def14a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OMB APPROVAL |
|
|
|
|
|
OMB Number:
|
|
3235-0059 |
|
|
Expires:
|
|
May 31, 2009 |
|
|
Estimated average burden hours per
response |
87.50 |
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
|
|
|
Filed by the Registrant þ |
|
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant
o |
|
|
Check the appropriate box: |
|
|
|
o Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|
o
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by
Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|
þ Definitive Proxy Statement |
|
o Definitive Additional Materials |
|
o
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |
Stratus Properties Inc.
(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):
|
|
|
þ 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: |
|
|
|
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.: |
Notice of Annual Meeting of
Stockholders
May 8, 2007
April 5, 2007
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
|
|
|
|
Time:
|
|
9:00 a.m., Central Time
|
|
|
|
Place:
|
|
Barton Creek Resort
8212 Barton Club Drive
Austin, Texas 78735
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
To elect one director,
|
|
|
To ratify the
appointment of our independent auditors,
|
|
|
To vote on a
stockholder proposal, if presented at the meeting, and
|
|
|
To transact such other
business as may properly come before the meeting.
|
|
|
|
Record Date:
|
|
Close of business on
March 14, 2007.
|
Your vote is important. Whether or not you plan to attend the
meeting, please complete, sign and date the enclosed proxy card
and return it promptly in the enclosed envelope. Your
cooperation will be appreciated.
By Order of the Board of Directors.
Kenneth N. Jones
General Counsel & Secretary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Information
about Attending the Annual Meeting
If you plan to attend the meeting, please bring the
following:
1. Proper identification.
2. Acceptable Proof of Ownership if your shares are held in
Street Name.
Street Name means your shares are held of record by
brokers, banks or other institutions.
Acceptable Proof of Ownership is a letter from your
broker stating that you owned Stratus Properties Inc. stock on
the record date or an account statement showing that you owned
Stratus Properties Inc. stock on the record date.
Only stockholders of record on the record date may attend or
vote at the annual meeting.
Stratus
Properties Inc.
98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78701
The 2006 Annual Report to Stockholders, including financial
statements, is being mailed to stockholders together with these
proxy materials on or about April 5, 2007.
This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the
solicitation of proxies by the board of directors of Stratus
Properties Inc. for use at our Annual Meeting of Stockholders to
be held on May 8, 2007, and at any adjournments (the
meeting).
Who Can
Vote
Each share of our common stock that you held on the record date
entitles you to one vote at the meeting. On the record date,
there were 7,570,416 shares of our common stock outstanding.
Voting
Rights
The inspector of election will count votes cast at the meeting.
Directors are elected by plurality vote. All other matters are
decided by majority vote present at the meeting, except as
otherwise provided by statute, our certificate of incorporation
or our by-laws.
Brokers holding shares of record for customers generally are not
entitled to vote on certain matters unless they receive voting
instructions from their customers. When brokers do not receive
voting instructions from their customers, they notify the
company on the proxy form that they lack voting authority. The
votes that could have been cast on the matter in question by
brokers who did not receive voting instructions are called
broker non-votes.
Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the
election of directors. Abstentions as to all other matters to
come before the meeting will be counted as votes against those
matters. Broker non-votes as to those other matters will not be
counted as votes for or against and will not be included in
calculating the number of votes necessary for approval of those
matters.
Quorum
A quorum at the meeting is a majority of our common stock
entitled to vote present in person or represented by proxy. The
inspector of election will determine whether a quorum exists.
Shares of our common stock represented by properly executed and
returned proxies will be treated as present. Shares of our
common stock present at the meeting that abstain from voting or
that are the subject of broker non-votes will be counted as
present for purposes of determining a quorum.
How Your
Proxy Will Be Voted
Our board of directors is soliciting a proxy in the enclosed
form to provide you with an opportunity to vote on all matters
scheduled to come before the meeting, whether or not you attend
in person.
How to Vote By Proxy. If your shares are
registered in your name, there are two ways to vote your proxy:
by internet or by mail. Your internet vote authorizes William H.
Armstrong III and Kenneth N. Jones, or either of them, as
proxies, each with the power to appoint his or her substitute,
to represent and vote your shares in the same manner as if you
marked, signed and returned your proxy form by mail.
|
|
|
|
|
Vote by Internet
http://www.ivselection.com/stratus07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the internet to vote your proxy 24 hours a day, seven
days a week until 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on May 7,
2007.
|
|
|
|
Please have your proxy card available and follow the simple
instructions to obtain your records and create an electronic
ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the
postage-paid envelope provided.
|
Only the latest dated proxy received from you, whether by
internet or mail, will be voted at the annual meeting. If you
vote by internet, please do not mail your proxy card.
If your shares are held in street name (through a
broker, bank or other institution), you may receive a separate
voting instruction form, or you may need to contact your broker,
bank or other institution to determine whether you will be able
to vote electronically using the internet or the telephone.
How Proxies Will Be Voted. If you properly
execute and return a proxy in the enclosed form, your stock will
be voted as you specify. If you sign and submit a proxy but do
not mark a box with respect to one or more of the proposals,
your proxies will follow the board of directors
recommendations and your proxy will be voted:
|
|
|
|
|
FOR the proposed director nominee,
|
|
|
|
FOR the ratification of the appointment of the
independent auditors, and
|
|
|
|
AGAINST the stockholder proposal, if presented at the
meeting.
|
We expect no matters to be presented for action at the meeting
other than the items described in this proxy statement. By
signing and returning the enclosed proxy, however, you will give
to the persons named as proxies therein discretionary voting
authority with respect to any other matter that may properly
come before the meeting, and they intend to vote on any such
other matter in accordance with their best judgment.
