After an abrupt mid-year change, the IRS recently released Revenue Procedure 2018-27, which provides relief for employees with family coverage under a High Deductible Health Plan who also contribute to a Health Savings Account (HSA), by permitting such employees to use the previously announced $6,900 contribution limit for 2018 contributions. In May 2017, the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2017-37 which provided the annual inflation adjusted contribution limits for HSAs and stated that the 2018 contribution…
Many US-based global employers can lose sight of compliance matters connected with employee benefit plans managed by their non-US operations as often non-US plans are statutory plans, maintained by a governmental agency, where the employer’s only obligation is to make the required contributions. As the first quarter of 2018 comes to a close, now is a good time to review your company’s global pension compliance. Delinquency Red Flags The local non-US affiliate may be delinquent in completing…
Join Baker McKenzie for a two-part webinar series to examine how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act impacts compensation and benefits arrangements maintained by both public and private companies and what actions your company needs to take. PART 1: From the PRIVATE Company’s Perspective | January 9, 2018 We will discuss the provisions with the biggest impact on private companies, including the introduction of a new income tax deferral regime for options and RSUs relating to “qualified stock.” PART 2:…
On June 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Langley v. Howard Hughes Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 694 F. App’x 227 (5th Cir. 2017), held that William Langley, a former golf club executive, was entitled to receive approximately $255,000 in severance pay, plus attorney’s fees. The Court found that the administrator’s interpretation of a severance plan, which resulted in denying the former executive’s claim for severance pay, was an abuse…
The state of Maryland recently revised their state “Blue Sky” securities law to provide for a self-executing exemption for compensatory benefit plan offerings made in connection with Rule 701 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Rule 701”). Background A company that is not publicly traded in the US – generally, a company whose stock is not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, such as US private companies or non-US public companies that…
Although to date, the new administration has not been successful in moving forward its legislative agenda, it has aggressively pursued its goal of reducing the regulatory burden on American businesses. At the 2017 Global Equity Organization National Equity Compensation Forum, Baker McKenzie will be discussing the latest regulatory and legislative developments in executive compensation. Some of the hottest topics on every company’s mind we will be addressing include: The Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule -…
Employees today are increasingly mobile and companies that grant equity or have deferred compensation programs are faced with complex withholding and reporting requirements in the various states. Employees who move between states before a taxable event occurs with respect to their equity or deferred compensation are often subject to tax in both their state of residence and states where they provided services, but no longer reside (i.e., states where they are considered a nonresident). States…
The state of Oregon recently enacted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) §441-035-0300, a new state “Blue Sky” securities law that makes it easier for an employer that is not publicly traded in the US to grant equity awards to its employees residing in Oregon. Background A company that is not publicly traded in the US — generally, a company whose stock is not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, such as US private companies or…
How do the specified employee rules under Code Section 409A apply when two public companies merge and both partners use the default rules to identify specified employees based on officer status within the respective company? The Case Study The merger closed after December 31, 2016 and before April 1, 2017. Per the regulations, the acquiring entity’s next specified employee identification date and specified employee effective date govern, which is not an issue since both companies use the…
A sizeable number of companies include restrictive covenants in their equity award agreements, such as noncompete, nonsolicitation, confidentiality and/or non-disparagement provisions. If a grantee violates the provisions, companies can forfeit the award (if still outstanding at the time of the violation), claw back any shares or proceeds related to the shares (i.e., sale proceeds and dividends) or seek an injunction to cease the employee’s violation of the applicable covenant. The restrictive covenants typically are not tailored by jurisdiction but, rather, of a “one-size-fits-all” variety. As a result, companies should not be surprised to learn that the covenants rarely are enforceable as written, especially the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants.[1]
I think it is fairly well-known that non-competes are generally not enforceable in California, except in a few narrow circumstances (such as a selling shareholder or partnership dissolution). The same cannot be said for other jurisdictions (whether other U.S. states or non-U.S. countries), but it is very unlikely that the “one-size-fits-all” approach will work.