Document
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant ý Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨
Check the appropriate box:
|
| | | | |
o | | Preliminary Proxy Statement |
o | | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
ý | | Definitive Proxy Statement |
o | | Definitive Additional Materials |
o | | Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |
|
| | | | |
MASIMO CORPORATION |
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) |
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): |
ý | | No fee required. |
o | | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
| | (1) | | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
| | (2) | | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
| | (3) | | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
| | (4) | | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
| | (5) | | Total fee paid: |
o | | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
o | | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
| | (1) | | Amount Previously Paid: |
| | (2) | | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
| | (3) | | Filing Party: |
| | (4) | | Date Filed: |
Persons who are to respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Notice of 2017 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders & Proxy Statement
June 1, 2017 l 52 Discovery, Irvine, California, 92618
MASIMO CORPORATION |
| | |
| | Dear Stockholder: You are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Masimo Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), or any adjournment or postponement thereof. The Annual Meeting will be held on Thursday, June 1, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time at the principal executive offices of the Company at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618. Information concerning the matters to be considered and voted upon at the 2017 Annual Meeting is set out in the attached Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement. Throughout 2016, we experienced strong product revenue growth around the world with a combination of additional new customers, higher utilization of our installed base of pulse oximeters and incremental contributions from our new products. We attribute our strong financial performance to our execution of our ten year plan, which has given us the ability to grow our top line revenue, product margins and operating margins, without sacrificing what our customers expect from us: great innovation and excellent service. Last year, we also realized an important achievement in reaching a positive settlement of our long-term patent dispute, including the entry into a new long-term business partnership with Philips, the world’s market-leading patient monitoring company. We believe that this business partnership will increase the adoption rate of our innovative technologies, including rainbow® technology, and result in improved outcomes for patients and reduced cost of care for hospitals. Please make sure your shares are represented at our Annual Meeting, regardless of the number of shares you hold or whether you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person. Accordingly, please authorize a proxy to vote your shares as soon as possible in accordance with the instructions you received. This will not prevent you from voting your shares in person if you subsequently choose to attend the meeting. We look forward to your continued support. Joe Kiani, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
| |
MASIMO CORPORATION
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
We will hold the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Masimo Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), or any adjournment or postponement thereof, at the principal executive offices of the Company at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California, 92618, on Thursday, June 1, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, for the following purposes:
| |
1. | To elect the following nominees as Class I directors to serve until our 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders: Dr. Steven J. Barker and Mr. Sanford Fitch; |
| |
2. | To ratify the selection of Grant Thornton LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 30, 2017; |
| |
3. | To vote on an advisory resolution to approve named executive officer compensation; |
| |
4. | To vote on an advisory resolution on the frequency of future advisory resolutions to approve named executive officer compensation; |
| |
5. | To approve the Masimo Corporation 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; |
| |
6. | To approve the Masimo Corporation Executive Bonus Incentive Plan; and |
| |
7. | To conduct any other business properly brought before the Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. |
These items of business are more fully described in the Proxy Statement accompanying this Notice.
The record date for the Annual Meeting is April 3, 2017. Only stockholders of record at the close of business on that date may vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof. This notice is being mailed to all stockholders of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting on or about April 14, 2017.
|
| |
| By Order of the Board of Directors |
| |
| Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |
Irvine, California
April 14, 2017
|
| | | | | | |
TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
NOTICE OF 2017 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS | | | AUDIT RELATED MATTERS | |
PROXY STATEMENT | | | | Audit Committee Report | |
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THESE PROXY MATERIALS AND VOTING | | | | Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures | |
| | Principal Accountant Fees and Services | |
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS | | | PROPOSAL NO. 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS | |
BOARD OF DIRECTORS | | | PROPOSAL NO. 2: RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM | |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD MATTERS | | | |
| Corporate Governance Guidelines | | | PROPOSAL NO. 3: ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS | |
| Independence of the Board of Directors | | |
| Board Leadership Structure | | |
| Board’s Role in Risk Oversight | | | PROPOSAL NO. 4: ADVISORY VOTE ON FREQUENCY OF FUTURE ADVISORY RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION | |
| Meetings and Executive Sessions | | |
| Policy Regarding Board Member Attendance at Annual Meetings | | |
| Information Regarding Board Committees | | | PROPOSAL NO. 5: APPROVAL OF MASIMO CORPORATION 2017 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN | |
| Consideration of Director Nominees | | |
| Stockholder Communications with the Board of Directors | | | PROPOSAL NO. 6: APPROVAL OF MASIMO CORPORATION EXECUTIVE BONUS INCENTIVE PLAN | |
| Code of Business Conduct and Ethics | | |
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION | | | SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT | |
| Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Policy | | |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | | | SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE | |
| Compensation Discussion and Analysis | | |
| Compensation Committee Report | | | TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS, PROMOTERS AND CERTAIN CONTROL PERSONS | |
| Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation | | |
| Summary Compensation Table | | | HOUSEHOLDING | |
| Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal Year 2016 | | | ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K | |
| Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2016 | | | IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR STOCKHOLDERS MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 1, 2017 | |
| Option Exercises and Stock Vested During Fiscal Year 2016 | | |
| Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers | | | OTHER MATTERS | |
YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT
You are cordially invited to attend the meeting in person. Whether or not you expect to attend the meeting, please complete, date and sign and return the enclosed proxy or submit your proxy through the internet or by telephone as promptly as possible in order to ensure your representation at the meeting. A return envelope (which is postage prepaid if mailed in the United States) is enclosed for your convenience if you choose to submit your proxy by mail. Even if you have voted by proxy, you may still vote in person if you attend the meeting. Please note, however, that if your shares are held of record by a broker, bank or other agent and you wish to vote at the meeting, you must obtain a proxy issued in your name from that record holder.
SPECIAL NOTE ON FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION
This proxy statement contains “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These statements are often identified by the use of words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may”, “ongoing”, “opportunity”, “plan”, “potential”, “predicts”, “seek”, “should”, “will” or “would”, and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These forward-looking statements are based on the expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information currently available to management, all of which is subject to change. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that are difficult to predict and could cause our actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially and adversely from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below, and those discussed under Item 1A-“Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2017. Furthermore, such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this proxy statement. We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.
PROXY STATEMENT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THESE PROXY MATERIALS AND VOTING
|
| | | | |
1. Why am I receiving these materials? |
We sent you this Proxy Statement and the enclosed proxy card because the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Masimo Corporation (sometimes referred to as “we”, “Masimo” or the “Company”) is soliciting your proxy to vote at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or any adjournment or postponement thereof (the “Annual Meeting”). You are invited to attend the Annual Meeting and we request that you vote on the proposals described in this Proxy Statement. However, you do not need to attend the Annual Meeting to vote your shares. Instead, you may simply complete, sign and return the enclosed proxy card or submit your proxy through the internet or by telephone according to the instructions contained in the enclosed proxy card.
We intend to mail this Proxy Statement and the accompanying proxy card on or about April 14, 2017 to all stockholders of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.
|
| | | | |
2. When and where will the Annual Meeting be held? |
The Annual Meeting will be held on June 1, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time at our offices located at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618. Directions are set forth on the back of this Proxy Statement.
|
| | | | |
3. Who can vote at the Annual Meeting? |
Only stockholders of record at the close of business on April 3, 2017 will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. At the close of business on this record date, there were 51,462,547 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote and no shares of preferred stock outstanding or entitled to vote. The holders of common stock will have one vote for each share of common stock they owned as of the close of business on April 3, 2017.
Stockholder of Record: Shares Registered in Your Name
If at the close of business on April 3, 2017, your shares of common stock were registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., then you are the stockholder of record for these shares. As a stockholder of record, you may vote either in person at the Annual Meeting or by proxy. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we urge you to complete and return the enclosed proxy card or submit your proxy through the internet or by telephone by following the instructions provided in the proxy card to ensure that your vote is counted.
Beneficial Owner: Shares Registered in the Name of a Broker, Bank or Other Agent
If at the close of business on April 3, 2017, your shares of common stock were held, not in your name, but rather in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, dealer or other similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name” and these proxy materials are being forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the stockholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank or other agent regarding how to vote the shares in your
7
| 2017 Proxy Statement
account. Certain of these institutions offer the ability to direct your agent how to vote through the internet or by telephone. You are also invited to attend the Annual Meeting. However, because you are not the stockholder of record, you may not vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting unless you request and obtain a valid proxy issued in your name from your broker, bank or other agent considered the stockholder of record of the shares.
There are six matters scheduled for a vote at the Annual Meeting:
| |
• | To elect the Class I nominees for director to serve until our 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or until their successors are duly elected and qualified; |
| |
• | To ratify the selection of Grant Thornton LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 30, 2017; |
| |
• | To vote on an advisory resolution to approve named executive officer compensation; |
| |
• | To vote on an advisory resolution on the frequency of future advisory resolutions to approve named executive officer compensation; |
| |
• | To approve our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; and |
| |
• | To approve our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan. |
|
| | | | |
5. Will there be any other items of business on the agenda? |
Aside from the election of the Class I directors, the ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm, the advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, the advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory resolutions to approve named executive officer compensation, the approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan and the approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan the Board knows of no matters to be presented at the Annual Meeting. If any other matter should be presented at the Annual Meeting upon which a vote properly may be taken, shares represented by all proxies received by the Board will be voted with respect thereto in accordance with the judgment of the persons named as attorneys-in-fact in the proxies.
|
| | | | |
6. What is the Masimo Board’s voting recommendation? |
Masimo’s Board recommends that you vote your shares:
| |
• | “For” the nominees to the Board; |
| |
• | “For” the ratification of the selection of Grant Thornton LLP as Masimo’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 30, 2017; |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our named executive officer compensation; |
| |
• | With respect to future advisory resolutions to approve named executive compensation “Every Year” (an annual vote); |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; and |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan. |
For Proposal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, you may vote “For” or “Against” or abstain from voting. For Proposal No. 4, the advisory vote on how frequently we should solicit stockholder advisory approval of executive compensation, you may vote for any one of the following: once every one, two or three years, or you may abstain from voting. The procedures for voting are described below, based upon your form of ownership.
8
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Stockholder of Record: Shares Registered in Your Name
If you are a stockholder of record, you may vote in person at the Annual Meeting. We will give you a ballot when you arrive.
If you do not wish to vote in person or you will not be attending the Annual Meeting, you may vote by proxy. You may vote by proxy using the enclosed proxy card, vote by proxy on the internet or vote by proxy over the telephone. The procedures for voting by proxy are as follows:
| |
• | To vote by proxy using the enclosed proxy card, complete, sign and date your proxy card and return it promptly in the envelope provided. |
| |
• | To vote by proxy on the internet, go to www.envisionreports.com/MASI and follow the instructions set forth on the internet site. |
| |
• | To vote by proxy over the telephone, dial the toll-free telephone number listed on your proxy card under the heading “vote by telephone” using a touch-tone telephone and follow the recorded instructions. |
If you vote by proxy, your vote must be received by 11:00 p.m. Pacific Time on May 31, 2017, to be counted.
We provide internet and telephone proxy voting with procedures designed to ensure the authenticity and correctness of your proxy vote instructions. However, please be aware that you must bear any costs associated with your internet and telephone access, such as usage charges from internet access providers and telephone companies.
Beneficial Owner: Shares Registered in the Name of Your Broker, Bank or Other Agent
If you are a beneficial owner of shares registered in the name of your broker, bank or other agent, you should have received a proxy card and voting instructions with these proxy materials from that organization rather than from Masimo. To ensure that your vote is counted, simply complete and mail the proxy card or, if provided by your agent, follow the instructions for submitting your proxy through the internet or by telephone. To vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must obtain a valid proxy from your broker, bank or other agent in whose name the shares are registered. Follow the instructions from your broker, bank or other agent included with these proxy materials, or contact your broker, bank or other agent to request a proxy card.
|
| | | | |
8. How do I vote my Masimo shares held through the Masimo Retirement Savings Plan? |
If you hold shares of Masimo common stock through the Masimo Retirement Savings Plan (the “Savings Plan”) as of the record date, your proxy will also serve as a voting instruction for Fidelity Management Trust Company (“Fidelity”), which serves as the administrator of the Savings Plan, with respect to shares of Masimo common stock that you hold through the Savings Plan. You should sign the proxy card and return it in the enclosed envelope, or you may submit your proxy over the internet or by telephone by following the instructions on the enclosed proxy card. Fidelity will vote your Savings Plan shares as of the record date in the manner directed in the last timely voting instructions that are received from you. If voting instructions are not received from you by 11:00 p.m. Pacific Time on May 28, 2017, Fidelity will vote your Savings Plan shares as of the record date in the same manner, proportionally, as it votes the other shares of common stock for which proper and timely voting instructions of other Savings Plan participants have been received by Fidelity. You may change or revoke previously given voting instructions in any of the ways described under the question “Can I change my vote after submitting my proxy?”; however, your revocation or changed voting instructions must be received no later than 11:00 p.m. Pacific Time on May 28, 2017 or else we will not be able to timely notify Fidelity of your revoked or changed voting instructions.
|
| | | | |
9. How many votes do I have?
|
On each matter to be voted upon, holders of common stock will have one vote for each share of common stock they owned as of the close of business on April 3, 2017, the record date for the Annual Meeting.
9
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
| | | | |
10. Will my vote be kept confidential?
|
Proxies, ballots and voting tabulations are handled on a confidential basis to protect your voting privacy. This information will not be disclosed, except as required by law.
|
| | | | |
11. Who is paying for this proxy solicitation?
|
We will bear the cost of soliciting proxies for the Annual Meeting. We will ask banks, brokerage houses, fiduciaries and custodians holding shares of Masimo common stock in their names for others to send proxy materials to and obtain proxies from the beneficial owners of such shares, and we will reimburse them for their reasonable expenses in doing so. We and our directors, officers and regular employees may solicit proxies by mail, personally, by telephone or by other appropriate means. We have engaged Kingsdale Advisors (“Kingsdale”) as our stockholder advisor and proxy solicitation agent and will pay fees of approximately $21,000, plus certain out-of-pocket expenses, to Kingsdale to assist us with the solicitation of proxies. No additional compensation will be paid to directors, officers or other regular employees for such services.
|
| | | | |
12. What does it mean if I receive more than one proxy card?
|
If you receive more than one proxy card, your shares are registered in more than one name or are registered in different accounts. Please complete, sign and return each proxy card to ensure that all of your shares are voted.
|
| | | | |
13. Can I change my vote after submitting my proxy?
|
Yes. You can revoke your proxy at any time before the final vote at the Annual Meeting. If you are a stockholder of record, you may revoke your proxy in any one of four ways:
| |
• | You may submit another properly completed and executed proxy card with a later date; |
| |
• | You may submit a new proxy through the internet or by telephone (1-800-652-VOTE) (your latest internet or telephone instructions submitted prior to the deadline will be followed); |
| |
• | You may send a written notice that you are revoking your proxy to our Corporate Secretary, c/o Masimo Corporation, 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618; or |
| |
• | You may attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. However, simply attending the Annual Meeting will not, by itself, revoke your proxy. |
If you are a beneficial owner of shares registered in the name of your broker, bank or other agent, follow the voting instructions from that organization included with these proxy materials, or contact that organization to determine how you may revoke your proxy.
Votes will be counted by the inspector of election appointed for the Annual Meeting.
|
| | | | |
14. How are my shares voted if I give no specific instruction?
|
We must vote your shares as you have instructed. If there is a matter on which a stockholder of record has given no specific instruction but has authorized us generally to vote the shares, they will be voted as follows:
| |
• | “For” the election of the Class I director nominees; |
| |
• | “For” the ratification of the selection of Grant Thornton LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 30, 2017; |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our named executive officer compensation; |
10
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
• | With respect to future advisory resolutions to approve named executive compensation “Every Year” (an annual vote); |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; and |
| |
• | “For” the approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan. |
This authorization would exist, for example, if a stockholder of record merely signs, dates and returns the proxy card but does not indicate how its shares are to be voted on one or more proposals. If other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting and you do not provide specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted at the discretion of the proxies.
If your shares are held in street name, see “What is a broker non-vote?” below regarding the ability of brokers, banks and other such holders of record to vote the uninstructed shares of their customers or other beneficial owners in their discretion and regarding broker non-votes.
|
| | | | |
15. What is a broker non-vote?
|
Under rules that govern brokers, banks and others who have record ownership of company stock held in brokerage accounts for their clients who beneficially own the shares, these brokers, banks and other such holders who do not receive voting instructions from their clients have the discretion to vote uninstructed shares on certain matters (“discretionary matters”) but do not have discretion to vote uninstructed shares as to certain other matters (“non-discretionary matters”). Only the ratification of auditors is considered a discretionary matter at the Annual Meeting under these rules. A broker may return a proxy card on behalf of a beneficial owner from whom the broker has not received voting instructions that casts a vote with regard to discretionary matters but expressly states that the broker is not voting as to non-discretionary matters. The broker’s inability to vote with respect to the non-discretionary matters with respect to which the broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner is referred to as a “broker non-vote”.
|
| | | | |
16. What are the voting requirements that apply to the proposals discussed in this Proxy Statement?
|
|
| | | | |
Proposals | | Vote Required | | Discretionary Voting Allowed? |
1. Election of Directors | | Majority Cast | | No |
2. Ratification of Auditors | | Majority Cast | | Yes |
3. Advisory Vote to Approve the Compensation of our Named Executive Officers | | Majority Cast | | No |
4. Advisory Vote on Frequency of Future Advisory Resolutions to Approve Named Executive Officer Compensation | | Plurality Cast | | No |
5. Approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan | | Majority Cast | | No |
6. Approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan | | Majority Cast | | No |
A “majority cast”, with regard to the election of a director, means the number of votes cast “for” a nominee’s election must exceed the number of votes cast “against” such nominee’s election. A “majority cast”, with regard to the ratification of auditors, the advisory vote to approve our named executive compensation, the approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; and the approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan, means the number of votes cast “for” the proposal must exceed the number of votes cast “against” such proposal.
A “plurality cast”, with regard to the advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory resolutions to approve named executive officer compensation, means that the option (every one, two or three years) receiving the greatest number of “for” votes will be considered the frequency recommended by stockholders.
11
| 2017 Proxy Statement
“Discretionary voting” occurs when a broker, bank or other holder of record does not receive voting instructions from the beneficial owner and votes those shares at its discretion on any proposal as to which rules permit such broker, bank or other holder of record to vote. As noted above, when brokers, banks and other holders of record are not permitted under the rules to vote the beneficial owner’s shares, the affected shares are referred to as “broker non-votes”.
Although the votes on Proposal Nos. 3 and 4 are advisory and non-binding, as provided by law, our Board will review the results of the votes and, consistent with our record of stockholder engagement, will consider the results in making future decisions concerning executive compensation and the frequency of future advisory resolutions to approve executive compensation.
|
| | | | |
17. What is the effect of abstentions and broker non-votes? |
Abstentions: Under Delaware law (under which Masimo is incorporated), abstentions are counted as shares present and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting, but they are not counted as shares cast. Therefore, abstentions will have no effect on Proposal No. 1—Election of Directors; Proposal No. 2—Ratification of Auditors, Proposal No. 3—Advisory Vote to Approve the Compensation of our Named Executive Officers, Proposal No. 4—Advisory Vote on Frequency of Future Advisory Resolutions to Approve Named Executive Officer Compensation; Proposal No. 5—Approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan; or Proposal No. 6—Approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan.