Revoking Your Proxy. If you submit a proxy,
you may subsequently revoke it or submit a revised proxy at any
time before it is voted. You may also attend the meeting in
person and vote by ballot, which would cancel any proxy that you
previously submitted. If you wish to vote in person at the
meeting but hold your stock in street name (that is, in the name
of a broker, bank or other institution), then you must have a
proxy from the broker, bank or institution in order to vote at
the meeting.
Proxy
Solicitation
We will pay all expenses of soliciting proxies for the meeting.
In addition to solicitations by mail, arrangements have been
made for brokers and nominees to send proxy materials to their
principals, and we will reimburse them for their reasonable
expenses. We have retained Georgeson Inc., 17 State Street,
New York, New York to assist with the solicitation of proxies
from brokers and nominees. It is estimated that the fees for
Georgesons services will be $6,500 plus its reasonable
out-of-pocket
expenses. We may have our employees or other representatives
(who will receive no additional compensation for their services)
solicit proxies by telephone, telecopy, personal interview or
other means.
Stockholder
Proposals
If you want us to consider including a proposal in next
years proxy statement, you must deliver it in writing to:
Secretary, Stratus Properties Inc., 98 San Jacinto
Boulevard, Suite 220, Austin, Texas 78701 by
November 29, 2007.
If you want to present a proposal at the next annual meeting but
do not wish to have it included in our proxy statement, you must
submit it in writing to our corporate secretary, at the above
address, by January 9, 2008, in accordance with the
specific procedural requirements in our by-laws. If you would
like a copy of these procedures, please contact our corporate
secretary. Failure to comply with our by-law procedures and
deadlines may preclude the presentation of your proposal at the
next meeting.
2
Corporate
Governance
Ethics
and Business Conduct Policy
Our ethics and business conduct policy is available at
http://www.stratusproperties.com/policies.asp. We intend
to post promptly on that website amendments to or waivers from
our ethics and business conduct policy, if any, made with
respect to any of our directors and executive officers.
Board
Structure and Committee Composition
Our board consists of four members, and has primary
responsibility for directing the management of our business and
affairs. Our board held four regular meetings and one special
meeting during 2006. Non-employee directors meet in executive
session at the end of each board meeting. The chair of executive
session meetings rotates among the chairpersons of the two
standing committees (discussed below), except as the
non-employee directors may otherwise determine for a specific
meeting.
To provide for effective direction and management of our
business, our board has established an audit committee and a
corporate personnel committee. Our board does not have a
nominating committee. The entire four-person board, three
members of which are independent as discussed below, acts as our
nominating committee. During 2006, each of our directors
attended at least 75% of the aggregate number of board and
applicable committee meetings. Directors are also invited to
attend annual meetings of our stockholders.
Messrs. Armstrong and Garrison attended the last annual
meeting of stockholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit
|
|
|
|
Meetings
|
Committee Members
|
|
Functions of the Committee
|
|
in 2006
|
|
Michael D. Madden, Chairman
|
|
please refer to the
audit committee report
|
|
|
4
|
|
Bruce G. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James C. Leslie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Personnel
|
|
|
|
Meetings
|
Committee Members
|
|
Functions of the Committee
|
|
in 2006
|
|
James C. Leslie, Chairman
|
|
determines the
compensation of our executive officers
|
|
|
4
|
|
Michael D. Madden
|
|
administers our
incentive and stock-based compensation plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
please also refer to
the corporate personnel committee procedures
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
Personnel Committee Procedures
The corporate personnel committee has the sole authority to set
annual compensation amounts and annual incentive plan criteria
for executive officers, evaluate the performance of the
executive officers, and make awards to executive officers under
our stock incentive plans. The committee also reviews, approves
and recommends to our board of directors any proposed plan or
arrangement providing for incentive, retirement or other
compensation to our executive officers, as well as any proposed
contract under which compensation is awarded to an executive
officer. The committee annually recommends to the board the
slate of officers for the company and periodically reviews the
functions of our executive officers and makes recommendations to
the board concerning those functions. The committee also
periodically evaluates the performance of our executive officers.
To the extent stock options or other equity awards are granted
in a given year, the committees historical practice has
been to grant such awards at either its last meeting of a fiscal
year (usually held in December), or its first meeting of the
following year (usually held in January). Each August, the board
establishes a meeting schedule for itself and its committees for
the next calendar year. Thus, these meetings are scheduled
approximately four to five months in advance. In March 2007, the
committee formally approved a written policy stating that it
will approve all regular annual equity awards at one of its
meetings in December or during the first quarter of the
following year, and that to the extent the committee approves
any
out-of-cycle
3
stock option awards at other times during the year, such stock
option awards will be made during an open window period during
which our executive officers and directors are permitted to
trade.
The terms of our stock incentive plans permit the committee to
delegate to appropriate personnel its authority to make awards
to employees other than those subject to Section 16 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Our current equity grant policy
provides that the chairman of the board has authority to make or
modify grants to such employees, subject to the following
conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
no grant may be related to more than 3,000 shares of common
stock;
|
|
|
|
such grants must be made during an open window period and must
be approved in writing by such officer, the grant date being the
date of such written approval;
|
|
|
|
the exercise price of any options granted may not be less than
the fair market value of our common stock on the date of
grant; and
|
|
|
|
the officer must report any such grants to the committee at its
next meeting.
|
The committee has engaged FPL Associates Compensation (FPL), an
independent executive compensation consultant, to perform a
comprehensive review of our executive compensation program.
During 2006, FPL conducted a comprehensive benchmarking study
for our two senior executive officers, which the committee
considered in determining the compensation levels of these
officers. Please refer to the Compensation Discussion and
Analysis for more information.
Board and
Committee Independence and Audit Committee Financial
Experts
On the basis of information solicited from each director, the
board has determined that each of Messrs. Garrison, Leslie
and Madden has no material relationship with the company and is
independent as defined in the listing standards of the Nasdaq
Stock Market, LLC (Nasdaq) director independence standards, as
currently in effect. In making this determination, the board,
with assistance from the companys legal counsel, evaluated
responses to a questionnaire completed annually by each director
regarding relationships and possible conflicts of interest
between each director, the company and management. In its review
of director independence, the board and the companys legal
counsel considered all commercial, industrial, banking,
consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial
relationships any director may have with the company or
management. The board determined that three of the directors are
independent.
Further, the board has determined that each of the members of
the audit committee has no material relationship with the
company and is independent within the meaning of the Nasdaq
independence standards applicable to audit committee members. In
addition, the board has determined that each of the members of
the audit committee qualifies as an audit committee
financial expert, as such term is defined by the rules of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Consideration
of Director Nominees
In evaluating nominees for membership on the board, the board
takes into account many factors, including personal and
professional integrity, general understanding of our industry,
corporate finance and other matters relevant to the successful
management of a publicly-traded company in todays business
environment, educational and professional background,
independence, and the ability and willingness to work
cooperatively with other members of the board and with senior
management. The board evaluates each individual in the context
of the board as a whole, with the objective of recommending
nominees who can best perpetuate the success of the business, be
an effective director in conjunction with the full board, and
represent stockholder interests through the exercise of sound
judgment using their diversity of experience in these various
areas. A majority of the independent directors then serving on
the board must approve any nominee to be recommended by the
board to the stockholders.
The board regularly assesses whether it is the appropriate size,
and whether any vacancies on the board are expected due to
retirement or otherwise. In the event that vacancies are
anticipated, or otherwise arise, the independent directors
consider various potential candidates for director, who may come
to their attention
4
through professional search firms, stockholders or other
persons. Each candidate brought to the attention of the board,
regardless of who recommended such candidate, is considered on
the basis of the criteria set forth above.
As stated above, the board will consider candidates proposed for
nomination by our stockholders. Stockholders may propose
candidates for consideration by the board by submitting the
names and supporting information to: Secretary, Stratus
Properties Inc., 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 220,
Austin, Texas 78701. Supporting information should include
(a) the name and address of each of the candidate and
proposing stockholder; (b) a comprehensive biography of the
candidate and an explanation of why the candidate is qualified
to serve as a director taking into account the criteria
identified above; (c) proof of ownership, the class and
number of shares, and the length of time that the shares of our
common stock have been beneficially owned by each of the
candidate and the proposing stockholder; and (d) a letter
signed by the candidate stating his or her willingness to serve.
In addition, our by-laws permit stockholders to nominate
candidates directly for consideration at next years annual
stockholder meeting. Any nomination must be in writing and
received by our corporate secretary at our principal executive
offices no later than January 9, 2008. If the date of next
years annual meeting is moved to a date more than
90 days after or 30 days before the anniversary of
this years annual meeting, the nomination must be received
no later than 90 days prior to the date of the 2008 annual
meeting or 10 days following the public announcement of the
date of the 2008 annual meeting. Any stockholder submitting a
nomination under our by-laws must include (a) all
information relating to the nominee that is required to be
disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of directors
pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (including such nominees written
consent to being named in the proxy statement as a nominee and
to serving as a director if elected), and (b) the name and
address (as they appear on the companys books) of the
nominating stockholder and the class and number of shares
beneficially owned by such stockholder. Nominations should be
addressed to: Secretary, Stratus Properties Inc., 98
San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 220, Austin, Texas 78701.
Communications
with the Board
Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate
directly with our board (or any individual director) by writing
to the director or the chairman of the board of Stratus
Properties Inc., c/o 98 San Jacinto Boulevard,
Suite 220, Austin, Texas 78701. The company or the chairman
will forward the stockholders communication to the
appropriate director or directors.
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The current members of our corporate personnel committee are
Messrs. Leslie and Madden. In 2006, none of our executive
officers served as a director or member of the compensation
committee of another entity where an executive officer served as
our director or on our corporate personnel committee.
Director
Compensation
We use a combination of cash and equity-based incentive
compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve
on the board. In setting director compensation, we consider the
significant amount of time directors expend in fulfilling their
duties to the company as well as the skill-level required by the
company to be an effective member of the board.
Cash
Compensation
Prior to April 1, 2006, each non-employee director received
an annual fee consisting of (a) $10,000 for serving on the
board, (b) $1,000 for serving on each committee, and
(c) $1,000 for serving as chairperson of any committee. In
addition, each director received $500 for attendance at each
board and committee meeting as well as reimbursement for
reasonable
out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending our board and committee meetings.
5
Following a review of the competitiveness of our compensation
practices for our board of directors, our corporate personnel
committee recommended, and our board approved modifications to
our director compensation program based on the recommendations
of a compensation consulting firm. Effective April 1, 2006,
the annual fee received by each non-employee director was
modified to consist of (a) $12,500 for serving on the
board, (b) $1,000 for serving on each committee,
(c) $4,000 for serving as chairperson of the audit
committee, and (d) $2,000 for serving as chairperson of any
other committee. Each director also receives $1,000 for
attendance at each board and committee meeting and $500 for
participation in each board or committee meeting by telephone
conference as well as reimbursement for reasonable
out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending our board and committee meetings.
Mr. Armstrongs compensation, which includes the
attendance fees he received as a director, is reflected in the
Summary Compensation Table in the section titled Executive
Officer Compensation.
Equity-Based
Compensation
Non-employee directors also receive equity compensation under
the 1996 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the 1996
Plan), which was approved by our shareholders. Pursuant to the
plan, on September 1st of each year, each non-employee
director receives a grant of options to acquire
2,500 shares of our common stock. The options are granted
at fair market value on the grant date, vest ratably over the
first four anniversaries of the grant date and expire on the
tenth anniversary of the grant date. Accordingly, on
September 1, 2006, each non-employee director was granted
an option to purchase 2,500 shares of our common stock at a
grant price of $26.44.
2006 Director
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid in
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Director
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Bruce G. Garrison
|
|
$
|
20,375
|
|
|
$
|
31,228
|
|
|
$
|
51,603
|
|
James C. Leslie
|
|
|
21,375
|
|
|
|
31,228
|
|
|
|
52,603
|
|
Michael D. Madden
|
|
|
22,875
|
|
|
|
31,228
|
|
|
|
54,103
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts reflect the compensation cost recognized in 2006 in
accordance with FAS 123(R), which reflects the fair value
of all stock-based compensation in earnings based on the related
vesting schedule. In accordance with the 1996 Plan, on
September 1, 2006, each non-employee director was granted
an option to purchase 2,500 shares of our common stock at a
grant price of $26.44. As of December 31, 2006, each
director had the following number of options outstanding:
Mr. Garrison, 10,000; Mr. Leslie 25,000;
Mr. Madden, 25,000. |
Election
of Directors
Our board of directors has fixed the number of directors at
four. The table below shows the members of the different classes
of our board and the expiration of their terms.
|
|
|
|
|
Class
|
|
Expiration of Term
|
|
Class Member
|
|
Class I
|
|
2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
|
|
Michael D. Madden
|
Class II
|
|
2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
|
|
Bruce G. Garrison
|
|
|
|
|
James C. Leslie
|
Class III
|
|
2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
Our board has nominated the Class III director named above
for an additional three-year term. The persons named as proxies
in the enclosed form of proxy intend to vote your proxy for the
election of the Class III director, unless otherwise
directed. If, contrary to our present expectations, the nominee
should become unavailable for any reason, your proxy will be
voted for a substitute nominee designated by our board, unless
otherwise directed.
6
Information
About Nominee and Other Directors
This table provides certain information as of March 14,
2007, with respect to the director nominee and each other
director whose term will continue after the meeting. Unless
otherwise indicated, each person has been engaged in the
principal occupation shown for the past five years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year First
|
|
|
|
|
Principal Occupations, Other Directorships
|
|
Elected a
|
Name of Nominee or Director
|
|
Age
|
|
and Positions with the Company
|
|
Director
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board &
Chief Executive Officer of the Company since 1998. President
since 1996.
|
|
|
1998
|
|
Bruce G. Garrison
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Director REITs,
Salient Trust Company (formerly Pinnacle Trust Company), since
2003, and Vice President from 2000 to 2003.
|
|
|
2002
|
|
James C. Leslie
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
Private investor. Chairman of the
Board of Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Director, President and Chief
Operating Officer of The Staubach Company, a commercial real
estate services firm, from 1996 until 2001.
|
|
|
1996
|
|
Michael D. Madden
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Managing Partner of BlackEagle
Partners LLC (formerly Centurion Capital Partners LLC) since
April 2005. Partner of Questor Management Co., merchant bankers,
from March 1999 to April 2005. Chairman of the Board of Hanover
Capital L.L.C., investment bankers, since 1995.
|
|
|
1992
|
|
Stock
Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers
Unless otherwise indicated, (a) this table shows the amount
of our common stock each of our directors and named executive
officers beneficially owned on March 14, 2007, and
(b) all shares shown are held with sole voting and
investment power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Total Number
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Shares Subject
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
Not Subject to
|
|
to Exercisable
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Percent of
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Options
|
|
Options
|
|
Owned
|
|
Class
|
|
William H. Armstrong III(1)
|
|
|
259,221
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
276,721
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
John E. Baker(2)
|
|
|
86,684
|
|
|
|
13,750
|
|
|
|
100,434
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Bruce G. Garrison(3)
|
|
|
108,652
|
|
|
|
3,750
|
|
|
|
112,402
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
James C. Leslie
|
|
|
45,500
|
|
|
|
18,750
|
|
|
|
64,250
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Michael D. Madden
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
18,750
|
|
|
|
19,750
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All directors and executive
officers as a group (6 persons)
|
|
|
501,057
|
|
|
|
76,250
|
|
|
|
577,307
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Ownership is less than 1% |
|
(1) |
|
Includes 3,250 shares held in his individual retirement
account. Does not include 69,250 restricted stock units. |
|
(2) |
|
Does not include 27,750 restricted stock units. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes 93,652 shares held by an investment company with
respect to which Mr. Garrison, as an executive officer,
shares voting and investment power, but as to which he disclaims
beneficial ownership. |
7
Stock
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
This table shows the beneficial owners of more than 5% of our
outstanding common stock based on filings with the SEC. Unless
otherwise indicated, all information is presented as of
December 31, 2006, and all shares indicated as beneficially
owned are held with sole voting and investment power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
Percent of
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially
|
|
Outstanding
|
Name and Address of Person
|
|
Owned
|
|
Shares
|
|
Carl E. Berg(1)
|
|
|
1,405,000
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
%
|
10050 Bandley Drive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cupertino, California 95014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Rise Capital Advisors,
L.L.C.(2)
|
|
|
570,444
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
535 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, New York 10022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ingalls & Snyder LLC(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert L. Gipson
|
|
|
1,217,422
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
%
|
61 Broadway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, New York 10006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Based on an amended Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 13, 2002. |
|
(2) |
|
Based on an amended Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 14, 2007, High Rise Capital Advisors shares voting
and investment power over all shares beneficially owned. |
|
(3) |
|
Based on an amended Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 13, 2007, Ingalls & Snyder has no voting
power but shares investment power over all shares beneficially
owned. |
Executive
Officer Compensation
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Objectives
of our Compensation Program
Our executive compensation program is administered by the
corporate personnel committee, which determines the compensation
of our executive officers and administers our annual performance
incentive and stock incentive plans. The objectives of our
executive compensation program are to:
|
|
|
|
|
emphasize performance-based compensation that balances rewards
for short- and long-term results,
|
|
|
|
tie compensation to the interests of the companys
stockholders, and
|
|
|
|
provide a level of total compensation that will enable the
company to attract and retain talented executive officers.
|
Compensation is intended to reward achievement of business
performance goals and to recognize individual initiative and
leadership.
Role of
Compensation Consultant
At the end of 2005, the committee engaged FPL Associates
Compensation to perform a comprehensive review of our executive
compensation program, which we previously conducted in 2001. FPL
conducted a comprehensive benchmarking study for our two senior
executive officers after identifying two comparative peer groups
consisting of private and public real estate companies. The
private real estate peer group consisted of the following
companies, each of which either had significant land holdings or
development capabilities: Carson Companies, The Empire
Companies, Flagler Development Company, Hillwood Development
Company, Industrial Developments International, SunCal
Companies, Trammell Crow Residential, Watson Land Company,
WISPARK LLC, The Woodlands and Woolbright Development, Inc. The
public size-based peer group consisted of the following public
real estate investments trusts and one public real estate
operating company
8
that historically had similar total capitalization to our
company: AmeriVest Properties, Inc., AmREIT, BNP Residential
Properties, Inc., Feldman Mall Properties, Inc., Monmouth Real
Estate Investment Corporation, Presidential Realty Corporation,
Roberts Realty Investors Inc., Thomas Properties Group, Inc. and
United Mobile Homes, Inc.
Based on the market findings, FPL delivered a report to our
committee and provided compensation alternatives and guidance.
Based on FPLs analysis, we determined that the
compensation levels for our named executive officers should
target the median percentile of the private company peer group.
In 2006, FPL also reviewed the competitiveness of our
compensation practices for our board of directors and
recommended modifications to our director compensation program.
Our committee recommended, and our board approved, those
recommendations effective April 1, 2006. See Director
Compensation.
Components
of Executive Compensation
During 2006, the company employed two of its executive officers,
William H. Armstrong III and John E. Baker. Executive
officer compensation for 2006 included base salary, annual
incentive awards and long-term incentive awards in the form of
restricted stock units.
Base
Salaries
Prior to 2006, the base salaries of our executive officers had
remained at the same levels since 2002. As discussed above,
during 2006 we conducted a comprehensive review of our executive
compensation program with the assistance of FPL. Effective
January 1, 2006, the base salaries of our executive
officers were increased such that they are consistent with the
median competitive market data for the private real estate peer
group as set forth above. As noted above, we will continue to
evaluate our executive compensation program during 2006.
Annual
Incentive Awards
We provided annual cash incentives to our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer for 2006 through the
companys performance incentive awards program, which is
designed to provide annual cash awards based on individual and
company performance. When determining the actual amounts awarded
to participants for any year, the committee makes a subjective
determination after considering a combination of overall
corporate performance and individual performance, with the
specific allocation reflecting the primary focus of the
officers position and the officers ability to impact
the variables associated with each. We concluded that the level
of corporate and individual performance achieved in 2006
warranted the payment of a cash bonus to Mr. Armstrong and
Mr. Baker in the amounts shown in the Summary Compensation
Table.
Long-Term
Incentive Awards
In 2002, we established long-term incentive award guidelines
intended to reinforce the relationship between compensation and
increases in the market price of the companys common stock
and align the officers financial interests with those of
the companys stockholders. Pursuant to this plan, we
established target levels based upon the position of each
participating officer and granted long-term incentive awards
within those levels based upon our assessment of corporate and
individual performance. In the past, participating officers
received approximately two-thirds of their long-term incentive
awards in the form of stock options and approximately one-third
in the form of restricted stock units. However, due to an
insufficient number of shares remaining available for grant
under the companys stock incentive plans, we were unable
to grant long-term incentive awards to our executive officers
using these parameters during 2006. After evaluating the
corporate and individual performance of our executive officers
and the shares available for grant and after considering the
overall compensation of our executive officers, we granted
35,000 restricted stock units to our chief executive officer and
14,000 restricted stock units to our chief financial officer in
January 2006. Similarly, in January 2007, we granted 27,000
restricted stock units to our chief executive officer and 11,000
restricted stock units to our chief financial officer. The
restricted stock units will ratably convert into shares of our
common stock over a four-year period on each grant date
anniversary.
9
Determination of Exercise Price of
Options. Under our incentive plans, the exercise
price of each stock option granted cannot be less than the fair
market value of a share of our common stock on the grant date.
