Global Stock Plan Design and Global Stock Plan Design and Redesign: Redesign: Issues Relating to Broad- Issues Relating to Broad- Based Plans Based Plans 2001 Global Equity Compensation 2001 Global Equity Compensation Forum Forum San Francisco, California San Francisco, California November 5, 2001 November 5, 2001 Edward D. Burmeister Baker & McKenzie Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 576-3029 [email protected]
27
Embed
Edward D. Burmeister Baker & McKenzie Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
Global Stock Plan Design and Redesign: Issues Relating to Broad-Based Plans 2001 Global Equity Compensation Forum San Francisco, California November 5, 2001. Edward D. Burmeister Baker & McKenzie Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 576-3029 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Global Stock Plan Design and Redesign:Global Stock Plan Design and Redesign:Issues Relating to Broad-Based PlansIssues Relating to Broad-Based Plans
2001 Global Equity Compensation Forum2001 Global Equity Compensation Forum
San Francisco, CaliforniaSan Francisco, CaliforniaNovember 5, 2001November 5, 2001
Edward D. BurmeisterBaker & McKenzie
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400San Francisco, California 94111
ONE SIZE FITS ALL DESIGNONE SIZE FITS ALL DESIGN (Con’t) (Con’t)
• Cons:– Unfortunate Company Social Taxes
• France• U. K.• Italy• Sweden• Norway
– Failure to Take Advantage of Local Tax Advantages• U. K.• Ireland• Israel• Austria• Singapore• Italy
TOTAL CUSTOMIZATIONTOTAL CUSTOMIZATION
• Pros:
– Maximizes Employee Tax Results– Locally Competitive– Can Reduce Employer Social Costs
• Cons:
– More Difficult to Administer– Potential Inequities Within Company– Loss of Central Control
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
• Draft Plan to Permit Local Customization
– Sub-Plan Authorization in Option Plans– Non-423 Component in ESPP
• Decide Process and Parameters for Local Customization
– Retain Ultimate Central Control– Do Customize Agreements/Enrollment Forms
OTHER DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
• Avoid Beneficiary Forms (at Least in ESPPs)
• Avoid Transferability Outside U.S.
• Avoid Stock-for-Stock or Attestation Exercise Methods Outside U.S.
OTHER DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS (Con’t) (Con’t)
• Avoid U.S. Centric Inflexible Provisions
– 10-year Term– One-Year Post-Death Exercise– Compensation Definition in ESPP– Definition of “Subsidiary” in Option Plan– Methods of Exercise Locked In
• Disavow Maintaining “Qualified” Status
• Tailor Labor Law Language
WHAT IS END RESULT?WHAT IS END RESULT?
• Option Plan
– Flexible And General Plan Language
• Authorization for Sub-plans and Country-Specific Modifications
– Much Discretion in Committee
WHAT IS END RESULT? WHAT IS END RESULT? (Con’t)(Con’t)
• Option Plan
– Country-Specific Design Modifications
• U. K.: Approved Plan and NICPass-Through
• France: - Qualified Plan – 4-Year Requirement Mandatory- Closed Period Avoidance
• Italy: Prior Month’s Average Price as Minimum Grant Price
WHAT IS END RESULT?WHAT IS END RESULT? (Con’t) (Con’t)
• Option Plan
– Country-Specific Design Modifications
• Netherlands: Election to Defer Tax: “Pre-Acceptance”
orMandatory Cashless Exercise
• Belgium: Special Offer Letter andUndertaking
Consideration of Bank ProductsTo Minimize Employee Tax Problem
WHAT IS END RESULT? WHAT IS END RESULT? (Con’t)(Con’t)
• Option Plan
– Country-Specific Design Modifications
• Switzerland: Cantonal Tax Rulings on10-year, 6-month Term orMandatory Cashless
• Singapore: Use of CSOP Scheme
• Ireland: Consider Approved Plan
• Austria Consider Tax-Advantaged Plan
WHAT IS END RESULT?WHAT IS END RESULT? (Con’t) (Con’t)