On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Cool Compensation Considerations for the Private Company 2018: Pay, Performance and Perspectives

Released on: Mar. 19, 2018
Running Time: 04:10:01

Many leading executive compensation experts agree that some of the most interesting and challenging issues in their practice in the context of privately held companies.   This program is specifically designed to bring leading experts to discuss cutting edge advanced developments on compensation and other “reward” practices for the non-publicly traded company.   Private equity funds and portfolio companies, startups, and closely-held mature ventures, face relentless competitive compensation considerations which need to be examined not only through a commercial lens, but also through the ever burgeoning legal and regulatory landscape.  It is critical to be on top of any tax reform, recent regulatory announcements, cases and enforcement.   While designed for private companies, public companies may still find interest in these practices to understand the legal and regulatory considerations driving the competitive forces at play in the search and retention of talent, and because their enterprises may themselves purchase interests in private companies. 

Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 04:10:01]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Introduction* [00:12:30]
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Executive Compensation for the Non-Publicly Traded Company:  Comparisons, Contrasts, Trends and New Issues [00:58:54]
    Erin Bass-Goldberg, Maria Corsaro Charon, Marissa J. Holob
  • Tricky Issues for Private Company Equity-Based Compensation [00:58:33]
    Robert C. Fleder, Arthur H. Kohn, Andrew L. Oringer, Steven W. Rabitz
  • Look Before You Leap!  Interpretative and Operational Complexities Under Section 280G [00:59:53]
    Matthew M. Friestedt, Gregory T. Grogan, Laurence Wagman
  • The Private Equity Experience [01:00:11]
    Jonathan F. Lewis, Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Alicia C. McCarthy, Steve Rimmer

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Playing for KEIPs: Key Employee Incentive Arrangements in Bankruptcy
    Marissa J. Holob
  • FW Cook, Accounting for Stock Compensation Under FASB ASC Topic 718 (September 18, 2017)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Shannon Disbrow and James Garriga, FW Cook, 2016 Annual Incentive Plan Report (December 2016)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Austin Lee and Voytek Sokolowski, FW Cook, 2017 Top 250 Report
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Steven Knotz, FW Cook, Aggregate Share-Based Compensation
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • FW Cook, Private Company Compensation Programs
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Special Bulletin, Enough to Get Exercised About? Tax Reform Offers Limited Deferral on Certain Private Company Equity Compensation (January 3, 2018)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Special Bulletin, ISO-lated No More? Tax Reform and Incentive Stock Options (December 22, 2017)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel, Memorandum Number: 201725027, Application of Section 409A to Back-to-Back Arrangement (June 23, 2017)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • In RE Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12327-VCS (Del. Ch. Dec. 13, 2017)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Some Tricky Issues for Private Company Equity-Based Compensation—Outline Addressing Miscellaneous Topics (December 31, 2017)
    Robert C. Fleder
  • “Carrying On” About Contractual Carried Interests (PowerPoint slides)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Laurence Wagman and Ari Benjamin, The Golden Parachute Excise Tax—Not Just a Public Company Issue (June 27, 2011)
    Laurence Wagman
  • Matthew M. Friestedt and J. Michael Snypes, Jr., Section 280G: The Law and Lore of the Golden Parachute Excise Tax, Part I: The Structure and Operation of Section 280G
    Matthew M. Friestedt
  • Matthew M. Friestedt and J. Michael Snypes, Jr., Section 280G: The Law and Lore of the Golden Parachute Excise Tax, Part II: Mitigating Section 280G
    Matthew M. Friestedt
  • Golden Parachute Tax: Code Sections 280G and 4999—Advanced Topics (September 15, 2014) (PowerPoint slides)
    Matthew M. Friestedt
  • Davis Polk, Client Memorandum, New Tax Act Provides Tax Deferral Opportunity for Private Company Equity Compensation Awards (January 8, 2018)
    Kyoko Takahashi Lin
  • Private Equity Compensation Lifecycle (PowerPoint slides)
    Steve Rimmer, Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Jonathan F. Lewis, Alicia C. McCarthy

Presentation Material

  • Executive Compensation for the Non-Publicly Traded Company: Comparisons, Contrasts, Trends and New Issues_Panel Power Point
    Erin Bass-Goldberg, Maria Corsaro Charon, Marissa J. Holob
  • Article_Get Out The Backpacks: Carried Interests Must Be Carried For Longer
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Profits Interest Illustrations_Handout
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Tricky Issues for Private Company Equity-Based Compensation_Panel Power Point
    Robert C. Fleder, Arthur H. Kohn, Andrew L. Oringer, Steven W. Rabitz
  • Look Before You Leap! Interpretative and Operational Complexities Under Section 280G_Panel Power Point
    Matthew M. Friestedt, Gregory T. Grogan, Laurence Wagman
  • Article_New Tax Act Provides Tax Deferral Opportunity for Private Company Equity Compensation Awards
    Kyoko Takahashi Lin
  • The Private Equity Experience_Panel Power Point
    Jonathan F. Lewis, Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Alicia C. McCarthy, Steve Rimmer
Chairperson(s)
Steven W. Rabitz ~ Dechert LLP
Speaker(s)
Erin Bass-Goldberg ~ Managing Director, FW Cook
Maria Corsaro Charon ~ Vice President, Senior Counsel, Executive Compensation, CBS Corporation
Robert C. Fleder ~ Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Matthew M. Friestedt ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Gregory T. Grogan ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Marissa J. Holob ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Arthur H. Kohn ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Jonathan F. Lewis ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Kyoko Takahashi Lin ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Alicia C. McCarthy ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Andrew L. Oringer ~ Dechert LLP
Steve Rimmer ~ Principal, Human Resource Transaction Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Laurence Wagman ~ Founding Principal, Golden Parachute Tax Solutions LLC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.