Historically, we have used the average of the high and low sale
price on the grant date to determine fair market value. In March
2007, the committee revised its policies going forward to
provide that for purposes of our stock incentive plans, the fair
market value of our common stock will be determined by reference
to the closing sale price on the grant date.
Timing of Equity Awards. To the extent stock
options or other equity awards are granted in a given year, the
committees historical practice has been to grant such
awards at either its last meeting of a fiscal year (usually held
in December) or its first meeting of the following year (usually
held in January). Each August, the board establishes a meeting
schedule for itself and its committees for the next calendar
year. Thus, these meetings are scheduled approximately four to
five months in advance. In March 2007, the committee formally
approved a written policy stating that it will approve all
regular annual equity awards at one of its meetings in December
or during the first quarter of the following year, and that to
the extent the committee approves any
out-of-cycle
stock option awards at other times during the year, such stock
option awards will be made during an open window period during
which our executive officers and directors are permitted to
trade.
Post-Employment
Compensation
We maintain a retirement plan qualified under
Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code that is
available to all qualified employees, and in which our executive
officers participate. We do not provide other forms of
post-employment compensation to our executives, other than the
change of control benefits described below and the acceleration
of the vesting of certain equity awards as further described in
the section titled Potential Payments Upon Termination or
Change of Control.
In January 2007, we entered into change of control agreements
with Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Baker. These agreements,
effective January 26, 2007, entitle each executive to
receive additional benefits in the event of the termination of
his employment under certain circumstances following a change of
control. Each agreement provides that if, during the three-year
period following a change of control, the company or its
successor terminates the executive other than by reason of
death, disability or cause, or the executive voluntarily
terminates his employment for good reason, the executive will
receive a lump-sum cash payment equal to the sum of his prorated
bonus plus 2.99 times the sum of (a) the executives
base salary in effect at the time of termination and
(b) the highest annual bonus awarded to the executive
during the three fiscal years immediately preceding the
termination date. We shall continue to provide to the executive
insurance and welfare benefits until the earlier of
(a) December 31 of the first calendar year following
the calendar year of the termination or (b) the date the
executive accepts new employment. The benefits provided under
the agreements are in addition to the value of any options to
acquire shares of our common stock, the exercisability of which
is accelerated pursuant to the terms of any stock option
agreement, any restricted stock units, the vesting of which is
accelerated pursuant to the terms of the restricted stock unit
agreement, and any other incentive or similar plan adopted by
us. If any part of the payments or benefits received by the
executive in connection with a termination following a change of
control constitutes an excess parachute payment under
Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code, the executive
will receive the greater of (1) the amount of such payments
and benefits reduced so that none of the amount constitutes an
excess parachute payment, net of income taxes, or (2) the
amount of such payments and benefits, net of income taxes and
net of excise taxes under Section 4999 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Section 162(m)
Section 162(m) limits to $1 million a public
companys annual tax deduction for compensation paid to
each of its most highly compensated executive officers.
Qualified performance-based compensation is excluded from this
deduction limitation if certain requirements are met. Our policy
is to structure compensation that will be fully deductible where
doing so will further the purposes of the companys
executive compensation programs.
10
Corporate
Personnel Committee Report On Executive Compensation
The corporate personnel committee of our board of directors 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
corporate personnel committee recommended to the board that the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy
statement.
Submitted by the Corporate Personnel Committee:
|
|
|
James C.
Leslie, Chairman
|
Michael D.
Madden
|
|
Summary
Compensation Table
The table below summarizes the total compensation paid or earned
by our chief executive officer and chief financial officer
(collectively, the named executive officers), the only two
executive officers whom we employed in 2006 and 2005, for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.
Summary
Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
|
Bonus
|
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
|
Compensation(2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
William H.
Armstrong III
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
$
|
400,000
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
$
|
388,980
|
|
|
$
|
333,922
|
|
|
$
|
36,226
|
|
|
$
|
1,659,128
|
|
Chairman of the Board,
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
280,000
|
|
|
|
420,000
|
|
|
|
199,015
|
|
|
|
400,902
|
|
|
|
32,700
|
|
|
|
1,332,617
|
|
President & Chief
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John E. Baker
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
|
|
403,096
|
|
|
|
114,568
|
|
|
|
31,348
|
|
|
|
1,074,012
|
|
Senior Vice President &
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
170,000
|
|
|
|
255,000
|
|
|
|
74,661
|
|
|
|
136,875
|
|
|
|
27,822
|
|
|
|
664,358
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In 2006, amounts reflect the compensation cost recognized in
2006 in accordance with FAS 123(R), which reflects the fair
value of all stock-based compensation in earnings based on the
related vesting schedule. In 2005, amounts reflect the pro forma
compensation cost that would have been recognized in 2005 had
FAS 123(R) been effective as of January 1, 2005. |
|
(2) |
|
Consists of contributions to defined contribution plans,
payments for life insurance policies, and director fees as
follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Name
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
Fees
|
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
$
|
29,500
|
|
|
$
|
2,726
|
|
|
$
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
|
|
2,700
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
John E. Baker
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
29,000
|
|
|
|
2,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
25,500
|
|
|
|
2,322
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards: Number
|
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Shares of
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
Name
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
Stock or Units(1)
|
|
|
Stock Awards(2)
|
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
|
|
1/16/06
|
|
|
|
17,263
|
|
|
$
|
412,931
|
|
|
|
|
1/16/06
|
|
|
|
17,737
|
|
|
|
424,269
|
|
John E. Baker
|
|
|
1/16/06
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
334,880
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents grants of common stock restricted stock units
pursuant to the companys stock incentive plans.
