Board believes that a rigorous evaluation process is an essential component of strong corporate governance. The Company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) Committee reviews regularly the Board’s composition, including the key skills and experience represented on the Board, to ensure it meets the changing needs of the business, while also taking into consideration the outcomes of our annual Board and committee self-evaluation process, feedback received from shareholders, and evolving market best practices. Our ESG Committee also looks to ensure that our directors possess and demonstrate a willingness to devote the required time and attention to Board duties and to otherwise fulfill the responsibilities required of them, including discussions with each director regarding the time commitments and expectations of his or her other board duties to ensure that he or she can continue to serve the Company and its shareholders effectively.
The Guidelines provide that Glass Lewis may consider the size and location of the other companies whose board a director nominee serves on.
Based on the flexibility in the Guidelines that allow consideration of qualities beyond the specific number of boards on which the director serves and because
Proposal 4 – Prospective Directors’ Remuneration Policy
We urge Glass Lewis to recommend that shareholders vote “FOR” our Prospective Directors’ Remuneration Policy (the “Policy”) proposal because when analyzed under the applicable U.S. market standards, the Policy allows the Company to appropriately remunerate directors in a competitive talent market in order to achieve the Company’s and business objectives and serve shareholders’ best interests.
We were surprised by the Report’s negative recommendation for several reasons. The Report inappropriately assessed our Policy through the lens of
The Report’s assessment of the Policy is based on
Although incorporated in the
The Report notes several aspects of the Company’s program that are inconsistent with
-
Short Term Incentive (“STI”) Deferral: It is uncommon for companies in
the United States to incorporate practices requiring executives to defer a portion of their bonus into shares. Within our compensation peer group, two of our non-U.S. peers disclose this practice while none of ourU.S. peers disclose this practice. -
Long Term Incentive (“LTI”) Extended Holding Period: This is an uncommon practice in
the United States within our compensation peer group where only two of our non-U.S. peers disclose this practice, and none of ourU.S. peers disclose this practice. Inthe United States , it is more common for companies to require executives to hold shares through stock ownership guidelines rather than an extended holding period. We include robust stock ownership guidelines, which require our CEO to hold 6x his base salary in shares, our CFO to hold 5x his base salary, and our other executive officers to hold 3x their base salary in shares. -
Plan Limits: It is not prevalent market practice in
the United States to limit equity-based awards to a specified percentage over a 10-year rolling period. PerU.S. practice, excessive shareholder dilution is avoided by (1) requiring shareholder votes to grant a pool of shares that can be used for LTI grants over a period of years and including information on potential shareholder dilution in such proposal, and (2) including maximum limits on the LTI grant that can be made to any one individual during a calendar year. Additionally, the Company has been responsible with its use of shares historically as referenced by our historical three-year burn rate of 1.0%, which aligns with the median of our peer group.
The Report overlooked our compensation best practices, responsible executive pay design, and strong pay-for-performance alignment.
The Policy is designed to be based on
- pay for performance by aligning performance measures with our long-term strategy and shareholder interests;
- benchmarking compensation against relevant global and industry peer groups, and salary increases and incentive awards based on market data and performance;
- majority of executive director compensation is performance-based, “at-risk” long-term compensation;
- short-term incentive awards are based on key financial and individual metrics, payout is based on performance, and no payout below minimum performance;
- a minimum of 50% of LTI payout is based on performance, with caps on annual awards;
- no guaranteed or uncapped incentives;
- clawback provision in the event of malfeasance or fraud;
- robust director share ownership requirements;
- engaging an independent, external compensation consultant; and
- no excessive perquisites, benefits, or pension payments.
The Report’s negative recommendation is partially driven by what Glass Lewis has deemed a “potential for excessive remuneration under the LTIP” due to the increase in our maximum LTI opportunity under the program from
-
Responsible executive pay design: This is a maximum potential opportunity only. In practice, our LTI awards to our Executive Director, including the 2021 LTI grant, have ranged from
$9.1 million to$12.6 million . The Compensation Committee has been a responsible steward of the maximum limit allowable under the LTIP program and has set compensation based on market data and Company performance. - Strong pay and performance alignment: As stated in the Report’s pay-for-performance analysis, the level of pay provided to the Chairman and CEO is not excessive. The Chairman and CEO was paid less compensation than the median compensation for the group of companies selected based on Glass Lewis’ peer group methodology. The Report also indicates an adequate alignment of pay with performance and the Company’s pay ranking is notably less than its performance ranking.
We acknowledge Glass Lewis’ concern that the performance targets attached to our 2020 and 2021 performance share units (“PSUs”) are based upon the single metric of relative total shareholder return (“TSR”). However, the Policy does not state that a single metric will be used each year, and this is not the intent of the Policy. The Company’s Compensation Committee will choose one or more measures each year, based on the long-term business objectives. A single performance metric was used for 2020 and in 2021, because the volatility in the oil and gas business environment and the Spin-off made it challenging to set meaningful financial metrics during these two years. In addition, we believe, and our shareholders have expressed to us during our shareholder engagement meetings, that relative TSR is strongly aligned with shareholder interests and is a meaningful measure of our long-term performance. If the Policy is not approved at the Annual Meeting, the Company intends to continue compensating its directors under its existing Directors’ Remuneration Policy that was approved at its 2018 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders until a revised policy is approved by shareholders.
Based on the application of the correct U.S. market practice standard, and because the Policy has been scrupulously designed to align directors’ incentives with shareholders’ interests while remaining competitive in the
We respectfully urge Glass Lewis to revise the Report and recommend that shareholders vote “FOR” each of Proxy Statement proposals 1(i) and 4. For the reasons discussed in greater detail above,
For and on behalf of
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
_____________________
1 We also note that the policies of another major shareholder proxy advisor with respect to director commitments advise that
2 Please see CGG’s 2018 Annual Report (www.cgg.com/sites/default/files/2020-12/annual_report_2018.pdf, page 101), 2019 Annual Report (www.cgg.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/2019_URD_Engl_2.pdf, page 111), and 2020 Annual Report (www.cgg.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/Annual_Report_2020_0.pdf, page 128).
3 Please see Safran’s 2017 Registration Document (www.safran-group.com/file/download/2017-registration-document.pdf, page 262), 2018 Registration Document (www.safran-group.com/sites/group/files/safran_ddr_2018_uk.pdf, page 288), 2019 Registration Document (www.safran-group.com/sites/group/files/safran_deu_2019_uk_mel.pdf, page 324), and 2020 Registration Document (www.safran-group.com/sites/group/files/opt_mel_safr_deu_2020_production_uk_202104011830.pdf, page 356).
Category:
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506006186/en/
Investor relations
Vice President Investor Relations
+1 281 260 3665
Senior Manager Investor Relations
+1 281 260 3665
Media relations
Vice President Corporate Communications
+44 1383 742297
Public Relations Director
+1 281 591 4108
Source: