Blogs

A&O Shearman’s “Personal protection: perk or necessity?” discusses the disconnect between the SEC’s interpretation of executive security arrangements as disclosable perks, which often prompt criticism (at best) from investors, proxy advisors, employees, and the media, and companies’ reality of executive security as a necessity that enables executives, particularly CEOs and other top leadership figures, to perform their duties. The piece illustrates why the perk characterization should be revisited in favor of such arrangements being deemed “integrally and directly related to the performance of an executive’s duties.” See also our post below regarding proxy perk disclosures.  

In-House Members: Watch for our member benchmarking survey on corporate executive security practices launching this week.

See this post, courtesy of John Jenkins with TheCorporateCounsel: “Heads Up: Disclosure of Executive Security Arrangements,” which nicely summarizes the SEC’s position on the characterization and disclosure of security-related expenditures; these articles: “How Security Teams Protect Top Executives”  (WSJ) and “How CEOs are beefing up security after murder of UnitedHealthcare boss” (The Times); and additional resources on our Executive Pay page » Perks.

                                       This post first appeared in the weekly Society Alert!