Mr. Armstrong was granted 17,263 restricted stock units
pursuant to the 1998 Stock Option Plan and |
11
|
|
|
|
|
17,737 restricted stock units pursuant to the 2002 Stock
Incentive Plan. Mr. Baker was granted 14,000 restricted
stock units pursuant to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Based on the $23.92 market value per share of our common stock
on January 13, 2006, which was the last trading day prior
to the grant date of January 16, 2006, which was a federal
holiday. |
Outstanding
Equity Awards as of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards(1)
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Market Value
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Units of
|
|
|
or Units of
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Stock That
|
|
|
Stock That
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Expiration
|
|
|
Have Not
|
|
|
Have Not
|
|
Name
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
|
Price(2)
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
Vested(3)
|
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,500
|
|
|
$
|
10.555
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013
|
|
|
|
3,500
|
|
|
$
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
16.015
|
|
|
|
12/30/2014
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,263
|
|
|
|
552,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,737
|
|
|
|
567,584
|
|
John E. Baker
|
|
|
3,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.250
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012
|
|
|
|
1,250
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
|
|
3,750
|
|
|
|
3,750
|
|
|
|
10.555
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
160,000
|
|
|
|
|
6,250
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
16.015
|
|
|
|
12/30/2014
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
448,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The stock options will become exercisable in 25% increments over
a four-year period and have a term of 10 years. The stock
options will become immediately exercisable in their entirety
if, under certain circumstances, (a) any person or group of
persons acquires beneficial ownership of shares in excess of
certain thresholds, or (b) the composition of the board of
directors is changed after a tender offer, exchange offer,
merger, consolidation, sale of assets or contested election or
any combination of these transactions. |
|
(2) |
|
The exercise price of each outstanding stock option reflected in
this table was determined by reference to (1) the average
of the high and low quoted per share sale price on the grant
date, or if there are no reported sales on such date, on the
last preceding date on which any reported sale occurred or
(2) such greater price as determined by the corporate
personnel committee. In March 2007, the corporate personnel
committee revised its policies going forward to provide that for
purposes of our stock incentive plans, the fair market value of
our common stock will be determined by reference to the closing
sale price on the grant date. |
|
(3) |
|
The market value of the unvested restricted stock units
reflected in this table was based on the $32.00 market value per
share of our common stock on December 29, 2006. |
Option
Exercises and Stock Vested
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Value Realized
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Value Realized
|
|
Name
|
|
Acquired on Exercise
|
|
|
on Exercise
|
|
|
Acquired on Vesting
|
|
|
on Vesting
|
|
|
William H. Armstrong III
|
|
|
408,455
|
|
|
$
|
9,025,609
|
|
|
|
16,659
|
|
|
$
|
501,969
|
|
John E. Baker
|
|
|
76,652
|
|
|
|
1,102,992
|
|
|
|
6,136
|
|
|
|
185,890
|
|
Potential
Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control
Pursuant to the terms of our stock incentive plans and the
agreements thereunder, terminations of employment under certain
circumstances and a change of control will result in the vesting
of outstanding stock options and restricted stock units, as
described below.
Stock Options. Upon termination of employment
as a result of death, disability or retirement, the portion of
any outstanding stock options that would have become exercisable
within one year of such
12
termination of employment will vest. In addition, upon a change
of control of the Company, all unvested stock options will vest.
If there had been a qualifying termination of employment as
described above or a change of control on December 31,
2006, the value of the options that would have become
exercisable for each named executive officer, based on the
difference between the closing market price on December 29,
2006 and the exercise price of each option, would have been as
follows: Mr. Armstrong, $526,355 in the event of
termination of employment and $806,093 in the event of a change
of control; Mr. Baker, $180,325 in the event of termination
of employment and $280,232 in the event of a change of control.
Restricted Stock Units. Upon
(1) termination of employment as a result of death,
disability or retirement, or termination of employment by the
Company without cause at the discretion of the corporate
personnel committee, or (2) a change of control of the
Company, the executives outstanding restricted stock units
will vest. If there had been a qualifying termination of
employment as described above or a change of control on
December 31, 2006, the value of the restricted stock units
that would have vested for each named executive officer, based
on the closing market price on December 29, 2006, would
have been as follows: Mr. Armstrong, $1,632,000 and
Mr. Baker, $648,000.
In addition to these benefits, see the discussion in
Compensation Discussion and Analysis, regarding the
change of control agreements we entered into in January 2007
with each of our named executive officers.
Audit
Committee Report
The audit committee is currently composed of three directors,
all of whom are independent, as defined in the Nasdaq listing
standards. We operate under a written charter approved by our
committee and adopted by the board of directors. Our primary
function is to assist the board of directors in fulfilling the
boards oversight responsibilities by monitoring
(1) the companys continuing development and
performance of its system of financial reporting, auditing,
internal controls and legal and regulatory compliance,
(2) the operation and integrity of the system,
(3) performance and qualifications of the companys
external auditors and internal auditors and (4) the
independence of the companys external auditors.
We review the companys financial reporting process on
behalf of our board. The audit committees responsibility
is to monitor this process, but the audit committee is not
responsible for preparing the companys financial
statements or auditing those financial statements. Those are the
responsibilities of management and the companys
independent auditors, respectively.
