On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Cool Compensation Considerations for the Private Company 2017: Pay, Performance and Perspectives

Released on: Mar. 16, 2017
Running Time: 04:13:30
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.  Compensation design and the legal and commercial issues they raise can be among the most complicated and novel in the field.  Financially distressed companies, 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.

Lecture Topics [Total time 04:13:30]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:07:45]
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Executive Compensation for the Non-Publicly Traded Company: Comparisons, Contrasts, Trends and New Issues [01:33:17]
    Maria Corsaro Charon, Erin Bass-Goldberg, Marissa J. Holob
  • “Carrying On” About Carried Interest Plans? Partnership Equity Based Compensation [01:00:56]
    Robert C. Fleder, Arthur H. Kohn, Andrew L. Oringer
  • 83, 409A, 457A, 280G and Other Code(d) Letters—the Private Equity Experience [01:31:29]
    Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Alicia C. McCarthy, Steve Rimmer, Jonathan F. Lewis

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • 2016 Annual Incentive Plan Report (December 2016)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg, James Garriga, Shannon Disbrow
  • 2016 Top 250 Report (December 2016)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg, Warren Suh, Caroline Cubberly
  • Accounting for Stock Compensation Under FASB ASC Topic 718 (April 6, 2016)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Private Company Compensation Programs
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Amendment to Section 162(M) Regulations (April 1, 2015)
    Erin Bass-Goldberg
  • Howdy Partner!
    Marissa J. Holob
  • Playing for KEIPS: Key Employee Incentive Arrangements in Bankruptcy
    Marissa J. Holob
  • Kurt Fox v. CDX Holding, Inc., C.A. No. 8031-VCL 9 (Del. Ch. July 28, 2015)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • CDX Holdings Inc. v. Kurt Fox, No. 526, 2015 (Del. June 6, 2016)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • In Re: Sand Hill Exchange, Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings (SEC June 17, 2015)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Press Release, SEC Announces Enforcement Action for Illegal Offering of Security-Based Swaps, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (June 17, 2015)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • What’s the “BIC Deal” with Compensation in Financial Services? DOL’s New Fiduciary Rule and Selected Compensation Impacts (PowerPoint slides)
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • New York State Bar Association Tax Section, Report on the Proposed Regulations Under Section 1411, Report No. 1284 (May 15, 2013)
    Andrew L. Oringer
  • New York State Bar Association Tax Section, Report on Proposed Carried Interest and Fee Deferral Legislation (September 24, 2008)
    Andrew L. Oringer
  • Keep Calm and Carried Interest
    Steven W. Rabitz
  • Memorandum: Private Corporation Shareholder Approval of Golden Parachutes
    Kyoko Takahashi Lin
  • Client Memorandum: Down-Round Financings of Private Companies: Considerations for Outstanding Equity Compensation Awards (February 18, 2016)
    Kyoko Takahashi Lin
  • Greater Sharing—Even Greater Expectations, PwC’s 2016 Private Equity Portfolio Company Management Compensation Survey (March 2016)
    Steve Rimmer
  • How US Private Equity Compensates Management Through the Investment Lifecycle
    Aaron SanAndres, Steve Rimmer
  • Private Equity Compensation Lifecycle (PowerPoint slides)
    Alicia C. McCarthy, Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Jonathan F. Lewis, Steve Rimmer

Presentation Material


  • Executive Compensation for the Non-Publicly Traded Company: Comparisons, Contrasts, Trends and New Issues
    Erin Bass-Goldberg, Maria Corsaro Charon, Marissa J. Holob
  • "Carrying On" About Carried Interest Plans? Partnership Equity Based Compensation
    Robert C. Fleder, Arthur H. Kohn, Andrew L. Oringer
  • "Carrying On" About Carried Interest Plans? Partnership Equity-Based Compensation (handout)
    Robert C. Fleder, Arthur H. Kohn, Andrew L. Oringer
  • Keep Calm and Carried Interest
  • Private Equity Compensation Lifecycle
    Jonathan F. Lewis, Kyoko Takahashi Lin, Alicia C. McCarthy, Steve Rimmer
Chairperson(s)
Steven W. Rabitz ~ Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 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
Marissa J. Holob ~ Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 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
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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.