Broker Non-Votes: As a result of a change in rules related to discretionary voting and broker non-votes, brokers, banks and other such record holders are no longer permitted to vote the uninstructed shares of their customers on a discretionary basis in the election of directors, on named executive officer compensation matters or on approvals of equity or cash incentive plans. Because broker non-votes are not considered under Delaware law to be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting, they will have no effect on the outcome of the vote on: Proposa1 No. 1—Election of Directors, Proposal No. 3—Advisory Vote to Approve the Compensation of our Named Executive Officers, Proposal No. 4—Advisory Vote on Frequency of Future Advisory Resolutions to Approve Named Executive Officer Compensation, Proposal No. 5—Approval of our 2017 Equity Incentive Plan and Proposal No. 6—Approval of our Executive Bonus Incentive Plan. As a result, if you hold your shares in street name and you do not instruct your broker, bank or other such holder how to vote your shares in the election of directors or the advisory vote related to the approval of our executive compensation program, no votes will be cast on your behalf on these proposals. Therefore, it is critical that you indicate your vote on these proposals if you want your vote to be counted. The proposal to ratify the selection of Grant Thornton LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 30, 2017 should be considered a discretionary matter. Therefore, your broker, bank or other such holder will be able to vote on this proposal even if it does not receive instructions from you, so long as it holds your shares in its name.
|
| | | | |
18. What happens if an incumbent director nominee does not receive a majority of the votes cast for his re-election? |
Our Bylaws require that if an incumbent director nominee does not receive a majority of the votes cast for his re-election, such incumbent nominee is to promptly tender his resignation to the Board. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will then make a recommendation to the full Board as to whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, or whether other action should be taken. Our Board will then decide whether to accept or reject the resignation, taking into account the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation. The determination of our Board and the rationale behind the decision will be publicly disclosed (by a press release, a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or other broadly disseminated means of communication) within 90 days from the date of the certification of the election results of our Annual Meeting. If the incumbent director’s resignation is not accepted by our Board, the director will continue to serve until his successor is duly elected, or his earlier resignation or removal. If a director’s resignation is accepted by our Board, then our Board may fill any resulting vacancy or decrease the size of the Board.
12
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
| | | | |
19. What is the quorum requirement?
|
A quorum of stockholders is necessary to hold a valid meeting. A quorum will be present if at least a majority of our outstanding shares of common stock are represented by votes at the Annual Meeting or by proxy. At the close of business on April 3, 2017, the record date for the Annual Meeting, there were 51,462,547 shares of common stock outstanding. Thus, a total of 51,462,547 shares are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and holders of common stock representing at least 25,731,275 votes must be represented at the Annual Meeting or by proxy to have a quorum.
Your shares will be counted towards the quorum only if you submit a valid proxy (or if one is submitted on your behalf by your broker, bank or other agent) or if you vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted towards the quorum requirement. If there is no quorum, the chairman of the meeting or a majority of the shares present at the Annual Meeting may adjourn the Annual Meeting to another date.
|
| | | | |
20. Who will count the votes?
|
The votes will be counted, tabulated and certified by Computershare Trust Company, N.A., Masimo’s transfer agent and registrar for the Company’s common stock.
|
| | | | |
21. I also have received a copy of Masimo Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. Is that a part of the proxy materials? |
Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the SEC on February 15, 2017, accompanies this Proxy Statement. This document constitutes our Annual Report to Stockholders, and is being made available to all stockholders entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting. Except as otherwise stated, the Annual Report on Form 10-K is not incorporated into this Proxy Statement and should not be considered proxy solicitation material.
|
| | | | |
22. How can I find out the results of the voting at the Annual Meeting? |
Voting results are expected to be announced at the Annual Meeting and will also be disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”) that we will file with the SEC within four business days of the date of the Annual Meeting. In the event the results disclosed in our Form 8-K are preliminary, we will subsequently amend the Form 8-K to report the final voting results within four business days of the date that such results are known.
|
| | | | |
23. When are stockholder proposals due for next year’s annual meeting of stockholders? |
Stockholders may submit proposals on matters appropriate for stockholder action at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Company’s Stockholders (“2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders”) consistent with Rule 14a-8 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). To be considered for inclusion in proxy materials for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, a stockholder proposal must be submitted in writing no later than December 13, 2017 to our Corporate Secretary at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618. However, if the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is convened more than 30 days before, or delayed by more than 30 days after June 1, 2018, to be considered for inclusion in proxy materials for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, a stockholder proposal must be submitted in writing to our Corporate Secretary at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618 a reasonable time before we begin to print and send our proxy materials for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
13
| 2017 Proxy Statement
If you wish to submit a proposal that is not to be included in the proxy materials for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, your proposal generally must be submitted in writing to the same address no later than February 26, 2018, but no earlier than January 27, 2018. However, if the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is convened more than 30 days before, or delayed by more than 30 days after June 1, 2018, a stockholder proposal that is not to be included in the proxy materials for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders must be submitted in writing to our Corporate Secretary at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618 not later than the close of business on the later of (1) the 90th day before the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or (2) the 10th day following the day on which we first publicly announce (by press release or disclosure in a filing with the SEC) the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Please review our Bylaws, which contain additional requirements regarding advance notice of stockholder proposals. You may view our Bylaws by visiting the SEC’s internet website at www.sec.gov.
14
| 2017 Proxy Statement
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Our executive officers are appointed by and serve at the discretion of our Board. Our executive officers, their ages, respective positions and biographies are listed below:
|
| | | | |
Name | | Age(1) | | Position(s) |
Joe Kiani | | 52 | | Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board |
Mark de Raad | | 57 | | Executive Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer |
Jon Coleman | | 53 | | President, Worldwide Sales, Professional Services & Medical Affairs |
Rick Fishel | | 59 | | President, Worldwide OEM Business & Strategic Development |
Yongsam Lee | | 52 | | Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer |
Tom McClenahan | | 44 | | Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary |
Anand Sampath | | 50 | | Chief Operating Officer |
___________
| |
(1) | As of March 15, 2017. |
|
|
Joe Kiani |
Joe Kiani is the founder of Masimo and has served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) & Chairman of the Board since our inception in 1989. He is an inventor on more than 100 patents related to signal processing, sensors and patient monitoring, including patents for the invention of Measure-through motion and low-perfusion pulse oximetry. Since September 2016, Mr. Kiani has served on the Board of Directors of Stereotaxis, Inc. (OTCQX: STXS), a manufacturer of robotic cardiology instrument navigation systems. From 1998 to March 2013, Mr. Kiani served on the Board of Directors of Saba Software, Inc., a publicly-traded software company focused on human capital development and management solutions. Mr. Kiani holds a B.S.E.E. and an M.S.E.E. from San Diego State University. In addition to Mr. Kiani’s role at Masimo, he is also the Chairman of the Masimo Foundation for Ethics, Innovation and Competition in Healthcare, Chairman of the Patient Safety Movement Foundation, Chairman and CEO of the Patient Safety Movement Coalition and Chairman and CEO of Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. He also sits on the Boards of Directors of Atheer Labs, CHOC Children’s Orange/CHOC Children’s at Mission Hospital, Bioniz Therapeutics, Inc. and the Medical Device Manufactures Association. As Masimo’s founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board since our formation in 1989, Mr. Kiani has the deepest understanding of Masimo, our history, our culture and our technology. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee believes he has broad experience in a wide range of functional areas, including strategic planning, strategic investments, engineering and development, and legal and governmental affairs. Mr. Kiani is critical to the Company’s continued development and growth. |
|
Mark de Raad |
Mark de Raad has served as our Executive Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer since June 2006 and as our Corporate Secretary from December 2009 through August 2014. From November 2002 through May 2006, Mr. de Raad served as Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary for Avamar Technologies, Inc., a start-up enterprise software development company. He served as Chief Financial Officer, Quantum Storage Solutions Group, a division of Quantum Corporation from June 2001 through November 2002. From September 1997 through June 2001, Mr. de Raad was Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer for ATL Products, Inc., a manufacturer of automated tape libraries. Mr. de Raad is a Certified Public Accountant (inactive) and holds a B.S. in Accounting from the University of Santa Clara. |
|
Jon Coleman |
Jon Coleman has served as our President, Worldwide Sales, Professional Services & Medical Affairs since February 2011, and was our President, International from August 2008 to February 2011. From October 2007 to August 2008, Mr. Coleman was President and Chief Executive Officer of You Take Control, Inc., a healthcare information technology start-up company. He served as General Manager, Americas of Targus Group International, a supplier of mobile computing cases and accessories, from March 2006 to February 2007. From March 1994 to February 2006, he held progressive leadership positions with Pfizer, Inc., most recently Vice President and General Manager, Canada & Caribbean Region. Mr. Coleman holds a M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, and a B.A. in International Relations from Brigham Young University. |
|
15
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
|
Rick Fishel |
Rick Fishel has served as President, Worldwide OEM Business and Strategic Development since February 2016, was President, Worldwide OEM Business & Blood Management from January 2013 to February 2016 and was President, Worldwide OEM Business and Corporate Development from February 2011 to January 2013. From February 2009 to February 2011, he was our President, Americas and Worldwide OEM Business, and was President of Masimo Americas from June 2004 to February 2009. From January 2003 to June 2004, Mr. Fishel was Regional Vice President of Sales for the Information Solutions segment of the McKesson Corporation, a provider of supply, information and care management products and services. From January 2001 to January 2003, he served as National Vice President of Sales for the Consulting Services division of GE Medical Systems, Inc., a provider of medical technology and productivity solutions. Mr. Fishel holds a B.S. in Marketing from Arizona State University. |
|
Yongsam Lee |
Yongsam Lee has served as our Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer since August 2014. From March 1996 to October 2001 and from April 2002 to August 2014, Mr. Lee held various positions with us, including Vice President, IT, Chief Information Officer, Executive Vice President, Operations, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs & Chief Information Officer. From October 2001 to April 2002, he served as Director of IT at SMC Networks, Inc., a provider of networking solutions. Mr. Lee holds a B.S. in Applied Physics from the University of California, Irvine. |
|
Tom McClenahan |
Tom McClenahan has served as our Executive Vice President & General Counsel since April 2013 and as our Corporate Secretary since August 2014. From April 2011 to April 2013, Mr. McClenahan was our Vice President and Assistant General Counsel. From November 2002 to April 2011, he was an associate and then principal with the law firm of Fish & Richardson. From September 1999 to November 2002, he was an associate with the law firm of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear. Mr. McClenahan holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Iowa State University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. |
|
Anand Sampath |
Anand Sampath has served as our Chief Operating Officer since August 2014. Prior to that, he served as Executive Vice President, Engineering since March 2007. He is an inventor on more than ten patents relating to patient monitoring, wireless networks and communications. From April 2006 to March 2007, Mr. Sampath was our Director of Systems Engineering. From October 1995 to March 2006, he held various positions, including Program Manager, Engineering Manager and Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, at Motorola, Inc. Mr. Sampath holds a B.S. in Engineering from Bangalore University. |
|
There are no family relationships between or among any of our executive officers or directors.
16
| 2017 Proxy Statement
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Our Board presently has six members and is divided into three classes, designated Class I, Class II and Class III. Each class currently consists of two directors and has a three-year term. Class I, Class II and Class III directors currently have a remaining term of office until the 2017, 2018 and 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, respectively. Vacancies on the Board may be filled only by persons elected by a majority of the remaining directors in office (even though the remaining directors may constitute less than a quorum). A director elected by our Board to fill a vacancy in a Class, including a vacancy created by an increase in the number of directors, will serve for the remainder of the full term of that Class and until the director’s successor is elected and qualified or until the director’s earlier death, resignation or removal.
The names of our current directors, their ages, director class and biographies are listed below. There are no family relationships between or among any of our directors.
|
| | | | | | |
Name | | Age(1) | | Director Class | | Position(s) |
Steven J. Barker, M.D., Ph.D. | | 72 | | Class I | | Director |
Sanford Fitch | | 76 | | Class I | | Director |
Thomas Harkin | | 77 | | Class II | | Director |
Joe Kiani(2) | | 52 | | Class II | | Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board |
Adam Mikkelson | | 38 | | Class III | | Director |
Craig Reynolds | | 68 | | Class III | | Director |
___________
| |
(1) | As of March 15, 2017. |
| |
(2) | Please see “Executive Officers” on page 15 of this Proxy Statement for Mr. Kiani’s biography. |
|
|
Steven J. Barker, M.D., Ph.D. |
Steven J. Barker, M.D., Ph.D., has served as a member of our Board since October 2005, has served in a consulting capacity as our Chief Science Officer and Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board since March 2015, and previously served as our interim Chief Medical Officer from July 2013 to March 2015. Dr. Barker has also served as Professor Emeritus of Anesthesiology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine since July 2013. Prior to that, from October 1995 to July 2013, Dr. Barker served as Professor and Head of Anesthesiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine. From August 1990 to October 1995, Dr. Barker served as Chairman of Anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine. He also holds a joint appointment as Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Arizona. Dr. Barker has been an oral examiner for the American Board of Anesthesiology, and was the Section Editor for Technology, Computing, and Simulation in the Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia. He holds a B.S. in Physics from Harvey Mudd College, an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology and an M.D. from the University of Miami. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee believes Dr. Barker’s academic and medical background, as well as his in-depth knowledge of the healthcare industry and hospital operations, academic administration and managed care industry, provide him with a critical perspective regarding Masimo’s products, technologies and prospects. His medical background, including his expertise in anesthesiology, is particularly relevant to Masimo when the Company evaluates its products and technologies. In addition, Dr. Barker is able to provide us with the unique perspective of a physician. |
|
17
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
|
Sanford Fitch |
Sanford Fitch has served as a member of our Board since November 2006. Mr. Fitch has served as a director, Audit Committee Chairman and member of the Compensation Committee of Iridex Corp., a public company that designs, develops, manufactures and sells medical laser systems since 2004. Mr. Fitch served as a director and Audit Committee Chairman of FoxHollow Technologies, Inc., a public company that designed, developed, manufactured and sold medical devices, from June 2004 until October 2007. He also served as a director and Audit Committee Chairman of Conceptus, Inc., a public medical device company, from December 1994 until April 2004, where he also served as its Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Operations from December 1994 through October 1998. Mr. Fitch has also served as the Chief Financial Officer of several start-up technology companies from 1998 until 2002 and of various public technology companies from 1983 to 2002. Mr. Fitch holds a B.S. in Chemistry and an M.B.A. from Stanford University. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee finds Mr. Fitch’s financial background to be extremely helpful to the Board and suited to his role as Chairperson of our Audit Committee.Mr. Fitch brings to us previous experience as a Chief Financial Officer for multiple companies over his long career, and as audit committee chairperson of public companies, which uniquely qualifies him to serve as our Audit Committee Chairperson. In addition to Mr. Fitch’s prior leadership and management experience working with medical technology companies, Mr. Fitch has considerable financial, auditing, risk management and corporate governance experience and he is an audit committee financial expert under the rules of the SEC, all of which enable him to make valuable contributions to the Board and the Audit Committee. |
|
Thomas Harkin |
Thomas Harkin has served as a member of our Board since December 2015. Mr. Harkin, formerly a five-term U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, retired from the U.S. Senate in January 2015. Senator Harkin was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974, and 10 years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Prior to his service in the House of Representatives, Mr. Harkin served in the U.S. Navy and achieved the rank of lieutenant commander. Mr. Harkin holds a B.S. from Iowa State, a J.D. from Catholic University of America and was admitted to the Iowa Bar in 1972. Mr. Harkin’s experience in the Senate, and in particular his work on healthcare-related legislation, as well as his extensive understanding of the healthcare system in the U.S., bring a unique perspective and insight to the Board and the Compensation and Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committees. |
|
Adam Mikkelson |
Adam Mikkelson has served as a member of our Board since October 2016. Mr. Mikkelson is a Partner at Camber Capital Management, LLC, a healthcare-focused investment fund. Mr. Mikkelson has been with Camber Capital since 2007 and has nearly 15 years of experience in the healthcare investment arena, where he focuses on identifying and actively monitoring investment opportunities in both the therapeutic and medical device sectors. Prior to joining Camber Capital, Mr. Mikkelson held various roles at Datamonitor plc and Leerink Partners. He received his B.S. in Business Administration from Boston University. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee believes Mr. Mikkelson’s investment experience allows him to provide additional insight to the Board on strategy and business decisions as well as make valuable contributions to the Audit, Compensation and Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committees. |
|
Craig Reynolds |
Craig Reynolds has served as a member of our Board since April 2014. Mr. Reynolds is currently Chief Executive Officer and a director of Cereve, Inc., a medical company engaged in resolving insomnia issues. Prior to joining Cereve, Mr. Reynolds served as Chief Operating Officer of Philips-Respironics Home Health Solutions (“Philips-Respironics”), a subsidiary of Philips, from 2008 to 2010. Prior to Philips-Respironics, Mr. Reynolds was the Chief Operating Officer and a board member of Respironics, Inc., a company that develops, manufactures and markets medical devices worldwide, from 1998 to 2008. From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Reynolds was with Healthdyne Technologies, Inc., a medical device company, serving for five years as Chief Executive Officer and director. From 1981 through 1992, Mr. Reynolds was with Healthdyne, Inc. in the positions of Executive V.P. (1981 to 1983), President of Healthdyne Cardiovascular Division (1984 to 1985) and President of Healthdyne Homecare Division (1986 to 1992). From 2008 through 2014, Mr. Reynolds served as a director of Symmetry Medical, Inc., most recently as Chairman of the Board. He also served as Chairman of the Board of Symmetry Surgical, Inc. from 2014 through 2016. Mr. Reynolds earned his B.S. in Industrial Management from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his M.B.A. from Georgia State University. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee believes Mr. Reynolds’ experience with other medical device companies allows him to provide additional insight to the Board on strategy decisions as well as make valuable contributions to the Audit, Compensation and Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committees. |
18
| 2017 Proxy Statement
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD MATTERS
This section describes key corporate governance guidelines and practices that we have adopted. Complete copies of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the charters of the committees of our Board and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics described below may be viewed on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance”. Alternately, you can request a copy of any of these documents free of charge by writing to our Corporate Secretary, c/o Masimo Corporation, 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618.
Corporate Governance Guidelines
Our Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines to ensure that our Board will have the necessary authority and practices in place to exercise its duties and responsibilities, to review and evaluate our business operations as needed, to make decisions that are independent of our management and to serve the best interests of Masimo and our stockholders. These Corporate Governance Guidelines provide a framework for the conduct of the Board’s business, and provide that:
| |
▪ | except in unusual circumstances, the positions of the Chairman of our Board and our Chief Executive Officer be held by the same person; |
| |
▪ | ordinarily, directors should not serve on more than four boards of publicly-traded companies, including our Board, and all our directors currently satisfy this requirement; |
| |
▪ | outside directors must own a minimum number of shares of our common stock (see “Non-Employee Director Compensation—Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Policy” on page 29 of this Proxy Statement for additional information); and |
| |
▪ | a non-employee director will not be nominated for re-election at the next annual meeting of stockholders for which his or her class of directors is up for election following his or her 15th anniversary of service on our Board, unless our Board waives this term limit with respect to such non-employee director as a result of its determination that such nomination is in the best interests of Masimo and its stockholders. |
The Corporate Governance Guidelines also set forth the practices our Board will follow with respect to Board composition and selection, Board meetings and Board committees and Chief Executive Officer performance evaluation and compensation. Our Board adopted the Corporate Governance Guidelines to, among other things, reflect changes to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) listing standards and SEC rules.
Independence of the Board of Directors
Our Board has the responsibility for establishing corporate policies and for the overall performance of the Company, although it is not involved in day-to-day operations. As required under the NASDAQ rules, a majority of the members of a listed company’s board of directors must qualify as “independent”, as affirmatively determined by our Board. Our Board consults with our counsel to ensure that the Board’s determinations are consistent with all relevant securities and other laws and regulations regarding the definition of “independent”, including those set forth in applicable NASDAQ rules, as in effect from time to time. Consistent with these considerations, after review of all relevant transactions or relationships between each director, or any of his family members, and Masimo, our senior management and our independent registered public accounting firm, our Board has determined that all of our directors other than Mr. Kiani and Dr. Barker are independent, as defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2).
Board Leadership Structure
Our Board believes that our Chief Executive Officer is best situated to serve as Chairman because he is the director who is most familiar with our business and industry, possesses detailed and in-depth knowledge of the issues, opportunities and challenges facing us and is therefore best positioned to develop agendas that ensure that the Board’s time and attention are focused on the most critical matters. Our independent directors bring experience, oversight and expertise from outside the Company and industry, while the Chief Executive Officer brings Company-specific experience and expertise. The Board believes that the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer facilitates
19
| 2017 Proxy Statement
information flow between management and the Board, which is essential to effective governance. The Company has no lead independent director.
Board’s Role in Risk Oversight
Our Board has an active role, as a whole and also at the committee level, in overseeing management of our risks. The Board regularly reviews information regarding our credit, liquidity and operations, as well as the risks associated with each. Our Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing the management of risks relating to our executive compensation plans and arrangements. Our Audit Committee oversees management of financial risks and our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee oversees management of risks associated with environmental, health, safety and other non-financial concerns and manages risks associated with the independence of the Board and potential conflicts of interest. While each committee is responsible for evaluating certain risks and overseeing the management of such risks, our entire Board is informed about such risks by the committees.
Meetings and Executive Sessions
Our Board meets on a regular basis throughout the year to review significant developments affecting the Company and to act upon matters requiring its approval. Our Board also holds special meetings, as required from time to time, when important matters arise requiring Board action between scheduled meetings. During fiscal year 2016, our Board met seven times and acted by unanimous written consent twice. None of our directors attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings held by the Board and the committees (on which and for the period during which the director served) during fiscal year 2016.
As required under applicable NASDAQ listing standards, our independent directors periodically meet in executive sessions at which only they are present.
Policy Regarding Board Member Attendance at Annual Meetings
It is the policy of our Board to invite directors and nominees for director to attend annual meetings of our stockholders. We held one annual meeting of stockholders in fiscal year 2016, which was attended by Mr. Kiani.
Information Regarding Board Committees
Our Board has established a standing Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee to devote attention to specific subjects and to assist it in the discharge of its responsibilities. All three committees operate under a written charter adopted by our Board, each of which is available on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance”. The following table provides membership and meeting information for fiscal year 2016 for the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee.
20
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
| | | | | | | |
Name | | Audit | | Compensation | | Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance | |
Employee Director: | | | | | | | |
Joe Kiani | | — | | — | | — | |
Non-Employee Directors: | | | | | | | |
Steven J. Barker, Ph.D., M.D.(1) | | — | | — | | — | |
Sanford Fitch | | ¬ | | — | (2) | — | (2) |
Thomas Harkin | | — | (3) | ü | | ¬ | (4) |
Jack Lasersohn(5) | | — | | — | (6) | — |
|
Adam Mikkelson(7) | | ü | (7) | ü | (7) | ü | (7) |
Craig Reynolds | | ü | | ¬ | | ü | (8) |
Total meetings in fiscal year 2016 | | 6 | | 6 | | 3 | |
___________ | |
(1) | Dr. Barker has provided consulting services to Masimo since July 2013. He currently serves as our Chief Science Officer and Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board and previously served as our interim Chief Medical Officer from July 2013 to March 2015. |
| |
(2) | Mr. Fitch served on the Compensation Committee and the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee until October 27, 2016. |
| |
(3) | Mr. Harkin served on the Audit Committee until October 27, 2016. |
| |
(4) | Mr. Harkin was appointed as the Chairperson of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee on February 11, 2016. |
| |
(5) | Mr. Lasersohn’s service on the Board and the committees thereof ended when his term expired at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on April 20, 2016. |
| |
(6) | Mr. Lasersohn served on the Compensation Committee until February 26, 2016. |
| |
(7) | Mr. Mikkelson was appointed to our Board on October 27, 2016, at which time he was also appointed to the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee. |
| |
(8) | Mr. Reynolds served as the Chairperson of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee until February 11, 2016. |
Audit Committee
We have a separately-designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. Our Audit Committee is currently comprised of Mr. Fitch, Mr. Mikkelson and Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Fitch serves as the Chairperson of the Audit Committee. The functions of this Committee include, among others:
| |
▪ | appointing, retaining and determining the compensation of our independent registered public accounting firm; |
| |
▪ | overseeing and approving any proposed audit and permissible non-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm; |
| |
▪ | reviewing at least annually the qualifications, performance and independence of our independent registered public accounting firm; |
| |
▪ | overseeing the relationship with our independent registered public accounting firm, including the rotation of the audit partners, as well as reviewing and resolving any disagreements between our management and ensuring discussions with our management and our independent registered public accounting firm relating to financial controls over financial reporting; |
| |
▪ | discussing with our management and our independent registered public accounting firm the design, implementation and effectiveness of our internal controls; |
21
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | reviewing and discussing with our management and our independent registered public accounting firm the results of the annual audit and the review of our quarterly financial statements; |
| |
▪ | reviewing the quarterly earnings announcement and any other public announcements regarding our results of operations with our management; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and discussing reports from our independent registered public accounting firm relating to our critical accounting policies and practices; |
| |
▪ | establishing and overseeing the processes and procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of any complaints regarding accounting, internal controls or audit matters, as well as the confidential and anonymous submissions by employees concerning questionable accounting, auditing and internal control matters; |
| |
▪ | investigating any matter brought to its attention, with full access to our books, records, facilities and employees, and with sole authority to select, retain and terminate any consultants, legal counsel or advisors to advise the Audit Committee; and |
| |
▪ | reviewing and evaluating, at least annually, the performance of the Audit Committee and its members, including compliance of the Audit Committee with its charter. |
Typically, the Audit Committee meets at least quarterly and with greater frequency if necessary. Our Board has adopted a written charter of the Audit Committee that is available to stockholders on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance”.
Under the applicable rules and regulations of NASDAQ, each member of a company’s audit committee must be considered independent in accordance with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(c)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) and Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Exchange Act. Our Board reviews the NASDAQ listing rules and standards and Exchange Act definitions of independence for Audit Committee members on an annual basis and has determined that all members of the Company’s Audit Committee are independent (as independence is currently defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(c)(2)(A)(i) and (ii)). Our Board has determined that all members of our Audit Committee also meet the requirements for financial literacy under the NASDAQ Listing Rules.
Our Board has determined that Mr. Fitch, the Chairperson of our Audit Committee, is an audit committee financial expert, as defined under applicable SEC rules, and that Mr. Fitch meets the background and financial sophistication requirements under NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(c)(2)(A). In making this determination, the Board made a qualitative assessment of Mr. Fitch’s level of knowledge and experience based on a number of factors, including his formal education and experience. Both our independent registered public accounting firm and internal financial personnel regularly meet privately with our Audit Committee and have unrestricted access to this committee.
Compensation Committee
Our Compensation Committee is currently comprised of Mr. Harkin, Mr. Mikkelson and Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds currently serves as the Chairperson of our Compensation Committee. The functions of this committee include, among others:
| |
▪ | reviewing and approving our general compensation strategy; |
| |
▪ | establishing annual and long-term performance goals for our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | conducting and reviewing with the Board an annual evaluation of the performance of our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | considering the competitiveness of the compensation of our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and approving all salaries, bonuses, equity awards, perquisites, post-service arrangements, and other compensation and benefit plans for our Chief Executive Officer and all other executive officers; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and approving the terms of any offer letters, employment agreements, termination agreements or arrangements, change in control agreements and other material agreements between us, on the one hand, and any of our executive officers, on the other; |
22
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | acting as the administering committee of our Board for our executive compensation and cash incentive plans and for any equity incentive plans, including establishing performance metrics, determining bonus payouts and granting equity awards to employees and executive officers; |
| |
▪ | providing oversight for our overall compensation plans and benefit programs; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and approving compensation programs as well as salaries, fees, bonuses and equity awards for the non-employee members of our Board; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and discussing with management the annual Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure and the related tabular presentations regarding named executive officer compensation; |
| |
▪ | overseeing risks and exposures associated with executive compensation programs and arrangements, including incentive plans; and |
| |
▪ | reviewing and evaluating, at least annually, the performance of the Compensation Committee and its members, including compliance of the Compensation Committee with its charter. |
Our Board has adopted a written charter of the Compensation Committee that is available to stockholders on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance”. Our Board has determined that all members of our Compensation Committee are independent (as independence is currently defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)). The Compensation Committee meets from time to time during the year. The agenda for each meeting is usually developed by the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee, in consultation with our Chief Executive Officer and other representatives of senior management and human resources as necessary. The Chief Executive Officer may not participate in or be present during any deliberations or determinations of the Compensation Committee regarding his compensation. The charter of the Compensation Committee grants the Compensation Committee full access to all of our books, records, facilities and personnel. The Compensation Committee has the authority, in its sole discretion, to retain and terminate (or obtain the advice of) any adviser to assist it in the performance of its duties, but only after taking into consideration factors relevant to the adviser’s independence specified in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(d)(3). The Compensation Committee will be directly responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of any adviser retained by the Compensation Committee, and will have sole authority to approve the adviser’s fees and the other terms and conditions of the adviser’s retention.
From 2012 to 2016, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”) provided compensation consulting services to assist management and the Compensation Committee in assessing and determining competitive compensation packages. At all times during its engagement by the Compensation Committee, FW Cook was independent from Masimo and received compensation from Masimo only for services provided to the Compensation Committee. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Compensation Committee retained the services of Compensia, Inc. (“Compensia”) to assist the Compensation Committee in assessing and determining competitive compensation packages and to provide input on other executive compensation related matters. Compensia is independent from Masimo and has received compensation from Masimo only for services provided to the Compensation Committee. For more information regarding the Compensation Committee’s engagement of FW Cook and Compensia, see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below.
The Compensation Committee meets outside the presence of all of our executive officers, including the named executive officers, in order to consider appropriate compensation for our Chief Executive Officer. For all other named executive officers, the Compensation Committee meets outside the presence of all executive officers except our Chief Executive Officer. The specific determinations of the Compensation Committee with respect to executive compensation for fiscal year 2016 are described in greater detail in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement.
23
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee
Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee is currently comprised of Mr. Harkin, Mr. Mikkelson and Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Harkin currently serves as the Chairperson of our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee. The functions of this committee include, among others:
| |
▪ | evaluating the composition, size, organization and governance of our Board and its committees, making recommendations to our Board about the appointment of directors to committees of our Board and recommending the selection of chairs of these committees to the Board; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and recommending to our Board director independence determinations made with respect to continuing and prospective directors; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and recommending to our Board “Section 16 officer” determinations with respect to our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | developing and recommending to our Board policies for considering director nominees for election to the Board; |
| |
▪ | identifying, reviewing, considering and evaluating candidates for election to the Board and recommending to the Board candidates to be nominated for election or incumbent directors to be nominated for re-election at each annual meeting of our stockholders or to fill any vacancies on the Board or any newly-created directorships; |
| |
▪ | overseeing our Board’s performance and annual self-evaluation process and evaluating the participation of members of the Board in continuing education activities in accordance with NASDAQ rules; |
| |
▪ | overseeing corporate governance; |
| |
▪ | overseeing our corporate compliance programs; |
| |
▪ | developing, and updating as necessary, a legal compliance and ethics program designed to evaluate, maintain and correct, when appropriate, our overall compliance with all federal and state rules and regulations and all of the Company’s codes of ethics and conduct; |
| |
▪ | in consultation with the Audit Committee, reviewing and, if appropriate, updating or recommending to our Board updates to our existing procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of reports or evidence of violations of any federal or state rules or regulations or of our codes of ethics and conduct; and |
| |
▪ | reviewing and evaluating, at least annually, the performance of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee and its members, including compliance of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee with its charter. |
Our Board has adopted a written charter of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee that is available to stockholders on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance”. Our Board has determined that all members of our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee are independent (as independence is currently defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)). The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee meets from time to time as it deems appropriate or necessary.
Consideration of Director Nominees
Director Qualifications
There are no specific minimum qualifications that the Board requires to be met by a director nominee recommended for a position on our Board, nor are there any specific qualities or skills that are necessary for one or more members of our Board to possess, other than as are necessary to meet the requirements of the rules and regulations applicable to us. The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee may consider a potential director candidate’s experience, areas of expertise and other factors relative to the overall composition of our Board and its committees, including the following characteristics:
| |
▪ | the highest ethical standards and integrity and a strong personal reputation; |
| |
▪ | a background that provides experience and achievement in business, finance, biotechnology or other activities relevant to our business and activities; |
24
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | a willingness to act on and be accountable for Board and, as applicable, committee decisions; |
| |
▪ | an ability to provide reasoned, informed and thoughtful counsel to management on a range of issues affecting us and our stockholders; |
| |
▪ | an ability to work effectively and collegially with other individuals; |
| |
▪ | loyalty and commitment to driving our success and increasing long-term value for our stockholders; |
| |
▪ | sufficient time to devote to Board and, as applicable, committee membership and matters; and |
| |
▪ | the independence requirements imposed by the SEC and NASDAQ. |
The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee retains the right to modify these criteria from time to time.
Security Holder Nominations
The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended by our stockholders of record. The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee does not intend to alter the manner in which it evaluates candidates, including the criteria set forth above, based on whether a candidate was recommended by a stockholder of record or not. Stockholders of record who wish to recommend individuals for consideration by the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee to become nominees for election to the Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders must do so by delivering a written recommendation to the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee, c/o Masimo Corporation, 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618, Attention: Corporate Secretary, no later than the close of business on February 26, 2018, and no earlier than January 27, 2018, unless the meeting date is more than 30 days before or after June 1, 2018, in which case the written recommendation must be received by our Corporate Secretary no later than the close of business on the later of (i) the 90th day before the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or (ii) the 10th day following the day on which we first publicly announce the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Each written recommendation must set forth, among other information:
| |
▪ | the name and address of the stockholder of record and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination is being made; |
| |
▪ | the class, series and number of shares of Masimo, and any convertible securities of Masimo, that are beneficially owned by the stockholder of record and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination is being made; |
| |
▪ | any proxy, contract, arrangement, understanding or relationship pursuant to which the stockholder of record and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination is being made has the right to vote any of Masimo’s voting securities; |
| |
▪ | any “short” interest in Masimo’s securities held by the stockholder of record and any beneficial owner on whose behalf the nomination is being made; |
| |
▪ | the proposed director candidate’s full legal name, age, business address and residential address; |
| |
▪ | complete biographical information for the proposed director candidate, including the proposed director candidate’s principal occupation or employment and business experience for at least the previous five years; |
| |
▪ | a description of the proposed candidate’s qualifications as a director; |
| |
▪ | the class and number of shares of Masimo that are beneficially owned by the proposed director candidate as of the date of the written recommendation; and |
| |
▪ | any other information relating to the proposed director candidate that is required to be disclosed in solicitations for proxies for election of directors pursuant to Regulation 14A promulgated under the Exchange Act. |
Director candidate nominations from stockholders must include the written consent of each proposed nominee to serve as director if so elected. If a proposed director candidate is recommended by a stockholder in accordance with the procedural requirements discussed above, the Corporate Secretary will provide the foregoing information to the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee.
25
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Evaluating Nominees for Director
Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates who are suggested by members of the committee, other members of our Board, members of management, advisors and our security holders who submit recommendations in accordance with the requirements set forth above. The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee may, in the future, also retain a third-party search firm to identify candidates on terms and conditions acceptable to the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee, but to date it has not paid a fee to any third party to assist in the process of identifying or evaluating director candidates. The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate all nominees for director under the same approach whether they are recommended by security holders or other sources.
The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will review candidates for director nominees in the context of the current composition of our Board and committees, the operating requirements of the Company and the long-term interests of our stockholders. In conducting this assessment, the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee may consider the director nominee’s qualifications, diversity, age, skills and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the current needs of the Board, the committees and Masimo, to maintain a balance of knowledge, experience, diversity and capability. In the case of incumbent directors whose terms of office are set to expire, the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee may review such directors’ overall service to the Board, the committees and Masimo during their term, including the number of meetings attended, level of participation, quality of performance and any other relationships and transactions that might impair such directors’ independence. In the case of new director candidates, the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will also determine whether the nominee must be independent for NASDAQ purposes, which determination will be based upon applicable NASDAQ listing standards and applicable SEC rules and regulations. Although we do not have a formal diversity policy, when considering diversity in evaluating director nominees, the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will focus on whether the nominees can contribute varied perspectives, skills, experiences and expertise to the Board.
The Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate the proposed director’s candidacy, including proposed candidates recommended by security holders, and recommend whether the Board should nominate the proposed director candidate for election by our stockholders.
Stockholder Communications with the Board of Directors
Our Board has adopted a formal process by which security holders may communicate with the Board or any of its directors. Stockholders of Masimo wishing to communicate with our Board or an individual director may send a written communication to the Board or such director, c/o Masimo Corporation, 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618, Attention: Compliance Officer. Each communication must set forth:
| |
▪ | the name and address of the Masimo security holder(s) on whose behalf the communication is sent; and |
| |
▪ | the number of Masimo shares that are owned beneficially by the security holder(s) as of the date of the communication. |
Each communication will be reviewed by Masimo’s Compliance Officer to determine whether it is appropriate for presentation to the Board or the individual director. Examples of inappropriate communications include junk mail, spam, mass mailings, product complaints, product inquiries, new product suggestions, resumes, job inquiries, surveys, business solicitations and advertisements, as well as unduly hostile, threatening, illegal, unsuitable, frivolous, patently offensive or otherwise inappropriate material. These screening procedures have been approved by a majority of the independent members of our Board.
26
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Communications determined by our Compliance Officer to be appropriate for presentation to the Board or such director will be submitted to the Board or the individual director on a periodic basis. All communications directed to the Audit Committee in accordance with our Open Door Policy for Reporting Accounting, Audit, and Other Compliance Concerns (the “Open Door Policy”) that relate to accounting topics, internal accounting controls or auditing matters involving the Company generally will be forwarded to a compliance officer designated by the Audit Committee to receive and review these communications and then promptly and directly forwarded by a compliance officer to the Audit Committee or the Board, as appropriate, in accordance with the terms of the Open Door Policy. All communications directed to the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee in accordance with our Open Door Policy that relate to non-financial matters (including without limitation purported or suspected violations of any law or regulation, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or other policies) will generally be forwarded to a Compliance Officer designated by the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee to receive and review these communications and then promptly and directly forwarded by a Compliance Officer to the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee or the Board, as appropriate, in accordance with the terms of the Open Door Policy.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted the Masimo Corporation Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all of our employees, executive officers and directors. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available to stockholders on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance.” If we make any substantive amendments to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or grant any waiver from a provision of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics to any executive officer or director, we will promptly disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on our internet website at http://ir.masimo.com under “Corporate Governance” and/or in our public filings with the SEC.
27
| 2017 Proxy Statement
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
On February 11, 2016, after our Compensation Committee consulted with its prior independent compensation advisor, FW Cook, on market practices for other representative companies, our Board adopted a new non-employee director compensation policy (the “Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy”). Under the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy, each non-employee director receives an annual cash retainer of $50,000 for his or her Board service and an annual cash retainer of $7,500 for each committee of the Board on which he or she serves. Our Audit Committee Chairperson receives an additional annual cash retainer of $30,000, our Compensation Committee Chairperson receives an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000, and our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson receives an additional annual cash retainer of $7,500. In addition, each director receives a $1,000 per meeting cash fee for each committee meeting he or she attends in excess of the first eight meetings of each committee during the fiscal year. All cash retainers are payable on a quarterly basis in arrears. Each year on the date of our annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director will be also granted an award of restricted share units (“RSUs”) with respect to shares of our common stock having a grant date fair value of $140,000, rounded down to the nearest whole share, which vest on the earlier of the first anniversary of the grant date or the date of the next annual meeting of stockholders. The Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy also provides that all RSUs granted to the non-employee directors pursuant to the policy will vest in full in the event of a change in control of Masimo. As part of the transition from our prior non-employee director compensation policy to the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy, neither Mr. Reynolds nor Mr. Harkin were eligible to receive any grants on the date of our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders; and they will receive their first equity grants under this policy on the date of the upcoming Annual Meeting. Mr. Mikkelson will also receive his first equity grant under the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy on the date of the upcoming Annual Meeting.
Mr. Harkin was appointed to our Board on December 16, 2015, during the transition from our prior non-employee director compensation policy to the Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy. In connection with his appointment to our Board, Mr. Harkin was granted RSUs with respect to 3,385 shares of our common stock, which had a grant date fair value of $139,970 and vested in full on December 16, 2016, the one-year anniversary of the date of grant. From December 16, 2015 through February 11, 2016, Mr. Harkin was entitled to receive cash compensation at a rate of $50,000 per year for his service on our Board and $7,500 per year for his service on each Board committee, and an additional $7,500 for his service as the Chairman of the Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee.
The following table sets forth summary information concerning compensation paid or accrued for services rendered to us in all capacities to the members of our Board for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name(1) | | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash | | Stock Awards(2)(3) | | Option Awards(4) | | All Other Compensation | | Total |
Steven J. Barker, Ph.D., M.D. | | $ | 44,643 |
| | $ | 139,999 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 120,000 |
| (5) | $ | 304,642 |
|
Sanford Fitch | | 82,399 |
| | 139,999 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 222,398 |
|
Thomas Harkin | | 81,222 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 81,222 |
|
Jack Lasersohn(6) | | 7,473 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 7,473 |
|
Adam Mikkelson(7) | | 13,146 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 13,146 |
|
Craig Reynolds | | 73,661 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 73,661 |
|
___________
| |
(1) | Joe Kiani, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a named executive officer, is not included in this table as he is an employee of ours and therefore receives no compensation for his service as a director. Mr. Kiani’s compensation is included in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 61 of this Proxy Statement. |
| |
(2) | As of December 31, 2016, Dr. Steven Barker and Sanford Fitch each held 3,249 RSUs, and none of our other non-employee directors held any RSUs. |
28
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
(3) | These amounts generally represent the aggregate grant date fair value of equity awards for grants of options and RSU awards to each listed director in fiscal 2016, computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance. These amounts do not represent the actual amounts paid to or realized by the directors during fiscal 2016. The value as of the grant date for stock options is recognized over the number of days of service required for the stock option to vest in full. The value as of the grant date for the RSUs is calculated based on the number of restricted share units at the grant date market price and is recognized once the requisite service period for the restricted share unit is satisfied. |
For a detailed description of the assumptions used for purposes of determining grant date fair value, see Note 14 to the Financial Statements and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Critical Accounting Estimates-Share-Based Compensation”, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on February 15, 2017.
| |
(4) | As of December 31, 2016, each of our non-employee directors held the following number of options: Steven J. Barker, Ph.D., M.D.—140,000; Sanford Fitch—100,000; Thomas Harkin—0; Adam Mikkelson—0 and Craig Reynolds—100,000. |
| |
(5) | Consists of fees earned by Dr. Barker for non-employee consulting services provided to the Company. |
| |
(6) | Mr. Lasersohn’s service on the Board and the committees thereof ended when his term expired at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on April 20, 2016. |
| |
(7) | Mr. Mikkelson was appointed to our Board effective October 27, 2016. |
Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Policy
In February 2016, our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee adopted a new stock ownership policy that is applicable to each of our non-employee directors. Our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee believes this policy is an important tool in aligning the interests of our non-employee directors with the long-term interests of our stockholders.
The policy requires that our non-employee directors hold shares of Masimo stock with a value equal to at least $250,000. For purposes of calculating ownership under this policy, the following sources are included, whether vested or unvested: (i) shares of our common stock held directly by the non-employee director or in a trust for the benefit of the non-employee director or his family; (ii) shares of our common stock held by the non-employee director jointly with, or separately by, the non-employee director’s spouse and/or children sharing the same household as the non-employee director; (iii) shares of our common stock held by the non-employee director through a profit sharing, savings or deferral plan; and (iv) restricted stock or phantom stock held by the non-employee director. Stock options and unearned performance shares are not included in the calculation.
To give our non-employee directors time to comply with our stock ownership policy, our Nominating, Compliance and Corporate Governance Committee determined that our non-employee directors have until the later of March 1, 2021 or the five-year anniversary of their appointment as a director to comply with these guidelines.
29
| 2017 Proxy Statement
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
The following compensation discussion and analysis contains statements regarding future individual and Company performance targets and goals. These targets and goals are disclosed in the limited context of Masimo’s compensation programs and should not be understood to be statements of management’s expectations or estimates of results or other guidance. Masimo specifically cautions investors not to apply these statements to other contexts.
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the compensation program for our Principal Executive Officer, our Principal Financial Officer, and the next three most highly-compensated Executive Officers of the Company during fiscal 2016 (the “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs”). During fiscal 2016, these individuals were:
|
| | |
Name | | Position(s) |
Joe Kiani | | Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board |
Mark de Raad | | Executive Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer |
Yongsam Lee | | Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer |
Tom McClenahan | | Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary |
Anand Sampath | | Chief Operating Officer |
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the material elements of our executive compensation program during fiscal 2016. It also provides an overview of our executive compensation philosophy and objectives. Finally, it analyzes how and why the Compensation Committee of our Board (the “Compensation Committee”) arrived at the specific compensation decisions for our executive officers, including the NEOs, for fiscal 2016, including the key factors that the Compensation Committee considered in determining their compensation.
Executive Summary
Response to Stockholder Feedback
On an annual basis, the compensation of our NEOs, as disclosed in our annual proxy statement, is submitted to our stockholders for a non-binding advisory vote (commonly known as a “Say on Pay” proposal). Over the past few years, we have received disappointing levels of support for our Say on Pay proposal. Based on our discussions with many of our stockholders over this period, we believe that such low levels of support were due primarily to concerns our stockholders had about certain aspects of our CEO’s prior employment agreement.
Due largely to the input we received from our stockholders, our Compensation Committee focused in 2014 and 2015 on seeking to modify our CEO’s prior employment agreement. As a result of the efforts of both our Compensation Committee and our CEO, including advice to the Compensation Committee from two nationally recognized law firms and FW Cook, the Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant at that time, a new CEO employment agreement (the “2015 CEO Agreement”) was negotiated and entered into on November 4, 2015. As we noted in our proxy statement for our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders (the “2016 Proxy Statement”), these discussions were complex and time-consuming since, among other considerations, the “cost” to Masimo of the 2015 CEO Agreement was dependent on a variety of factors. Importantly, the 2015 CEO Agreement removed many of the provisions of the prior employment agreement that our stockholders considered objectionable (see “—Prior Year Compensation Enhancements” on page 33 of this Proxy Statement) and also significantly reduced the potential cost to Masimo, assuming a change of control had occurred on December 31, 2015, by approximately $52 million. In consideration for these changes, our CEO became contingently eligible to receive up to 2.7 million shares of our common stock (through the grant of an RSU award) and $35 million in cash, with such shares and cash to be issued or paid only if a Qualifying Termination (as defined in the 2015 CEO Agreement) actually occurs. For additional information regarding the 2015 CEO Agreement, see “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” of this Proxy Statement.
30
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Although SEC rules required us to report the grant date fair value of the RSU award as compensation to our CEO for fiscal year 2015 in the Summary Compensation Table, it is important to note that this RSU award will only vest and result in realizable value to our CEO in the event of a Qualifying Termination (as defined in the 2015 CEO Agreement) and will not vest solely in connection with his continued service to Masimo. As a result, to assist stockholders in comparing the total compensation provided to our CEO without taking into account the contingent value of the RSU award, we reported in the 2016 Proxy Statement, and have continued to report in this Proxy Statement, an additional column in the Summary Compensation Table (page 61) that shows our CEO’s compensation without including the value of these contingent RSUs. As we noted in the 2016 Proxy Statement, we continue to believe that this presentation provides a more appropriate comparison of the compensation paid to our CEO over the three year period included in the Summary Compensation Table.
Immediately after we entered into the 2015 CEO Agreement, we reached out to 22 of our largest stockholders, which, in the aggregate, beneficially owned approximately 53% of our outstanding shares of common stock. Mr. Reynolds, the Chairperson of our Compensation Committee, along with other members of the Compensation Committee or executive management, held calls with all of such stockholders that expressed an interest in speaking with the Compensation Committee. During these calls, the Compensation Committee articulated the features and benefits of the 2015 CEO Agreement to our stockholders. In general, the response from these stockholders was positive, with some stockholders acknowledging that, while the process had taken longer than anticipated, the 2015 CEO Agreement had successfully removed many of the features that such stockholders had previously considered problematic.
The 2015 CEO Agreement also resolved the primary concerns with the prior employment agreement that had previously been raised by the two major proxy advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis. The 2016 Proxy Statement, which described the 2015 CEO Agreement and the events above in detail, was filed with the SEC in March 2016. Unfortunately, the two major proxy advisory firms once again recommended a “No” vote on our Say on Pay proposal and a “Withhold” vote on the re-election of Mr. Reynolds, who joined our Board in April 2014 and was appointed to the role of Chairman of our Compensation Committee in May 2015.
Immediately following the issuance of these recommendations, we began a new stockholder outreach program in order to further explain our executive compensation practices. Over the next three weeks, the Compensation Committee, led by Mr. Reynolds, contacted and spoke with representatives of 15 of our largest stockholders, which, in the aggregate, beneficially owned approximately 39% of our outstanding shares of common stock. These discussions again centered on the 2015 CEO Agreement. Once again, most of these stockholders were generally supportive of the 2015 CEO Agreement and acknowledged that they believed the new agreement was an improvement as compared to the prior agreement. However, some of them also indicated that, while they acknowledged their support for the 2015 CEO Agreement and recognized that the value assigned to the RSU award was contingent on a Qualifying Termination, they would not be able to vote in favor of our Say on Pay proposal for 2015 due to the amount of fiscal 2015 total compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table for our CEO. Some of these stockholders also indicated that this was a one year issue, and because they were pleased with the 2015 CEO Agreement in general, they intended to support us on our future Say on Pay proposals. In most cases, our stockholders also expressed their intention to vote in favor of Mr. Reynolds’ re-election.
In addition to the 2015 CEO Agreement, these stockholder discussions also covered various other topics related to our executive compensation program, including our past practice of granting equity compensation only in the form of time-based stock options and the similarity of the performance objectives under both our fiscal 2016 Executive Annual Cash Bonus Plan (the “Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan”) and our Amended Executive Multi-Year Plan (the “Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan”).
While disappointing, the fact that the final stockholder vote at our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders resulted in only 42% approval of the Company’s Say on Pay proposal was not a complete surprise. However, based on the input provided by stockholders during our discussions and the additional actions taken by the Compensation Committee in 2017 to further address stockholder concerns, we are hopeful that this year’s Say on Pay proposal will receive a greater level of stockholder support.
31
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Fiscal 2017 Compensation Enhancements
As a result of these discussions, the Compensation Committee has taken the following additional actions for fiscal 2017, which were approved prior to the filing of this 2016 Proxy Statement:
| |
▪ | Adopted a 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2017 Equity Plan”) to replace our 2007 Stock Incentive Plan. The 2017 Equity Plan, which is subject to stockholder approval at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 1, 2017, provides for the following, among other provisions: |
| |
• | The annual “evergreen” provision contained in the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan was eliminated. |
| |
• | The initial number of shares to be reserved under the 2017 Equity Plan will be no greater than the total number of shares already reserved under the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan as of the time the 2017 Equity Plan becomes effective. |
| |
• | Stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under the 2017 Equity Plan may not be repriced without stockholder approval of an “Exchange Program” (as defined in the 2017 Equity Plan). |
| |
• | Shares used to pay the exercise price of an award, any shares withheld for taxes and any shares reacquired by us on the open market or otherwise using cash proceeds from the exercise of options will not be available again for grant under the 2017 Equity Plan. |
| |
• | The 2017 Equity Plan share reserve will also be reduced by the full amount of shares exercised pursuant to stock appreciation rights, regardless of the actual number of shares issued under the award. |
| |
• | Permits the Board or Compensation Committee to exercise negative discretion to reduce or eliminate the amount of the performance units, performance shares or performance bonuses earned by a participant if, in the Board’s or Compensation Committee’s sole discretion, such reduction or elimination is appropriate. |
If the 2017 Equity Plan is approved by our stockholders at the Annual Meeting, the fiscal 2017 equity awards to be granted to our executive officers, including our CEO and other NEOs, pursuant to the 2017 Equity Plan will consist of both performance-based restricted stock units (“PSU”) awards and time-based options to purchase shares of our common stock.
| |
• | The principal terms of the PSU awards to be granted in fiscal 2017 under the 2017 Equity Plan would be as follows: |
| |
– | The shares of our common stock subject to the PSU awards will be earned based on our actual achievement of pre-established Adjusted Operating Income levels over a one-year performance period. These levels include a “threshold” performance level (below which no shares will be earned), a “target” performance level, and a “maximum” performance level (capped at 150% of the target performance level). For purposes of these PSU awards, “Adjusted Operating Income” will be defined as GAAP operating income, as adjusted for certain non-recurring items in accordance with the 2017 Equity Plan. |
| |
– | The shares of our common stock (if any) earned pursuant to these PSU awards will be subject to vesting over a five-year period at a rate of 20% of the earned shares each year, including 20% credit for the fiscal 2017 performance period. |
| |
• | The time-based stock options, with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the covered shares on the date of grant, would also be subject to vesting over a five-year period at the rate of 20% per year. |
| |
▪ | Executive Bonus Incentive Plan - Adopted a new cash bonus plan for our executive officers (the “Executive Bonus Incentive Plan”) to replace our previous annual cash bonus plans for our executive officers. The new cash bonus plan is subject to stockholder approval at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 1, 2017. |
| |
• | Pursuant to the Executive Bonus Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee will not have discretion to increase the bonus payments for the executive officers above the amount determined pursuant to the bonus payment formula. |
32
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
• | Fiscal 2017 annual cash bonus opportunities for our executive officers, including the NEOs, will be based on our actual achievement of pre-established performance levels for revenues and net income per diluted share, as adjusted for certain non-recurring items in accordance with the Executive Bonus Incentive Plan. These levels include a “threshold” performance level (below which no bonus payments will be made), a “target” performance level, and a “maximum” performance level (capped at 200% of the target annual cash bonus incentive opportunity). |
| |
• | The Compensation Committee did not adopt a multi-year bonus plan for fiscal 2017. |
We believe that the new 2017 Equity Plan, as well as the Compensation Committee’s decision to grant equity awards that include a combination of PSU awards and time-based stock options, will provide our executive officers with the appropriate incentive to achieve and, ideally, exceed, our annual operating income goals. In addition, the proposed five-year vesting requirement for the PSU and stock option awards will encourage both retention and long-term focus that will promote sustainable value creation for our stockholders.
Further, we believe that the new Executive Bonus Incentive Plan, by focusing on revenue and net income per diluted share, will incentivize our executive officers to achieve and, ideally, exceed, two of our most important financial objectives for fiscal 2017. We also believe that these enhancements to our executive compensation program provide an appropriate response to the concerns expressed and feedback provided by our stockholders and will further strengthen the alignment of our financial performance with our executive compensation arrangements.
Prior Year Compensation Enhancements
The foregoing actions are in addition to the following changes that have been made to our executive compensation program in earlier years:
|
| | | |
Corporate Governance or Compensation Practice | Issues Previously Raised in Stockholder Outreach or Corporate Governance Reviews | Our Response | Effective Date of Response |
Stockholders’ rights agreement | Presence of “poison pill” arrangement | Eliminated the “poison pill” | Fiscal 2016 |
Non-employee directors’ stock ownership policy | Absence of stock ownership policy for members of Board of Directors | Adopted stock ownership policy for non-employee members of our Board, which requires each non-employee director to own and hold shares of our common stock with a value equal to at least $250,000 | Fiscal 2016 |
Term limits for service on Board of Directors | Absence of term limits for non-employee members of Board of Directors | Adopted term limit of 15 years for non-employee members of our Board | Fiscal 2015 |
Executive stock ownership policy | Absence of formal stock ownership policy for executive officers | Adopted stock ownership policy for executive officers which requires our CEO to own and hold shares of our common stock with a value equal to at least six times his annual base salary and our other executive officers to own and hold shares of our common stock with a value equal to their annual base salary | Fiscal 2013 |
33
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
| | | |
Corporate Governance or Compensation Practice | Issues Previously Raised in Stockholder Outreach or Corporate Governance Reviews | Our Response | Effective Date of Response |
Compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy | Absence of formal compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy | Adopted formal compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy for executive officers | Fiscal 2012 |
Tax “gross-up” payments | Absence of formal policy restricting the provision of tax “gross-up” or similar payments in connection with a change in control of the Company | Adopted formal policy providing that the Compensation Committee will no longer approve any arrangements with executive officers that include a tax “gross-up” or similar provision that results in the Company paying excise taxes on change in control payments. | Fiscal 2011 |
| | In addition, our CEO’s new employment agreement, entered into in November 2015, eliminated similar tax “gross up” provisions. After the elimination of this provision, there are no longer any “gross up” provisions at the Company. | Fiscal 2015 |
Our Compensation Committee engaged in extensive discussions with our CEO over several years to consider a variety of alternative employment compensation arrangements in response to concerns expressed by several of our stockholders. In fiscal 2015, these discussions resulted in the 2015 CEO Agreement, which both eliminated several of the provisions deemed objectionable by our stockholders and significantly reduced the potential cost to the Company of his post-employment compensation arrangements. Specifically, the 2015 CEO Agreement made the following changes to our CEO’s previous employment agreement:
| |
▪ | Eliminated “single trigger” payments upon a change in control of the Company; |
| |
▪ | Eliminated his receipt of full value shares in lieu of stock options upon a Qualifying Termination, as defined in the 2015 CEO Agreement; |
| |
▪ | Eliminated our obligation to pay the federal and state withholding taxes due upon the receipt of such full value shares; |
| |
▪ | Eliminated tax “gross-up” or similar payments in the event that the excise taxes imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), were triggered upon a change in control of the Company; |
| |
▪ | Eliminated the provisions in the previous employment agreement providing for survival of the foregoing protections following the expiration of such agreement; and |
| |
▪ | Terminated his right to receive an annual option to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock after fiscal 2017. |
In consideration for these changes, our CEO became contingently entitled to receive up to 2.7 million shares of our common stock (through the grant of an RSU award) and up to $35 million in cash upon a Qualifying Termination, as defined in the 2015 CEO Agreement. For additional information regarding the 2015 CEO Agreement, see “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” of this Proxy Statement.
34
| 2017 Proxy Statement
We value the opinions of our stockholders, as well as the insights gained from the discussions we have with specific stockholders. In particular, the Compensation Committee finds these discussions to be helpful as it considers and adopts compensation policies affecting our executive officers, including the NEOs. We will continue to consider the outcome of future Say on Pay votes, as well as feedback received throughout the year, when making compensation decisions for our executive officers.
Fiscal 2016 Business Highlights
Fiscal 2016 was a year of strong performance for Masimo. Financial and operational highlights included:
| |
▪ | Our closing stock price of $67.40 per share on the last trading day of fiscal 2016 represented a 62.4% increase from the closing stock price of $41.51 per share on the last trading day of fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Product revenues significantly exceeded the guidance we issued at the beginning of the year and increased by 10.8% to $663.8 million, as compared to product revenues of $599.3 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Total revenues, including royalties, increased to $694.6 million, up 10.2% from $630.1 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Masimo rainbow® product revenues increased to $66.7 million, up 7.8% from $61.8 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Masimo SET® and rainbow SET™ shipments totaled 186,000 units, up from 182,600 in the prior year, setting a new Masimo record and resulting in an estimated installed base of more than 1,504,000 circuit boards and pulse oximeters as of December 31, 2016. |
| |
▪ | Product gross profit margins increased from 63.3% to 65.2% due primarily to a combination of favorable product mix, the benefits of the Company’s value engineering activities and other cost reduction programs. |
| |
▪ | Net income per diluted share was $5.65, up 264.5% from $1.55 in 2015. Included in our net income per diluted share was $3.49 per diluted share related to the Litigation Settlement (as defined below), which was offset by $0.06 per diluted share for a charitable donation made from the settlement proceeds. |
| |
▪ | Financial performance metrics included return on assets of 37%, return on capital of 54% and return on equity of 54%. |
| |
▪ | Completion of share repurchases approximating 1,496,000 shares at an average cost of $42.39 per share. |
| |
▪ | Finalization of a multi-year business partnership arrangement for patient monitoring and select therapy solutions with Koninklijke Philips N.V., including a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Litigation Settlement”) that resulted in a $300 million payment to the Company and the dismissal, with prejudice, of all pending legal disputes between the companies, including the patent infringement and antitrust lawsuits. |
Fiscal 2016 NEO Compensation Highlights
The Compensation Committee took the following key compensation actions for 2016 with respect to our NEOs:
| |
▪ | Base Salaries - Increased the annual base salaries of our NEOs, including our CEO, by 3%, which was consistent with increases provided to other employees in the Company as a whole. |
| |
▪ | Annual Cash Bonuses - Based on our strong financial performance in fiscal 2016, under our Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, annual cash bonuses paid to our NEOs other than our CEO ranged from $179,887 to $216,300, and an annual cash bonus in the amount of $1,030,000 was paid to our CEO. |
| |
▪ | Multi-Year Cash Bonuses - Based on our financial performance for the three-year performance period from fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2016, under our Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan, cash bonuses paid to NEOs other than our CEO ranged from $502,394 to $545,455, and a cash bonus in the amount of $2,624,079 was paid to our CEO. |
35
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | Long-Term Incentive Compensation - Granted options to purchase shares of our common stock to each of our NEOs other than our CEO with a grant date fair value of $393,030 and an option to purchase shares of our common stock to our CEO with a grant date fair value in the amount of $3,930,900, in all cases with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the covered shares on the date of grant. |
Pay-for-Performance
We believe that, even prior to our fiscal 2017 executive compensation program enhancements, our fiscal 2016 executive compensation program was closely aligned with our stockholders’ interests. While base salary and an annual cash bonus opportunity focused on the achievement of shorter-term goals, our multi-year executive cash bonus plan (which was based on a three-year performance period) and our equity awards in the form of options to purchase shares of our common stock (typically with a five-year vesting requirement), provided for a longer-term compensation structure to focus attention on the long-term operating results of the Company and promote retention. Most of the fiscal 2016 annual compensation of our executive officers was directly tied, through performance-based bonuses or stock options, to the achievement of financial and operating results that increased stockholder value.
The following chart shows the mix of each NEO’s target total direct compensation for fiscal 2016, consisting of base salary, the target annual cash bonus opportunity, the target multi-year cash bonus opportunity and the grant date fair value of equity awards granted during the year:
___________
| |
(1) | The Multi-Year Executive Cash Bonus percentage for each NEO was based on 1/3 of the target grant date value for the three-year performance period that commenced on December 29, 2013 and ended on December 31, 2016. |
36
| 2017 Proxy Statement
As illustrated above, the target total direct compensation opportunities of our executive officers, including the NEOs, were directly linked with our financial performance. We believe that our executive officers’ interests were and continue to be aligned with those of our stockholders given that a substantial portion of their target total direct compensation was “at-risk” and variable commensurate with our financial performance. We also believe that our executive compensation program appropriately emphasized performance-based compensation that rewarded our executive officers for delivering financial, operational and strategic results that met or exceeded pre-established goals through our annual cash bonus plan, our multi-year cash bonus plan and the equity awards that were granted under our long term incentive compensation program. In addition, we further aligned the interests of our executive officers with those of stockholders and the long-term interests of the Company through executive stock ownership requirements. As of March 1, 2017, each of our executives to whom such stock ownership requirements are applicable was in compliance with such requirements.
Product revenues have consistently grown in the last five years, rising from $464.9 million in fiscal 2012 to $663.8 million in fiscal 2016, a compound annual growth rate of 9.3%.
Net income per diluted share has consistently grown in the last five years, increasing from $1.07 per diluted share in fiscal 2012 to $5.65 per diluted share in fiscal 2016. Included in our fiscal 2016 net income per diluted share was $3.49 per diluted share related to a litigation settlement, which was offset by $0.06 per diluted share for a charitable donation made from the settlement proceeds.
37
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Several widely accepted measures of operating performance reflect the strength of our 2016 financial performance on both an absolute and relative basis, versus other companies that comprised our fiscal 2016 compensation peer group, which included other publicly-traded companies classified as health care equipment and supplies companies in the Global Industry Classification Standard Code, the same classification as Masimo (see “—Competitive Positioning” on page 43 of this Proxy Statement for a discussion of our fiscal 2016 compensation peer group). Such operating measures for the four fiscal quarters ended nearest to December 31, 2016 were as follows:
|
| | | | |
Measures of Operating Performance | | Masimo Performance | | Percentile Ranking Versus Fiscal 2016 Compensation Peer Group Companies |
Net Income per Diluted Share Growth | | 275% | | 95th |
Return on Equity | | 54 | | 100 |
Return on Capital | | 54 | | 100 |
Return on Assets | | 37 | | 100 |
Revenue Growth | | 10 | | 38 |
Operating Margin | | 24 | | 77 |
We believe that these comparative measures support the focus that our executive team has placed on not only revenue growth, but also delivering financial leverage through strong net income per diluted share growth. Although our revenue growth of 10% placed us below the 50th percentile of our peer group, this growth rate significantly exceeded the 6% growth in total revenue that we anticipated at the start of the year, based on our original $670 million fiscal 2016 total revenue guidance. Of the other five measures, four were driven by our strong net income per diluted share performance and placed us at or above the 95th percentile, including three key measurements at the 100th percentile. We believe that these strong operating performance measures relative to our peer group further evidences the success of our executive team’s efforts during fiscal 2016.
38
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Executive Compensation Policies and Practices
We endeavor to maintain sound executive compensation policies and practices, including compensation-related corporate governance standards, consistent with our executive compensation philosophy. During fiscal 2016, we maintained the following executive compensation policies and practices, including both policies and practices we have implemented to drive performance and policies and practices that either prohibit or minimize behaviors that we do not believe serve our stockholders’ long-term interests:
What We Do
| |
+ | Maintain an Independent Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee consists solely of independent directors who establish our compensation practices. |
| |
+ | Retain an Independent Compensation Advisor. The Compensation Committee has engaged its own compensation consultant to provide information, analysis and other advice on executive compensation independent of management. |
| |
+ | Annual Executive Compensation Review. At least once a year, the Compensation Committee conducts a review of our compensation strategy. |
| |
+ | Compensation At-Risk. Our executive compensation program is designed so that a significant portion of our executive officers’ compensation is “at risk” based on corporate performance, to align the interests of our executive officers and stockholders. |
| |
+ | Annual Compensation-Related Risk Assessment. The Compensation Committee considers our compensation-related risk profile to ensure that our compensation plans and arrangements do not create inappropriate or excessive risk and are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Compensation Committee has determined that there are no risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for our employees that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. |
| |
+ | Multi-Year Vesting Requirements. To align the interests of our executive officers and stockholders, the time-based equity awards granted to our executive officers vest over a five-year period. Beginning in 2017, executive officer PSU awards will be earned based on a one-year performance period upon the Compensation Committee’s assessment of the associated performance level achievement, but continue to vest over a five-year period. |
| |
+ | Compensation Recovery (“Clawback”) Policy. We have adopted a compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy, which enables our Board to recover incentive compensation (including gains from equity awards) from our current and former executive officers that is based on erroneous data, received during the three-year period preceding the date on which we become required to prepare an accounting restatement; and is in excess of what would have been paid if calculated under the restatement. |
| |
+ | Stock Ownership Policies. We have adopted stock ownership policies for our executive officers and the non-employee members of our Board under which they must accumulate and maintain, consistent with the terms of the guidelines, shares of our common stock. |
| |
+ | Conduct an Annual Stockholder Advisory Vote on Named Executive Officer Compensation. We conduct an annual stockholder advisory vote on the compensation of the NEOs. The Compensation Committee considers the results of this advisory vote during the course of its deliberations. |
| |
+ | Regular Stockholder Engagement that Includes our Compensation Committee Chair. We engage on executive compensation matters with our stockholders and include our Compensation Committee chairman in these engagement activities. |
39
| 2017 Proxy Statement
What We Do Not Do
| |
- | No Guaranteed Bonuses. We do not provide guaranteed bonuses to our executive officers. |
| |
- | No Special Executive Retirement Plans. We do not currently offer, nor do we have plans to offer, defined benefit pension plans or any non-qualified deferred compensation plans or arrangements to our executive officers other than the plans and arrangements that are available to all employees. Our executive officers are eligible to participate in our Code Section 401(k) defined contribution plan on the same basis as our other employees. |
| |
- | No Hedging; Pledging Requires Pre-Approval. We prohibit our employees, including our executive officers, and the non-employee members of our Board from hedging our equity securities. In addition, all pledging of our equity securities by our executive officers and members of our Board must be pre-approved by the Compensation Committee and, as a condition to pre-approving any pledge of our equity securities, the executive officer or member of our Board seeking to pledge securities must clearly demonstrate his or her financial capacity to repay any loan for which securities will be pledged as collateral without resort to the securities to be pledged. |
| |
- | No Tax Payments on Perquisites. We do not provide any tax reimbursement payments (including “gross-ups”) to our executive officers on any perquisites or other personal benefits. |
| |
- | No Gross-Up Payments on Post-Employment Compensation Arrangements. We do not provide any tax reimbursement payments (including “gross-ups”) on payments or benefits contingent upon a change in control of the Company. |
| |
- | No Special Welfare or Health Benefits. We do not provide our executive officers with any welfare or health benefit programs, other than participation in our broad-based employee programs. |
| |
- | No Stock Option Re-pricing. We do not permit options to purchase shares of our common stock to be re-priced to a lower exercise price without the approval of our stockholders. We have never repriced our stock options. |
Compensation Philosophy and Objectives
The primary objective of our executive compensation program is to attract and retain a talented, entrepreneurial, and creative team of executives who will provide leadership for our success in driving our technologies and products to the broadest number of patients, and in turn, sustainable long-term value. We seek to accomplish this objective in a way that is aligned with the long-term interests of our stockholders.
Compensation Philosophy
We operate within a very complex business environment, which requires a very strong management team. Our business model requires our management team to be adept at developing competitive products and sales/marketing strategies to support multiple customers, including hospitals, alternate care facilities and original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). Many of our competitors have substantially greater capital resources, larger customer bases and larger sales forces than we do, and have ties with group purchasing organizations (“GPOs”) and other purchasers that are stronger than ours. In addition, the medical device industry is characterized by rapid product development and technological advances, which require our management team to be adept at managing these key areas of the business.
The Compensation Committee believes that it is critical to attract, develop and retain a highly-qualified management team with the experience, knowledge, expertise and vision capable of not only operating but also excelling in this complex and competitive business environment, including competing against larger competitors and developing and commercializing new products, new and improved technologies and new applications for our existing technologies.
Compensation Objectives and Program Design
Our executive compensation program is intended to help us achieve and foster a goal-oriented, highly-motivated management team with a clear understanding of business objectives with shared corporate values. To this end, the Compensation Committee believes that our executive compensation program should provide compensation that:
40
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | attracts and retains the best executive talent; |
| |
▪ | appropriately aligns our business objectives and stockholder interests; |
| |
▪ | maintains a reasonable balance across types and purposes of compensation, particularly with respect to fixed compensation objectives, short-term and long-term performance-based objectives and retention objectives; |
| |
▪ | motivates our executive officers to achieve our annual and long-term strategic goals and rewards performance based on the attainment of such goals; |
| |
▪ | appropriately considers risk and reward in the context of our business environment and long-range business plans; |
| |
▪ | recognizes individual value and contributions to our success; |
| |
▪ | considers but does not exclusively rely upon competitive market data; and |
| |
▪ | supports our succession planning objectives. |
We seek to achieve these objectives in a way that is consistent with the long-term interests of the Company and our stakeholders, including our stockholders and employees. We structure the annual compensation of our executive officers, including the NEOs, using three principal elements: base salary, cash incentive opportunities and long-term incentive compensation opportunities in the form of equity awards. While the pay mix may vary from year to year, the ultimate goal is to achieve our compensation objectives as described above. The relationships between each element and such compensation objectives are as follows:
Base Salary:
| |
▪ | attracts and retains talent |
| |
▪ | motivates strong business performance without encouraging excessive risk taking |
Cash Incentives:
| |
▪ | attracts and retains talent |
| |
▪ | drives the achievement of key business results on an annual or multi-year basis |
| |
▪ | recognizes individuals based on their contributions |
| |
▪ | performance-based and not guaranteed |
Equity Awards:
| |
▪ | attracts and retains talent |
| |
▪ | drives the achievement of long-term key business results |
| |
▪ | directly ties the interests of executives to the interests of our stockholders |
| |
▪ | recognizes individuals based on their continued contributions |
Governance of Executive Compensation Program
Role of Compensation Committee
The Compensation Committee discharges the responsibilities of our Board relating to the compensation of our executive officers. The Compensation Committee consists of directors who are “independent” directors as required by the NASDAQ listing standards, “outside directors” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code, and “non-employee directors” for purposes of Exchange Act Rule 16b-3. During fiscal 2016, the Compensation Committee was comprised of Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lasersohn (until February 26, 2016), Mr. Fitch (until October 27, 2016), Mr. Mikkelson (effective October 27, 2016) and Mr. Reynolds (the current Chair of the Compensation Committee).
41
| 2017 Proxy Statement
The Compensation Committee has responsibility for overseeing our compensation and benefits policies generally, overseeing, evaluating and approving the compensation plans, policies, and programs applicable to our CEO, as well as our other executive officers, including the other NEOs. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee evaluates our compensation policies and practices with a focus on the degree to which these policies and practices reflect our executive compensation philosophy, develops recommendations and makes decisions that it believes further our philosophy and reviews the performance of our executive officers when making decisions with respect to their compensation.
The Compensation Committee reviews the base salary levels, annual cash bonus opportunities, and long-term incentive compensation opportunities of our executive officers, including the NEOs, annually or more frequently as warranted. The Compensation Committee does not establish a specific target for setting the target total direct compensation opportunity of our executive officers, including the NEOs. In making decisions about the compensation of our executive officers, the Compensation Committee relies on its general experience and subjective considerations of various factors, including the following:
| |
▪ | our performance against the financial, operational and strategic objectives established by the Compensation Committee and our Board; |
| |
▪ | each individual executive officer’s skills, experience, and qualifications relative to other similarly-situated executives at companies in our compensation peer group; |
| |
▪ | the scope of each executive officer’s role compared to other similarly-situated executives at companies in our compensation peer group; |
| |
▪ | the performance of each individual executive officer, based on a subjective assessment of his or her contributions to our overall performance, ability to lead his or her business unit or function, and work as part of a team, all of which reflect our core values; |
| |
▪ | compensation parity among our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | our financial performance relative to our compensation and performance peers; and |
| |
▪ | with respect to his direct reports, the recommendations of our CEO. |
These factors provide the framework for compensation decision-making and final decisions regarding the compensation opportunity for each executive officer. No single factor is determinative in setting pay levels, nor was the impact of any factor on the determination of pay levels quantifiable.
The Compensation Committee also considers the potential risks in our business when designing and administering our executive compensation program, and we believe our balanced approach to performance measurement and pay delivery works to avoid misaligned incentives for individuals to undertake excessive or inappropriate risk.
The Compensation Committee does not engage in formal benchmarking against other companies’ compensation programs or practices to establish our compensation levels or make specific compensation decisions with respect to our executive officers, including the NEOs. Instead, in making its determinations, the Compensation Committee reviews information summarizing the compensation paid at a representative group of peer companies, to the extent that the executive positions at these companies are considered comparable to our positions and informative of the competitive environment and more broad-based compensation surveys to gain a general understanding of market compensation levels.
Role of Management
In discharging its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee works with members of our management team, including our CEO. The management team assists the Compensation Committee by providing information on company and individual performance, market data and management’s perspective and recommendations on compensation matters.
42
| 2017 Proxy Statement
The Compensation Committee solicits and reviews our CEO’s recommendations and proposals with respect to adjustments to annual cash compensation, long-term incentive compensation opportunities, program structures and other compensation-related matters for our executive officers (other than with respect to his own compensation). The Compensation Committee reviews and discusses these recommendations and proposals with our CEO and uses them as one factor in determining and approving the compensation for our executive officers. In setting the compensation of our CEO, he recuses himself from discussions regarding his own compensation. Further, the Compensation Committee does not delegate any of its functions to others in deciding executive compensation.
Role of Compensation Consultant
The Compensation Committee engages an external compensation consultant to assist it by providing information, analysis and other advice relating to our executive compensation program and the decisions resulting from its executive compensation review. The compensation consultant serves at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, which reviews the engagement annually.
In October 2016, the Compensation Committee retained Compensia, Inc. (“Compensia”), a national compensation consulting firm, to serve as its compensation advisor. Prior to October 2016, the Compensation Committee had retained FW Cook, a national compensation consulting firm, to serve as its compensation advisor. During 2016 and the first three months of 2017, Compensia provided the following services:
| |
▪ | consulting with the Compensation Committee chair and other members between Compensation Committee meetings; |
| |
▪ | providing competitive market data based on the compensation peer group for our executive officer positions and evaluating how the compensation we pay our executive officers compares both to our performance and to how the companies in our compensation peer group compensate their executives; |
| |
▪ | reviewing and analyzing the base salary levels, annual cash bonus opportunities, and long-term incentive compensation opportunities of our executive officers; |
| |
▪ | assessing executive compensation trends within our industry, and providing updates on corporate governance and regulatory issues and developments; |
| |
▪ | reviewing the Compensation Discussion & Analysis; and |
| |
▪ | assessing compensation risk to determine whether the Company’s compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company. |
Neither FW Cook nor Compensia provided any services to us other than the consulting services to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee regularly reviews the objectivity and independence of the advice provided by its compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee on executive compensation matters. During fiscal 2016, the Compensation Committee considered the six specific independence factors adopted by the SEC and The NASDAQ Stock Market and determined that both FW Cook and Compensia were independent advisors and that their work did not raise any conflicts of interest.
Competitive Positioning
For purposes of comparing our executive compensation against the competitive market, the Compensation Committee reviews and considers the compensation levels and practices of a group of comparable companies. The companies in this compensation peer group for fiscal 2016 were approved in August 2015 on the basis of their similarity to us in size, as determined using the following criteria:
| |
▪ | Revenue - ~0.4 times to ~2.5 times our last four fiscal quarter revenue of approximately $618 million (~$154 million to $1.5 billion); |
| |
▪ | Market Capitalization - ~0.33 times to ~3.0 times our then market capitalization of $2.1 billion (~$700 million to $6.3 billion); and |
43
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | Industry - health care equipment and supplies (based on our Global Industry Classification Standard code 351010). |
In selecting the fiscal 2016 compensation peer group, the objective was to choose companies that resulted in us being near the median of the group in terms of both revenue and market capitalization.
Our compensation peer group for fiscal 2016 was as follows:
|
| | |
Align Technology, Inc. | Greatbatch, Inc.(2) | Merit Medical Systems, Inc. |
Analogic Corporation | Haemonetics Corporation | Neogen Corporation |
Cantel Medical Corporation | ICU Medical, Inc. | Nuvasive, Inc. |
CONMED Corporation | Insulet Corporation | Sirona Dental Systems, Inc.(3) |
Cyberonics Corporation(1) | Integra LifeSciences Holdings | Thoratec Corporation(4) |
Globus Medical, Inc. | Invacare Corporation | West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. |
___________
| |
(1) | Cyberonics Corporation merged with Sorin S.p.A. effective October 15, 2015 creating a new company, LivaNova PLC. |
| |
(2) | Greatbatch, Inc. changed its name to Integer Holdings Corporation effective June 30, 2016. |
| |
(3) | Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. was acquired by DENTSPLY International Inc. on February 29, 2016. |
| |
(4) | Thoratec Corporation was acquired by St. Jude Medical, Inc. on October 8, 2015. |
The companies included in the compensation peer group had median revenues of $615 million, ranging from approximately $295 million to approximately $1.4 billion, based on the four fiscal quarters ended nearest to September 30, 2015, and a median market capitalization of $2.1 billion, ranging from approximately $585 million to $6.1 billion, as of December 31, 2015.
To analyze the compensation practices of the companies in our compensation peer group, FW Cook gathered data from public filings (primarily proxy statements). This market data was then used as a reference point for the Compensation Committee to assess our current compensation levels in the course of its deliberations on compensation forms and amounts.
The Compensation Committee reviews our compensation peer group periodically and makes adjustments to its composition, taking into account changes in both our business and the businesses of the companies in the peer group, as it considers necessary and appropriate.
Individual Compensation Elements
The specific elements of our executive compensation program for fiscal 2016 included base salary, annual cash bonus opportunities, long-term incentive compensation opportunities in the form of multi-year cash bonuses and equity awards, welfare and health benefits and post-employment compensation protections. We use short-term compensation, such as base salary and annual cash bonus opportunities, to motivate and reward our executive officers. We believe that, in addition to base salaries and annual cash bonus opportunities, long-term incentive compensation opportunities, which in fiscal 2016 were provided in the form of multi-year cash bonuses and equity awards, are an effective tool in attracting and retaining strong executive talent. A full description of each compensation element follows.
44
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Base Salary
Base salary represents the fixed portion of the compensation of our executive officers, including the NEOs, and is an important element of compensation intended to attract and retain highly-talented individuals. Generally, we use base salary to provide each executive officer with a specified level of cash compensation during the year with the expectation that he or she will perform his or her responsibilities to the best of his or her ability and in our best interests.
Generally, we establish the initial base salaries of our executive officers through arm’s-length negotiation at the time we hire the individual executive officer, taking into account his or her position, qualifications, experience, prior salary level and the base salaries of our other executive officers. Thereafter, the Compensation Committee reviews the base salaries of our executive officers annually and makes adjustments to base salaries as it determines to be necessary or appropriate.
During the third quarter of fiscal 2016, the Compensation Committee reviewed the base salaries of our executive officers, including the NEOs, taking into consideration a competitive market analysis and the recommendations of our CEO, as well as the other factors described above. Following this review, the Compensation Committee approved a 3% base salary increase (consistent with the overall budgeted base salary increases for the remainder of the Company) for each of our executive officers, including each of the NEOs, effective July 4, 2016. The base salaries of the NEOs for fiscal 2016 were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Name | | Base Salary as of January 2, 2016 | | Base Salary as of December 31, 2016 | | Percentage Change |
Joe Kiani | | $ | 1,000,000 |
| | $ | 1,030,000 |
| | 3.0 | % |
Mark de Raad | | 390,000 |
| | 401,700 |
| | 3.0 |
|
Yongsam Lee | | 349,295 |
| | 359,773 |
| | 3.0 |
|
Tom McClenahan | | 380,000 |
| | 391,400 |
| | 3.0 |
|
Anand Sampath | | 420,000 |
| | 432,600 |
| | 3.0 |
|
Annual Cash Bonus
We use annual cash bonus opportunities to motivate our executive officers, including the NEOs, to achieve the financial and operational objectives set forth in our annual operating plan. For fiscal 2016, these cash bonus opportunities were provided under our Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, which was approved by the Compensation Committee in February 2016. To be eligible to receive an annual cash bonus under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, an executive officer was required to be employed by us for at least 26 weeks during the plan year.
Annual Cash Bonus Formula
Under the terms of the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, the fiscal 2016 bonuses for our executive officers, including the NEOs, were calculated pursuant to the following formula:
|
| | | | | | |
Base Salary as of end of fiscal 2016 | r | Target Bonus Percentage | r | Applicable Company Performance Factor | r | Individual Performance Factor |
Target Bonus Percentage
For purposes of the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, each executive officer was assigned a target annual cash bonus opportunity, the amount of which was calculated as a percentage of his or her base salary (the “Target Bonus Percentage”).
45
| 2017 Proxy Statement
In February 2016, the Compensation Committee set the Target Bonus Percentages for our executive officers, taking into consideration a competitive market analysis prepared by FW Cook, the recommendations of our CEO (except with respect to his own Target Bonus Percentage), as well as the other factors described above. The Target Bonus Percentages of the NEOs for fiscal 2016 were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Name | | Fiscal 2015 Target Bonus Percentage (as a percentage of base salary) | | Fiscal 2016 Target Bonus Percentage (as a percentage of base salary) | | Percentage Adjustment |
Joe Kiani | | 100 | % | | 100 | % | | — | % |
Mark de Raad | | 50 |
| | 50 |
| | — |
|
Yongsam Lee | | 50 |
| | 50 |
| | — |
|
Tom McClenahan | | 50 |
| | 50 |
| | — |
|
Anand Sampath | | 50 |
| | 50 |
| | — |
|
Company Performance Factor
For purposes of the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, at the beginning of the year the Compensation Committee selected two financial measures for purposes of evaluating our performance for the fiscal year and, for each of our executive officers other than our CEO, also considered additional operational measures of performance. The financial measures were not given any specific weighting and the target performance levels established for each measure did not individually correlate to any specific bonus payment.
Rather, if the Compensation Committee determined that:
| |
▪ | we did not fully achieve the pre-established target levels for the two financial measures and, with respect to our executive officers other than our CEO, the operational performance objectives, it could set the applicable Company Performance Factor at any level it determines to be appropriate, including zero; |
| |
▪ | we fully achieved the pre-established target levels for the two financial measures and, with respect to our executive officers other than our CEO, the operational performance objectives, the applicable Company Performance Factor would be 100%; and |
| |
▪ | we exceeded 100% achievement of the pre-established target levels for the two financial measures and, with respect to our executive officers other than our CEO, the operational performance objectives, it could set the applicable Company Performance Factor at or above 100%. |
The Compensation Committee also provided that our CEO could recommend whether, based on his own subjective analysis, the applicable Company Performance Factor, as approved by the Compensation Committee, should be lowered.
For fiscal 2016, the Compensation Committee selected revenues, net income per diluted share and other business related metrics described below for purposes of determining the Company Performance Factor. As in prior years, the Compensation Committee selected these measures based on its belief that they are effective indicators of our ability to drive growth and, correspondingly, the creation of long-term stockholder value. The fiscal 2016 target level for each of the financial measures was set as follows:
|
| | |
Financial Measure | | Target Performance Level |
Product revenues | | $640.0 million |
Net income per diluted share | | $1.69 |
The fiscal 2016 target performance levels for these two financial measures were both set above their fiscal 2015 levels.
46
| 2017 Proxy Statement
In addition to the two financial performance measures described above, the Compensation Committee selected the following operational performance objectives for purposes of determining the Company Performance Factor for each of our executive officers other than our CEO:
| |
(i) | achieve a specified level of OEM board and Masimo monitor shipments; |
| |
(ii) | achieve a specified level of single patient adhesive and disposable sensor shipments; |
| |
(iii) | achieve a specified level of rainbow® product revenues; |
| |
(iv) | make our customers 100% successful and 100% advocates of us and our technologies; and |
| |
(v) | measure and improve our quality compared to our competitors. |
In setting these operational performance objectives, the Compensation Committee believed that, if there was a maximum and sustained effort from each level of our organization, the goals were achievable but not easily attainable.
Individual Performance Factor
For purposes of the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan, after the end of the year the Compensation Committee determines the Individual Performance Factor for each executive officer. In the case of our CEO, the Compensation Committee determines his Individual Performance Factor by assessing his overall performance for the year; provided, however, that if it has determined that each of the pre-established target levels for the two financial measures included in the Company Performance Factor have been achieved, he will receive a bonus payment equal to at least 100% of his applicable base salary. In the case of our other executive officers, including the other NEOs, the Compensation Committee determines their Individual Performance Factor taking into account the recommendations of our CEO based upon his assessment of such other executive officer’s performance of the job-related duties and responsibilities assigned to him or her during the year.
Fiscal 2016 Annual Cash Bonus Payments
In March 2017, the Compensation Committee determined the amounts to be paid to our executive officers, including the NEOs, under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan based on our actual financial performance for fiscal 2016, an assessment of our performance against the operational performance objectives for the year (with respect to each of our executive officers other than our CEO), and the Individual Performance Factor established for each executive officer.
For purposes of determining the Company Performance Factor, our CEO reported the following fiscal 2016 achievements to the Compensation Committee:
| |
▪ | Our closing stock price of $67.40 per share on the last trading day of fiscal 2016 represented a 62.4% increase from the closing stock price of $41.51 per share on the last trading day of fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Product revenues of $663.8 million significantly exceeded our original $640.0 million guidance and were up 10.8% over our product revenues of $599.3 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Total revenues, including royalties, increased to $694.6 million, up 10.2% from $630.1 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Masimo rainbow® product revenues increased to $66.7 million, up 7.8% from $61.8 million in fiscal 2015. |
| |
▪ | Masimo SET® and rainbow SET™ shipments totaled 186,000 units, up from 182,600 in the prior year, setting a new Masimo record and resulting in an estimated installed base of more than 1,504,000 circuit boards and pulse oximeters as of December 31, 2016. |
| |
▪ | Product gross profit margins increased from 63.3% to 65.2% due primarily to a combination of favorable product mix, the benefits of the Company’s value engineering activities and other cost reduction programs. |
| |
▪ | Net income per diluted share was $5.65, up 264.5% from $1.55 in 2015 and represented 334% of the original fiscal 2016 financial guidance of $1.69. Included in our net income per diluted share was $3.49 per diluted share related to the Litigation Settlement, which was offset by $0.06 per diluted share for a charitable donation made from the settlement proceeds. |
47
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | Financial performance metrics included return on assets of 37%, return on capital of 54% and return on equity of 54%. |
| |
▪ | Completed share repurchases approximating 1,496,000 shares at an average cost of $42.39 per share. |
| |
▪ | Finalized a multi-year business partnership arrangement for patient monitoring and select therapy solutions with Koninklijke Philips N.V., including the Litigation Settlement that resulted in a $300 million payment to the Company and the dismissal, with prejudice, of all pending legal disputes between the companies, including the patent infringement and antitrust lawsuits. |
In addition, our CEO presented the Compensation Committee with his assessment of our performance against the operational performance objectives for fiscal 2016. With respect to the qualitative objectives, our CEO noted that the Company continued to make improvements to its key internal metrics related to customer satisfaction, improved quality and other manufacturing and operational metrics as well as cost reduction initiatives. Our CEO also reviewed the quantitative objectives, and noted the following previously reported public data for fiscal 2016:
| |
▪ | 105% achievement of our single patient adhesive and disposable sensor goals; |
| |
▪ | 101% achievement of our OEM board and monitor shipment goal of 185,000 units; and |
| |
▪ | 98% achievement of our rainbow® product revenues goal of $68.0 million. |
Our CEO also noted other key activities that occurred during fiscal 2016 that required substantial senior management time and focus, including the settlement of the Company’s patent infringement and antitrust litigation with Philips and the amendment of the Company’s royalty agreement with Medtronic, successful value engineering projects, and the introduction of a number of new products and technologies such as MightySat™ with RRp™, next generation SedLine® , Radius-7™ with rainbow® and Rad-97™.
As part of this evaluation of these fiscal 2016 financial and operational achievements, our CEO noted that while these key metrics could have resulted in a Company Performance Factor in excess of 100%, the $5.65 net income per diluted share included $3.49 per diluted share related to the Litigation Settlement, which was offset by $0.06 per diluted share for a charitable donation made from the settlement proceeds. In addition, our CEO noted that there were certain other metrics, including total amount of fiscal 2016 rainbow revenues, where the performance goal had not been achieved. Accordingly, our CEO recommended that the Company Performance Factor be set at 100%. After a thorough review of our financial performance for fiscal 2016 and our level of achievement with respect to the operational performance objectives, and after careful consideration of our CEO’s assessment and recommendation, the Compensation Committee determined to set the Company Performance Factor at 100%.
The ability of both the CEO and Compensation Committee to exercise selective discretion under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan has been highlighted as a concern by the major proxy advisory firms and some of our stockholders. However, the Compensation Committee believes that this discretion has been used appropriately in setting annual Company Performance Factors that were consistent with the overall achievement of the annual goals set by the Compensation Committee at the start of the year. For example, as discussed above, the Compensation Committee determined to set the Company Performance Factor for fiscal 2016 at 100% even though the results of the key metrics could have potentially resulted in a Company Performance Factor in excess of 100%. In fact, it is worth noting that, over the past six years, the Compensation Committee has set the annual Company Performance Factor at levels ranging from 50% to 100%, with only one year (fiscal 2015) at 105%. The Compensation Committee believes that this further illustrates its extremely limited use of positive discretion in setting the annual Company Factor, which, in any event, was eliminated in 2017.
For purposes of determining the Individual Performance Factor for each of our executive officers, the Compensation Committee then assessed the individual performance of each individual executive officer. In the case of our CEO, the Compensation Committee assessed his overall performance as the leader of our Company, our progress on our longer-term strategic goals and the execution and performance against our financial operational objectives for fiscal 2016, factors listed above.
48
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Based on such assessment, the Compensation Committee approved a 100% Individual Performance Factor for our CEO.
In the case of our other executive officers, the Compensation Committee considered the foregoing results and our CEO’s recommendations based on his assessment of each executive officer’s performance of their job-related duties and responsibilities for the year. The notable achievements recognized by the Compensation Committee in determining the Individual Performance Factor for each of the other NEOs were as follows:
| |
▪ | Mr. de Raad - During fiscal 2016, one of Mr. de Raad’s primary areas of focus was to lead the effort of generating a management plan that would allow the Company to continue to deliver on its goal of increased financial leverage. Throughout the year, Mr. de Raad worked cross functionally with our manufacturing, operations, engineering, sales, marketing and general and administrative functions to insure adherence to the Company’s annual management plan as well as work to identify opportunities to both improve efficiencies and lower costs. Within Mr. de Raad’s functional responsibilities, he delivered on all the Company’s internal and external reporting obligations and, at the same time, developed additional management reporting tools which have allowed the Company to more effectively analyze operating performance within a number of areas of the business. Mr. de Raad also supported a number of new corporate initiatives designed to expand the Company’s presence throughout the world, implemented a new treasury management system and addressed a variety of technical accounting and reporting related topics. Within Mr. de Raad’s investor relations responsibilities, he attended numerous investor conferences and analyst events throughout the year allowing the investment community to better understand the Company’s financial plans, including its focus on financial leverage. Based on Mr. de Raad’s 2016 achievements, our CEO recommended, and the Compensation Committee approved, a 100% Individual Performance Factor for Mr. de Raad. |
| |
▪ | Mr. Lee - During fiscal 2016, Mr. Lee managed a significant number of key initiatives in Information Technology, Information Systems and Facilities. Mr. Lee directed the effort to improve performance of the Company’s worldwide computer network services by implementing new core network switches with active redundancies in all of its major offices. This work resulted in increased reliability of the computing environment for the Company. Under the leadership of Mr. Lee, the information technology team has also taken several major steps to significantly improve the security and safety of the computer network. The information systems team has launched a number of systems to enhance efficiencies for employees to be more productive. These improvements allow employees to seamlessly collect customer feedback and process it through the organization to help improve product quality and to satisfy reporting requirements. Furthermore, the improvements help the Company remain compliant with regulatory requirements of various agencies worldwide, while also automating the creation and distribution of the Company’s strategic sales reports. In addition, Mr. Lee negotiated real property leases in Irvine, California and Tokyo, Japan to accommodate for the Company’s growth and played a major role in launching Masimo Korea. Based on Mr. Lee’s 2016 achievements, our CEO recommended, and the Compensation Committee approved, a 100% Individual Performance Factor for Mr. Lee. |
| |
▪ | Mr. McClenahan - Mr. McClenahan’s achievements in 2016 included the successful conclusion of several important litigation matters and disputes, including the settlement of the Company’s patent and antitrust litigation with Philips, the amendment of the Company’s royalty agreement with Medtronic, and the settlement of a dispute with the Company’s insurance carriers. Mr. McClenahan provided key legal guidance and support throughout the year for the Company’s sales, marketing, regulatory and human resources functions. He also led the Company’s compliance function, including several important training, audit, and monitoring initiatives. Based on Mr. McClenahan’s 2016 achievements, our CEO recommended, and the Compensation Committee approved, a 105.1% Individual Performance Factor for Mr. McClenahan. |
49
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | Mr. Sampath - During fiscal 2016, Mr. Sampath led a significant number of key initiatives, including the launch and receipt of FDA clearance of several important products, including: Root Vital Signs with Blood Pressure and Temperature, Radius-7® Wearable Pulse Co-Oximeter with SpHb® and the TFA-1™ single patient use forehead sensor. Launch and readiness for products with a CE Mark included the O3 Regional Oximetry for Pediatrics and the Rad-97™ compact Pulse Co-Oximeter family. Additionally, Oxygen Reserve Index (ORi™) was cleared for sale in Japan. The first Masimo product to provide data connectivity to medical devices under the Iris product family was developed and launched in 2016, extending Masimo’s footprint in hospitals and other medical facilities. In Mr. Sampath’s manufacturing role, the Company was able to build and ship a new record number of SpO2 sensors while expanding the Company’s manufacturing footprint in a new manufacturing facility in San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico. Mr. Sampath also led the Company’s on-going value engineering efforts, which in fiscal 2016, exceeded the targeted goals. In addition, Mr. Sampath worked extensively to improve the Company’s regulatory processes, requiring collaborative and cross-functional process improvements within the marketing, clinical research, regulatory and research and development organizations. Based on Mr. Sampath’s 2016 achievements, our CEO recommended, and the Compensation Committee approved, a 100% Individual Performance Factor for Mr. Sampath. |
Based on the foregoing determinations by the Compensation Committee, the annual cash bonus payments made to the NEOs for fiscal 2016 under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and their relationship to each NEO’s Target Bonus Percentage for fiscal 2016 were as follows.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name | | Company Performance Factor (%) | | Individual Performance Factor (%) | | Annual Cash Bonus Payment ($) | | Actual Annual Cash Bonus (relative to fiscal 2016 target bonus percentage) |
Joe Kiani | | 100.0 | % | | 100.0 | % | | $ | 1,030,000 |
| | 100.0 | % |
Mark de Raad | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 200,850 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Yongsam Lee | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 179,887 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Tom McClenahan | | 100.0 |
| | 105.1 |
| | 205,700 |
| | 105.1 |
|
Anand Sampath | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 216,300 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Long-Term Incentive Compensation - Equity Awards
The Compensation Committee believes long-term incentive compensation in the form of equity awards provides an incentive for our executive officers, including the NEOs, to focus on driving increased stockholder value over a multi-year period, serves as a reward for appreciation in our stock price and long-term value creation, and enables us to achieve our retention objectives. With the exception of the RSUs granted to our CEO in connection with the 2015 CEO Agreement, we have granted equity awards to our executive officers solely in the form of options to purchase shares of our common stock since our initial public offering in 2007.
The Compensation Committee believes that stock options are an effective tool for increasing long-term stockholder value because they only have value to the extent that the market price of our common stock price appreciates above the option exercise price. We believe this direct alignment, plus the fact that stock options are well understood and valued by our executive officers, have made them an effective motivational tool and focused our executive officers on results that directly improve our long-term performance. Typically, the stock options granted by the Compensation Committee vest over a five-year period with 20% of the shares of common stock subject to an option vesting on each anniversary of the date of grant.
As with other elements of compensation, the Compensation Committee determines the value of the stock options to grant to each executive officer after considering the factors described above under “Considerations in Determining Named Executive Officer Compensation.”
50
| 2017 Proxy Statement
On February 29, 2016, the Compensation Committee granted options to purchase shares of our common stock to our executive officers, including the NEOs, after taking into consideration the competitive market environment, the recommendations of our CEO, the outstanding equity awards held by each executive officer, and the other factors described above. In the case of our CEO, pursuant to the 2015 CEO Agreement, the Compensation Committee granted him an option to purchase 300,000 shares of our common stock. After fiscal 2017, there are no guaranteed or minimum grants of stock options or any other type of equity required under the 2015 CEO Agreement.
The equity awards granted to the NEOs in fiscal 2016 were as follows:
|
| | | | | | |
Name | | Options to Purchase Shares of Common Stock (number of shares) | | Options to Purchase Shares of Common Stock (total fair value at grant date) |
Joe Kiani | | 300,000 | | $ | 3,930,900 |
|
Mark de Raad | | 30,000 | | 393,090 |
|
Yongsam Lee | | 30,000 | | 393,090 |
|
Tom McClenahan | | 30,000 | | 393,090 |
|
Anand Sampath | | 30,000 | | 393,090 |
|
Multi-Year Executive Cash Bonus
To strengthen the focus of our executive officers on long-term decision-making and to incentivize them to deliver exceptional financial and operational results over an extended period, in April 2014, the Compensation Committee established a three-year bonus performance period under our Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. Under this plan, our executive officers, including the NEOs, were eligible to earn a cash bonus based on our ability to achieve certain pre-established financial objectives over a three-year performance period that commenced on December 29, 2013 and ended on December 31, 2016 (the “Plan Period”) as long as they were employed with us for at least the last 18 months during the Plan Period. The amounts payable under the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan were to be prorated based on the number of full weeks during the Plan Period in which each participant was employed with us, subject to the 18-month employment requirement.
Bonus Formula - Under the terms of the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan, the bonus for each participant was to be calculated pursuant to the following formula:
|
| | | | | | | | |
Three-Year Average Base Salary | r | Multi-Year Performance Bonus Percentage | r | Applicable Company Performance Factor | r | Individual Performance Factor | r | Three |
Target Multi-Year Bonus Percentage - For purposes of the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan, each executive officer was assigned a target cash bonus opportunity, the amount of which was calculated as a percentage of his or her base salary (the “Target Multi-Year Bonus Percentage”). In setting the Target Multi-Year Bonus Percentages, the Compensation Committee considered the critical roles that our CEO and the other executive officers play in the success of our long-term financial performance. The Target Bonus Percentages of the NEOs were as follows:
51
| 2017 Proxy Statement
|
| | |
Name | | Target Multi-Year Bonus Percentage (as a percentage of base salary) |
Joe Kiani | | 100% |
Mark de Raad | | 50 |
Yongsam Lee | | 50 |
Tom McClenahan | | 50 |
Anand Sampath | | 50 |
Company Performance Factor - For purposes of the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan, the Compensation Committee, at the beginning of the Plan Period, selected adjusted product revenues and adjusted net income per diluted share as the two financial measures for purposes of determining the Company Performance Factor. The performance levels that were established at the beginning of the Plan Period for these financial measures were intended by the Compensation Committee to be more aggressive, on a cumulative basis, than the target levels that were expected to be established each fiscal year during the Plan Period under the applicable annual cash bonus plan.
In April 2014, when the target levels for the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan were established, the Company had experienced a number of years in which various unexpected events had made delivering on our prior product revenue and net income per diluted share goals difficult. Therefore, the Compensation Committee instituted a new Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan (the only prior Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan period was from 2008-2010) that it believed would provide additional long-term incentives for our executive officers to increase stockholder value. After considering available metrics, the Compensation Committee determined that appropriate measures to increase long-term stockholder value were a combination of adjusted product revenues and adjusted net income per diluted share. Importantly, while the Compensation Committee acknowledged that these same two financial metrics were also components of a longer list of the Company’s Annual Bonus Plan goals, the Compensation Committee believed that placing the primary focus for this Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan period on these two important drivers of long-term stockholder value was appropriate.
At the time the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan was established, the Company had reported fiscal 2013 product revenues of $517.4 million and net income per diluted share of $1.02. Therefore, the Compensation Committee established what it considered to be “stretch” product revenue targets of $574.0 million, $630.5 million and $694.0 million for fiscal 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. At the same time, the Compensation Committee established a set of aggressive net income per diluted share target levels of $1.16, $1.33 and $1.64 for fiscal 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively, or a cumulated three year total earnings per diluted share target of $4.13. Subsequently, after setting these earnings per diluted share targets, when it became more certain that the royalty payments under the Company’s agreement with Medtronic would continue, the Compensation Committee increased the annual earnings per diluted share target levels to $1.40, $1.65 and $1.96 for fiscal 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively.
The cumulative target level for each of the financial measures was set as follows:
|
| | |
Financial Measures | | Three-Year Target Performance Levels |
Adjusted product revenues | | $1,898.5 million |
Adjusted net income per diluted share | | $5.01 |
These financial measures were not given any specific weighting and the target performance levels established for each measure did not individually correlate to any specific bonus payment. At the end of the Plan Period, the Compensation Committee, with input from our CEO, was to evaluate our performance against the target levels set for each financial measure and, along with any other financial or corporate performance measures that it determined to be relevant, set a Company Performance Factor ranging from 0% to 100% or more.
52
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Individual Performance Factor - For purposes of the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan, after the end of the Plan Period the Compensation Committee was to determine the Individual Performance Factor for each participant. In the case of our CEO, the Compensation Committee was to determine his Individual Performance Factor by assessing his overall performance for the Plan Period. In the case of our other executive officers, including the other NEOs, the Compensation Committee was to determine their Individual Performance Factor taking into account the recommendations of our CEO based upon his assessment of each other executive officer’s overall job performance during the Plan Period, as well as the assessment of the executive officer’s supervisor, if not our CEO.
Multi-Year Executive Cash Bonus Payments - In March 2017, the Compensation Committee determined the amounts to be paid to our executive officers, including the NEOs, under the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan based on our actual financial performance for the Plan Period and the Individual Performance Factor established for each executive officer.
For purposes of determining the Company Performance Factor, our CEO reported the following to the Compensation Committee for the Plan Period:
| |
• | Adjusted product revenues1 were $1,863.2 million, which were slightly lower than the target level of $1,898.5 million, yielding a 98.1% achievement; and |
| |
• | Adjusted net income per diluted share2 was $8.683, which was significantly above the target level of $5.01, yielding a 173.3% achievement. |
In making his recommendation to the Compensation Committee, our CEO noted that the ability for the management team to deliver 98.1% of the three-year “stretch” product revenue goal, particularly during three years of U.S. and global economic challenges, was a major accomplishment. In discussing the adjusted net income per diluted share performance of 173.3% or $3.68 over the three year “stretch” net income per diluted share goal, our CEO noted that while $3.49 of this over-achievement was due to the litigation settlement with Philips, that activity involved a significant amount of senior management time and resulted in large legal costs which were also included in these three year cumulative diluted earnings per share amounts. Finally, our CEO also noted that while the first year results under the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan period were not achieved, the plans and initiatives put in place during fiscal 2014 continued through fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016 and eventually combined to result in significant over-achievement of the net income per diluted share targets in fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016. Based on his evaluation of this performance and our Company’s strong overall financial results in fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016 which contributed to an increase in our stock price from $28.86 per share at the end of fiscal 2013 to $67.40 per share at the end of the Plan Period, an increase of 136%, our CEO recommended that the Company Performance Factor be set at 100%. After a thorough review of our financial performance for the Plan Period and after careful consideration of our CEO’s assessment and recommendation, the Compensation Committee determined to set the Company Performance Factor at 100%.
For purposes of determining the Individual Performance Factor for each of our executive officers the Compensation Committee then assessed the individual performance and contribution of each executive officer during the Plan Period. In the case of our CEO, the Compensation Committee considered his overall performance as the leader of our Company during the Plan Period, including our financial results and our execution and completion of our operational and strategic objectives for the Plan Period. In the case of our other executive officers, the Compensation Committee considered the foregoing as well as our CEO’s recommendations based on his assessment of each executive officer’s performance of his or her job-related duties and responsibilities for the Plan Period.
____________________
| |
1 | Non-GAAP financial measure - please see Appendix A to this Proxy Statement for a description of the unique adjustments and reconciliation to our Plan Period GAAP product revenues. |
| |
2 | Non-GAAP financial measure - please see Appendix A to this Proxy Statement for a description of the unique adjustments and reconciliation to our Plan Period GAAP net income per diluted share. |
| |
3 | Includes $3.49 per diluted share related to the Litigation Settlement during fiscal 2016, which was offset by $0.06 per diluted share for a fiscal 2016 charitable donation made from the settlement proceeds. |
53
| 2017 Proxy Statement
As previously noted, the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan focused on delivering both product revenues and net income per diluted share goals that exceeded the goals established for the Annual Bonus Plan. In order to accomplishthese “stretch” goals, the executive team, led by our CEO, had to deliver increased product revenue and net income per diluted share performance over the sustained three-year Plan Period. As part of its evaluation of our performance, the Compensation Committee noted that for the first year of the Plan Period, we did not achieve our financial goals for the year. However, over the second and third year of the Plan Period, the executive team was able to deliver product revenues and net income per diluted share results that significantly exceeded the original goals. The Compensation Committee, in its deliberations, recognized that the intent of the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan was to generate outstanding cumulative results for the entire three-year Plan Period. Consequently, although the target performance levels for fiscal 2014 year were not met, our strong performance in fiscal 2015 and again in fiscal 2016 were sufficient to achieve 173.1% of the three-year “stretch” net income per diluted share target level and 98.1% of the three-year “stretch” revenue target level. Noting that the significant over-achievement of the “stretch” net income per diluted share target and the near achievement of the “stretch” product revenue target were likely contributors to the increase in the market price of our common stock from $28.86 per share at the commencement of the Plan Period to $67.40 per share at the end of the Plan Period, the Compensation Committee determined that the performance of both our CEO and our other NEOs, warranted an Individual Performance Factor of 100%.
Based on the foregoing determinations by the Compensation Committee, the cash bonus payments made to the NEOs under the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan and their relationship to each NEO’s Target Multi-Year Bonus Percentage were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name | | Company Performance Factor (%) | | Individual Performance Factor (%) | | Multi-Year Cash Bonus Payment ($) | | Actual Multi-Year Cash Bonus (relative to target multi-year bonus percentage) |
Joe Kiani | | 100.0 | % | | 100.0 | % | | $ | 2,624,079 |
| | 100.0 | % |
Mark de Raad | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 545,455 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Yongsam Lee | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 516,509 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Tom McClenahan | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 502,394 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Anand Sampath | | 100.0 |
| | 100.0 |
| | 544,647 |
| | 100.0 |
|
Welfare and Health Benefits
We maintain a tax-qualified Code Section 401(k) defined contribution plan in which all of our employees, including our executive officers, who satisfy certain eligibility requirements, including requirements relating to age and length of service, are entitled to participate. The NEOs participate in this plan on the same terms as all other eligible employees. Employees may contribute their own funds on a pre-tax basis.
The plan permits us to make matching contributions and we have historically provided contributions that match eligible employee contributions, generally limited to 3% of the compensation that can be taken into account for this purpose under the federal law. Matching contributions vest starting at 50% of eligible employee contributions, when an employee has been employed for two years, and vest an additional 25% for each additional year of service until fully vested after four years.
In addition, we provide health care, dental, vision and life insurance, an employee assistance plan and both short-term and long-term disability, accidental death and dismemberment benefits to all full-time employees, with the NEOs participating on the same terms as all other eligible employees. These benefits are subject to applicable laws and at benefit levels that we believe are generally consistent with the benefits of companies with which we compete for talent.
Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits
Generally, we provide perquisites and other personal benefits to our executive officers, including the NEOs, in situations where we believe it is appropriate to assist an individual in the performance of his or her duties, to make our executive officers more efficient and effective, and for recruitment and retention purposes.
54
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Accordingly, certain NEOs are eligible to receive an automobile allowance based on their job duties. In addition, under the 2015 CEO Agreement, we reimburse our CEO for all reasonable travel and lodging expenses, which include travel and hospitality expenses for first class travel and accommodations, including travel by private or chartered aircraft, for his family and household members if they accompany him during business travel. Our Board believes that these arrangements are appropriate because of the extensive travel requirements of our CEO’s position.
We also have established a security program for our CEO that provides physical and personal security services as they may, from time to time, be deemed necessary. This security program is not limited to providing security services only at business facilities or functions or during business-related travel and may include providing security services during certain non-business occasions, including at his primary residence and during personal travel. Our Board does not consider any of these security services to be a personal benefit as the requirement for this occasional security is directly the result of his role as our CEO. As our CEO, his personal safety is vital to our continued success.
We have reported the actual amounts that we have paid for our CEO’s family and household members to accompany him during his business travel and for his security arrangements that were not security arrangements provided at our business facilities in the “All Other Compensation” column in the Fiscal 2016 Summary Compensation Table in this Proxy Statement.
Post-Employment Compensation
We believe that having in place reasonable and competitive post-employment compensation arrangements are essential to attracting and retaining highly-qualified executive officers. Our post-employment compensation arrangements are designed to provide reasonable compensation to executive officers who leave the Company under certain circumstances to facilitate their transition to new employment. Further, we seek to mitigate any potential employer liability and avoid future disputes or litigation by requiring a departing executive officer to sign a separation and release agreement acceptable to us as a condition to receiving post-employment compensation payments or benefits.
We do not consider specific amounts payable under these post-employment compensation arrangements when establishing annual compensation. We do believe, however, that these arrangements are necessary to offer compensation packages that are competitive.
For information on the employment arrangements for our CEO and other NEOs, as well as an estimate of the potential payments and benefits payable under these arrangements as of the end of fiscal 2016, see “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers” of this Proxy Statement.
Other Compensation Policies and Practices
Equity Awards
Equity awards granted to newly-hired employees are effective as of the later of the date the individual commences work or service with us or the grant approval date. Equity awards granted to existing employees and others providing services to the Company are effective as of the grant approval date. The terms of each equity award, including the date of grant, the corresponding exercise, purchase or base price, the vesting conditions, the term of such award, and the number of shares of our common stock subject to such award, as applicable, are approved by our Board, the Compensation Committee, or the non-officer equity award committee (as defined in the policy), as applicable. In addition, the exercise price for options to purchase shares of our common stock may not be less than the fair market value of our common stock as of the close of business on the effective date of the option.
Stock Ownership Policy
We maintain a stock ownership policy for our executive officers to align their interests with the interests of our stockholders. This policy provides that:
| |
▪ | our CEO is required to own that number of shares of our common stock with a market value equal to at least six times his annual base salary; and |
55
| 2017 Proxy Statement
| |
▪ | our other executive officers are required to own that number of shares of our common stock with a market value equal to at least their annual base salary. For purposes of our policy, an executive officer’s base salary during any calendar year is deemed to be his or her base salary as of the close of business on December 31st of the immediately preceding year. |
Further, for purposes of calculating ownership under our policy, the following sources are included, whether vested or unvested: (i) shares of our common stock held directly by the executive officer or in a trust for the benefit of the executive officer or his or her family; (ii) shares of our common stock held by the executive officer jointly with, or separately by, his or her spouse and/or children sharing the same household as him or her; (iii) shares of our common stock held by the executive officer through a profit sharing, savings or deferral plan; and (iv) restricted stock or phantom stock held by the executive officer. Shares of our common stock subject to outstanding and unexercised stock options and unearned performance share awards are not included in the calculation.
Under our policy, if an executive officer fails to meet or, in unique circumstances, fails to show sustained progress toward meeting his or her target ownership level, the Compensation Committee may reduce future long-term incentive equity awards and/or payments of future annual and/or long-term cash incentive payouts in the form of shares of our common stock and/or impose other penalties. The Compensation Committee also retains the discretion not to levy penalties for non-compliance.
Our executive officers are expected to reach their target ownership level by (i) March 2017 (if he or she was an executive officer in January 2012, the date when the stock ownership policy was adopted) or (ii) March 1st of the sixth calendar year following the date he or she first becomes an executive officer (if he or she was not an executive officer in January 2012), whichever is later, and to hold at least such minimum value in shares of our common stock for so long as applicable. As of March 1, 2017, each of the NEOs for which the stock ownership requirements were applicable was in compliance with the stock ownership policy.
Compensation Recovery (“Clawback”) Policy
We maintain a compensation recovery (“clawback”) policy that provides that in the event we are required to restate our financial statements as a result of “material noncompliance” with the financial reporting requirements under the securities laws, we will recover from our current and former executive officers any incentive-based compensation (including stock options) that is:
| |
▪ | based on erroneous data; |
| |
▪ | received during the three-year period preceding the date on which we become required to prepare an accounting restatement; and |
| |
▪ | in excess of what would have been paid if calculated under the restatement. |
We intend to review the terms of our policy once the Securities and Exchange Commission adopts final regulations implementing Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and, if necessary, will revise our policy to conform to such regulations.
Tax “Gross-Up” Policy
We maintain a policy governing the inclusion of tax “gross-up” provisions in agreements with our executive officers. Under this policy, the Compensation Committee will not approve any employment or other agreement or arrangement with any of our executive officers that includes a tax “gross-up” or similar provision that would require payments by us to an executive officer be made in the full amount, free of any deductions or withholdings, and without exercising any right of set-off, in connection with a change in control of the Company. Our policy also provides that the Compensation Committee will not approve an amendment to extend the term of any current employment or other agreement or arrangement between us and any executive officer if such agreement or arrangement includes a tax “gross-up” or similar provision. Currently, we have no agreements or arrangements in place with any executive officer that require or provide for a tax “gross-up” or similar payment.
56
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Under our Severance Plan in which our NEOs other than our CEO participate, the plan administrator has the right to reduce any change in control severance payment or benefits payable to an executive officer to avoid triggering any “excess parachute payments” under Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code.
Hedging and Pledging Policies
Our Insider Trading Policy prohibits our employees, including our executive officers, and the non-employee members of our Board from engaging in “short sales” of our equity securities and from engaging in hedging transactions involving our equity securities. Further, our Insider Trading Policy restricts our employees, including our executive officers, and the non-employee members of our Board from pledging our equity securities as collateral for a loan or otherwise unless the transaction is pre-cleared by our Insider Trading Compliance Officer.
57
| 2017 Proxy Statement
As of March 15, 2017, an aggregate of 1,432,209 shares of our common stock owned by the Kiani Family Remainder Trust and beneficially owned by our CEO were pledged as collateral for a personal loan issued to the trustee of the Kiani Family Remainder Trust. In addition to obtaining pre-clearance from our Insider Trading Compliance Officer, our CEO also sought and received the approval of the Compensation Committee prior to entering into this transaction.
Tax and Accounting Considerations
Deductibility of Executive Compensation
Generally, Section 162(m) of the Code (“Section 162(m)”) disallows public companies a tax deduction for federal income tax purposes of compensation in excess of $1 million paid to their chief executive officer and each of the three other most highly-compensated executive officers (other than the chief financial officer) in any taxable year. Compensation in excess of $1 million may only be deducted if it is “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) or qualifies for one of the other exemptions from the deductibility limit. In making compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee considers the potential effects of Section 162(m) on the compensation paid to the NEOs.
To maintain flexibility in compensating the NEOs in a manner designed to promote varying corporate goals, the Compensation Committee has not adopted a policy that all compensation payable to the NEOs that is subject to Section 162(m) must be deductible for federal income tax purposes. The Compensation Committee may, in its judgment, approve compensation for the NEOs that does not comply with an exemption from the deductibility limits when it believes that such compensation is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
We follow the Financial Accounting Standard Board’s Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718 (“ASC Topic 718”) for our stock-based compensation awards. ASC Topic 718 requires us to measure the compensation expense for all share-based payment awards granted to our employees and the non-employee members of our Board, including options to purchase shares of our common stock and other stock awards, based on the grant date “fair value” of these awards. This calculation is performed for accounting purposes and reported in the executive compensation tables required by the federal securities laws, even though the recipient of the awards may never realize any value from their awards.
To calculate the fair value of options to purchase shares of our common stock, we use the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model which requires the input of several subjective assumptions. These assumptions include estimating the length of time recipients will retain their vested options before exercising them, the estimated volatility of our stock price over the expected option term, and the number of shares of our common stock subject to options that will ultimately be forfeited prior to meeting their vesting requirements. The fair value of the options granted to our employees and the non-employee members of our Board are expensed over the requisite service period of each option, which is the vesting period, using a straight-line attribution method.
The fair value of RSU awards is calculated based upon the closing market price of our common stock on the date of the grant. The fair value of the time-based RSU awards granted to our employees and the non-employee members of our Board are expensed over the requisite service period of each award, which is the vesting period, using a straight-line attribution method.
58
| 2017 Proxy Statement
With respect to the RSU award covering 2.7 million shares of our common stock granted to our CEO as part of the terms of the 2015 CEO Agreement, this RSU award vests only in the event of a Qualifying Termination (see “— Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers — Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” on page 66 of this Proxy Statement for details). Accordingly, and in accordance with the accounting rules, the Company will only recognize compensation expense for this contingent stock award at the time of a change of control of the Company or when it is determined that the occurrence of a Qualifying Termination is “probable”. Should this occur, in accordance with accounting guidance, the amount of compensation expense that will be recognized will be based upon the fair value of the RSU award on the date of grant. At the present time, the Company does not believe that an occurrence of a Qualifying Termination is “probable”, and as a result, no stock-based compensation expense has been recorded related to this RSU award.
While the Compensation Committee considers the expense impact under ASC Topic 718 as one of the factors in granting equity awards, it also considers the importance of aligning the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders, the retentive value of equity awards and other factors, and makes its decisions regarding equity awards based on its evaluation of such factors.
Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated into our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
|
| |
| Compensation Committee |
| Mr. Craig Reynolds |
| Mr. Thomas Harkin |
| Mr. Adam Mikkelson |
This foregoing compensation committee report is not “soliciting material”, is not deemed “filed” with the SEC, and shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Proxy Statement into any filing of ours under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or under the Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically incorporate this report by reference.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
During fiscal 2016, our Compensation Committee consisted of Mr. Fitch (until October 27, 2016), Mr. Harkin, Mr. Mikkelson (effective as of October 27, 2016) and Mr. Reynolds (the current Chairperson of the Compensation Committee). In addition, Mr. Jack Lasersohn served on our Compensation Committee during fiscal 2016 until February 26, 2016. There are no relationships between the current members of the Compensation Committee and our executive officers of the type contemplated in the SEC’s rules requiring disclosure of “compensation committee interlocks.” None of the current members of the Compensation Committee is our employee and no current member has been an officer of Masimo at any time.
Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. (Cercacor)
Cercacor is an independent entity spun off from us to our stockholders in 1998. Joe Kiani, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, is also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cercacor and a member of the board of directors of Cercacor. In addition, Mr. Lasersohn, a former member of our Board, also served as a member of the board of directors of Cercacor through April 2, 2015.
59
| 2017 Proxy Statement
We are a party to a cross-licensing agreement with Cercacor, which was amended and restated effective January 1, 2007 (the “Cross-Licensing Agreement”), that governs each party’s rights to certain of the intellectual property held by the two companies. To date, the Company has developed and commercially released devices that measure carbon monoxide, methemoglobin and hemoglobin using licensed rainbow® technology. Pursuant to the Cross-Licensing Agreement, we are currently subject to certain specific minimum royalty payment obligations of $5.0 million per year. Actual aggregate royalty payment liabilities were $6.4 million for fiscal 2016.
The Company has also entered into a Services Agreement with Cercacor effective January 1, 2007 (the “Services Agreement”), which governs certain general and administrative services the Company provides to Cercacor. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, Cercacor paid the Company $0.2 million for general and administrative services related to fiscal 2016.
In March 2016, the Company entered into a sublease agreement with Cercacor for approximately 16,830 square feet of excess office and laboratory space located at 40 Parker, Irvine, California (the “Cercacor Sublease”). The Cercacor Sublease began on May 1, 2016 and expires on November 30, 2019. The Company recognized $0.3 million of sublease income pursuant to the Cercacor Sublease during fiscal 2016.
60
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Summary Compensation Table
The following table provides information regarding the compensation earned during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 by our CEO, our CFO, and our three other most highly compensated executive officers who were employed with us as of December 31, 2016, the last day of our 2016 fiscal year. We refer to these five individuals collectively as our “named executive officers” (“NEOs”). We generally pay bonuses in the year following the year in which the bonus was earned. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name and Principal Position(s) | | Year | | Salary | | Bonus | | Stock Awards(1) | | Option Awards(1) | | Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation(2) | | All Other Compensation | | Total | | Total, Excluding RSU Grant to Mr. Kiani in Connection with the 2015 CEO Agreement(3) |
Joe Kiani | | 2016 | | $ | 1,015,000 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 3,930,900 |
| | $ | 3,654,079 |
| (4) | $ | 397,791 |
| (5) | $ | 8,997,770 |
| | $ | 8,997,770 |
|
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman (PEO) | | 2015 | | 883,518 |
| | — |
| | 119,222,614 |
| (6) | 3,822,690 |
| | 1,050,000 |
| | 1,551,406 |
| | 119,222,614 |
| | 7,307,614 |
|
| | 2014 | | 755,846 |
| | 75,000 |
| | — |
| | 2,661,150 |
| | 769,549 |
| | 194,836 |
| | 4,456,381 |
| | 4,456,381 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mark de Raad | | 2016 | | 401,090 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 393,090 |
| | 746,305 |
| (7) | 7,950 |
| (8) | 1,548,435 |
| | 1,548,435 |
|
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Corporate Secretary (PFO) | | 2015 | | 363,034 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 313,623 |
| | 204,750 |
| | 7,950 |
| | 889,357 |
| | 889,357 |
|
| | 2014 | | 346,082 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 266,115 |
| | 172,237 |
| | 7,500 |
| | 791,934 |
| | 791,934 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yongsam Lee | | 2016 | | 359,734 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 393,090 |
| | 696,396 |
| (9) | 44,410 |
| (10) | 1,493,630 |
| | 1,493,630 |
|
Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer | | 2015 | | 350,730 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 313,623 |
| | 183,380 |
| | 7,950 |
| | 855,683 |
| | 855,683 |
|
| | 2014 | | 340,704 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 266,115 |
| | 169,561 |
| | 7,500 |
| | 783,880 |
| | 783,880 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McClenahan | | 2016 | | 385,740 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 393,090 |
| | 708,094 |
| (11) | 73,066 |
| (12) | 1,559,990 |
| | 1,559,990 |
|
Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary | | 2015 | | 327,142 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 313,623 |
| | 199,500 |
| | 7,950 |
| | 848,215 |
| | 848,215 |
|
| | 2014 | | 305,268 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 266,115 |
| | 151,925 |
| | 7,500 |
| | 730,808 |
| | 730,808 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Anand Sampath | | 2016 | | 426,340 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 393,090 |
| | 760,947 |
| (13) | 7,950 |
| (8) | 1,588,327 |
| | 1,588,327 |
|
Chief Operating Officer | | 2015 | | 369,277 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 313,623 |
| | 220,500 |
| | 7,950 |
| | 911,350 |
| | 911,350 |
|
| | 2014 | | 307,815 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 605,780 |
| | 172,520 |
| | 7,500 |
| | 1,093,615 |
| | 1,093,615 |
|
61
| 2017 Proxy Statement
___________
| |
(1) | Amounts set forth in the “Stock Awards” and “Option Awards” columns for 2014, 2015 and 2016 reflect the grant date fair value of stock and option awards granted in the year indicated, computed in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance. All of these amounts reflect certain assumptions with respect to the option awards and do not necessarily correspond to the actual value that will be recognized by the NEOs. The actual value, if any, that may be realized from a stock award or an option award is contingent upon the satisfaction of the conditions to vesting in that award, and, in the case of option awards, upon the excess of the stock price over the exercise price, if any, on the date the option award is exercised. See Note 14 of the Notes to Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on February 15, 2017, for a discussion of the grant date fair value of the stock awards and the assumptions made in determining the grant date fair value of the RSUs and stock options granted in our fiscal years 2014, 2015 and 2016. |
| |
(2) | All amounts were paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan or the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
| |
(3) | This column excludes amounts included in the “Stock Awards” column of $111,915,000 for Mr. Kiani, which represents the grant date fair value of an award of 2.7 million restricted share units (“RSUs”) with contingent vesting granted to Mr. Kiani in November 2015 in connection with the amendment and restatement of his employment agreement. These RSUs will only vest in connection with a termination of Mr. Kiani’s employment with us other than for death, disability or cause, or Mr. Kiani’s termination of his employment with us for Good Reason. These RSUs will not vest if Mr. Kiani voluntarily terminates his employment with us other than for Good Reason. The 2015 CEO Agreement provides that on January 1 of each year, beginning on January 1, 2018, 270,000 shares subject to the RSUs will terminate without the payment of any consideration to Mr. Kiani, to the extent then unvested. See “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” on page 66 of this Proxy Statement for additional information regarding the restricted share unit award. |
| |
(4) | Consists of $1,030,000 paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and $2,624,079 paid pursuant to the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
| |
(5) | Consists of $6,461 in retirement savings plan matching contributions, $367,967 for the for the net incremental costs of certain lodging, meals and other travel-related expenses incurred by Mr. Kiani’s family and household members accompanying him during certain business travel pursuant to Mr. Kiani’s employment agreement (see “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” on page 66 of this Proxy Statement) and $23,363 for the net incremental costs of security personnel and security services provided to Mr. Kiani during certain personal, non-business-related occasions, which represents the actual amounts paid by the Company for such security arrangements for Mr. Kiani that were not security arrangements provided at the Company’s business facilities, and for business travel. We have established a security program for Mr. Kiani that provides physical and personal security services as they may, from time to time, be deemed necessary. This security program is not limited to providing security services only at business facilities or functions or during business-related travel and can include providing security services during certain non-business occasions, including at his primary residence and during personal travel. We do not consider any such security services to be personal benefits as the requirement for this occasional security is directly the result of Mr. Kiani’s role as our CEO and as our CEO, his personal safety is vital to our continued success. |
| |
(6) | Represents the grant date fair value of an award of 2.7 million RSUs with contingent vesting granted to Mr. Kiani in November 2015 in connection with the amendment and restatement of his employment agreement. These RSUs will only vest in connection with a termination of Mr. Kiani’s employment with us other than for death, disability or cause, or Mr. Kiani’s termination of his employment with us for Good Reason. These RSUs will not vest if Mr. Kiani voluntarily terminates his employment with us other than for Good Reason. The 2015 CEO Agreement provides that on January 1 of each year, beginning on January 1, 2018, 270,000 shares subject to the RSUs will terminate without the payment of any consideration to Mr. Kiani, to the extent then unvested. See “—Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreement with Joe Kiani” on page 66 of this Proxy Statement for additional information regarding the restricted share unit award. |
| |
(7) | Consists of $200,850 paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and $545,455 paid pursuant to the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
| |
(8) | Consists of $7,950 in retirement savings plan matching contributions. |
| |
(9) | Consists of $179,887 paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and $516,509 paid pursuant to the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
| |
(10) | Consists of $7,950 in retirement savings plan matching contributions and $36,460 of net incremental personal and family travel expenses, which represents the actual costs incurred by the Company for such travel. |
| |
(11) | Consists of $205,700 paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and $502,394 paid pursuant to the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
| |
(12) | Consists of $7,950 retirement savings plan matching contributions and $65,116 of net incremental personal and family travel expenses, which represents the actual costs incurred by the Company for such travel. |
| |
(13) | Consists of $216,300 paid pursuant to the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan and $544,647 paid pursuant to the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan. |
62
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Pension Benefits-Nonqualified Defined Contribution and Other Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
No pension benefits were paid to any of our NEOs during fiscal 2016. We do not currently sponsor any non-qualified defined contribution plans or non-qualified deferred compensation plans.
Grants of Plan-Based Awards During Fiscal Year 2016
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Estimated Future Payout Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1) | | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) | | Exercise Price Per Share ($/Sh) | | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($)(3) |
Name | | Grant Date | | Threshold | | Target(2) | | Maximum | |
Joe Kiani | | February 29, 2016 | | — | | — |
| | — | | 300,000(4) | | $ | 37.84 |
| | $ | 3,930,900 |
|
| | March 17, 2016 | | Note(2) | | $ | 1,030,000 |
| | Note(2) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mark de Raad | | February 29, 2016 | | — | | — |
| | — | | 30,000(4) | | 37.84 |
| | 393,090 |
|
| | March 17, 2016 | | Note(2) | | 200,850 |
| | Note(2) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yongsam Lee | | February 29, 2016 | | — | | — |
| | — | | 30,000(4) | | 37.84 |
| | 393,090 |
|
| | March 17, 2016 | | Note(2) | | 179,887 |
| | Note(2) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McClenahan | | February 29, 2016 | | — | | — |
| | — | | 30,000(4) | | 37.84 |
| | 393,090 |
|
| | March 17, 2016 | | Note(2) | | 195,700 |
| | Note(2) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Anand Sampath | | February 29, 2016 | | — | | — |
| | — | | 30,000(4) | | 37.84 |
| | 393,090 |
|
| | March 17, 2016 | | Note(2) | | 216,300 |
| | Note(2) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
____________
| |
(1) | Excludes potential payments under the Multi-Year Executive Bonus Plan for the three-year period from December 29, 2013 to December 31, 2016. See “— Multi-Year Executive Cash Bonus” on page 53 of this Proxy Statement for additional details. |
| |
(2) | Represents potential payments under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan. The amounts shown as target represent the potential target payments assuming 100% achievement of the Company Factors (determined based on our performance against financial targets for our CEO and against financial targets and operational objectives for our other NEOs), and 100% achievement of the Individual Factors, as determined by our Board and Compensation Committee. There are no threshold or maximum amounts payable under the Fiscal 2016 Executive Bonus Plan. If the Compensation Committee determines that (i) we did not achieve 100% of the financial targets and, with respect to the NEOs other than the CEO, the operational objectives, the Compensation Committee can set the Company Factor at any factor it deems appropriate, including 0%; (ii) we achieved 100% of the financial targets and, with respect to the NEOs other than the CEO, the operational objectives, the Company Factor is 100%; and (iii) we achieved more than 100% of the financial targets and, with respect to the NEOs other than the CEO, the operational objectives, the Compensation Committee can set the Company Factor at or above 100%. |
| |
(3) | Amounts reflect the fair value per share as of the grant date of the award multiplied by the number of shares. Regardless of the value on the grant date, the actual value will depend on the market value of our common stock on a date in the future when an award vests or stock option is exercised. |
| |
(4) | This option vests over a five-year period, with 20% of the shares subject to the option vesting on each anniversary. |
63
| 2017 Proxy Statement
Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2016
The following table presents the outstanding option awards held by each of our NEOs as of December 31, 2016.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Option Awards(1) | | Stock Awards |
Name | | Grant Date | | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable | | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable | | Option Exercise Price ($) | | Option Expiration Date | | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) | | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested |
Joe Kiani | | 2/7/2008 | | 300,000 |
| | — |
| | $ | 30.79 |
| | 2/7/2018 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 1/11/2009 | | 300,000 |
| | — |
| | 23.98 |
| | 1/11/2019 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 2/11/2010 | | 300,000 |
| | — |
| | 27.25 |
| | 2/11/2020 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 2/22/2011 | | 300,000 |
| | — |
| | 30.06 |
| | 2/22/2021 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 10/27/2011 | | 300,000 |
| | — |
| | 20.19 |
| | 10/27/2021 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 5/28/2013 | | 180,000 |
| | 120,000 |
| | 21.97 |
| | 5/28/2023 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 2/18/2014 | | 120,000 |
| | 180,000 |
| | 28.03 |
| | 2/18/2024 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 6/15/2015 | | 60,000 |
| | 240,000 |
| | 38.76 |
| | 6/15/2025 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | 11/4/2015 | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 2,700,000 |
| (2) | — |
|
| | 2/29/2016 | | — |
| | 300,000 |
| | 37.84 |
| | 2/28/2026 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mark de Raad | | 1/11/2009 | | 30,000 |
| | — |
| | 23.98 |
| | 1/11/2019 |
| | — |
| |