During 2006, management completed the documentation, testing and
evaluation of the companys system of internal control over
financial reporting in connection with the companys
compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. The audit committee received periodic updates of this
process from management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP at each
regularly scheduled audit committee meeting. The audit committee
also reviewed and discussed with management and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP managements report on internal
control over financial reporting and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLPs report on their audit of managements assessment
of the companys internal control over financial reporting,
both of which are included in the companys annual report
on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Appointment
of Independent Auditors; Financial Statement Review
In March 2006, in accordance with our charter, our committee
appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the companys
independent auditors for 2006. We have reviewed and discussed
the companys audited financial statements for the year
2006 with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Management
represented to us that the audited financial statements fairly
present, in all material respects, the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of and
for the periods presented in the financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP provided an
opinion to the same effect.
We have received from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the written
disclosures and the letter required by Independence Standards
Board Standard No. 1, Independence Discussions with
Audit Committees, as amended, and we have discussed with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP their independence from the company
and management. We have also discussed with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP the matters required to be discussed
13
by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, Communication
with Audit Committees, as amended and Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board Auditing Standard No. 2, An
Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Performed in
Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements.
In addition, we have discussed with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
the overall scope and plans for their audit, and have met with
them and management to discuss the results of their examination,
their understanding and evaluation of the companys
internal controls as they considered necessary to support their
opinion on the financial statements for the year 2006, and
various factors affecting the overall quality of accounting
principles applied in the companys financial reporting.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP also met with us without management
being present to discuss these matters.
In reliance on these reviews and discussions, we recommended to
the board of directors, and the board of directors approved, the
inclusion of the audited financial statements referred to above
in the companys annual report on
Form 10-K
for the year 2006.
Internal
Audit
We also review the companys internal audit function,
including the selection and compensation of the companys
internal auditors. In August 2006, in accordance with our
charter, our committee appointed Holtzman Moellenberg
Panozzo & Perkins, LLP as the companys internal
auditors for 2006.
Dated: March 29, 2007
|
|
|
Michael D.
Madden, Chairman
|
Bruce G.
Garrison
|
James C.
Leslie
|
Independent
Auditors
Fees and
Related Disclosures for Accounting Services
The following table discloses the fees that
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP billed the company for professional
services rendered in each of the last two fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Audit Fees
|
|
$
|
304,140
|
|
|
$
|
339,033
|
|
Audit-Related Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Fees(1)
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
25,600
|
|
All Other Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Relates to services rendered for tax consulting and compliance
services. |
The audit committee has determined that the provision of the
services described above is compatible with maintaining the
independence of the independent auditors.
Pre-Approval
Policies and Procedures
The audit committees policy is to pre-approve all audit
services, audit-related services and other services permitted by
law provided by the independent auditors. In accordance with
that policy, the committee annually pre-approves a list of
specific services and categories of services, including audit,
audit-related and other services, for the upcoming or current
fiscal year, subject to specified cost levels. Any service that
is not included in the approved list of services must be
separately pre-approved by the audit committee. In addition, if
fees for any service exceed the amount that has been
pre-approved, then payment of additional fees for such service
must be specifically pre-approved by the audit committee;
however, any proposed service that has an anticipated or
additional cost of no more than $15,000 may be pre-approved by
the Chairperson of the audit committee, provided that the total
anticipated costs of all such projects pre-approved by the
Chairperson during any fiscal quarter does not exceed $30,000.
14
At each regularly scheduled audit committee meeting, management
updates the committee on the scope and anticipated cost of
(1) any service pre-approved by the Chairperson since the
last meeting of the committee and (2) the projected fees
for each service or group of services being provided by the
independent auditors. Since the May 2003 effective date of the
SEC rules stating that an auditor is not independent of an audit
client if the services it provides to the client are not
appropriately approved, each service provided by our independent
auditors has been approved in advance by the audit committee,
and none of those services required use of the de minimus
exception to pre-approval contained in the SECs rules.
Selection
and Ratification of the Independent Auditors
In March 2007, our audit committee appointed
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent auditors for 2007.
Our audit committee and board of directors seek stockholder
ratification of the audit committees appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to act as the independent auditors of
our and our subsidiaries financial statements for the year
2007. If the stockholders do not ratify the appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our audit committee will reconsider
this appointment. Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
are expected to be present at the meeting to respond to
appropriate questions, and those representatives will also have
an opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, requires our directors and executive officers and
persons who own more than 10% of our common stock to file
reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC.
Based solely upon our review of the Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed
during 2006, and written representations from certain reporting
persons that no Forms 5 were required, we reasonably
believe, with the exception noted below, that all required
reports were timely filed. A Form 4 for Mr. Armstrong
to report his purchase of stock in May 2000 was inadvertently
filed late on February 24, 2006.
Stockholder
Proposal
One of our stockholders, Harold J. Mathis, Jr., with an
address of P.O. Box 1209, Richmond, Texas
77406-1209,
who is the owner of 900 shares of our common stock, has
advised the company of his intention to present a proposal at
the meeting. In accordance with applicable proxy regulations,
the proposal and supporting statement is set forth below.
Approval of this proposal would require the affirmative vote of
a majority of the shares of our common stock present in person
or by proxy.
Stockholder
Proposal
RESOLVED: That the stockholders of Stratus
Properties Inc., assembled in annual meeting in person or by
proxy, hereby request that the Board of Directors take the
needed steps to provide that at future elections of directors
new directors be elected annually and not by classes, as is now
provided, and that on expiration of present terms of directors
their subsequent elections shall also be on an annual basis.
REASONS
A majority of S&P 500 companies do not have a staggered
board. In fact, this proponent has filed successful proposals at
First Energy, Honeywell, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
Inc., Baker Hughes, Tidewater, Inc. and Reliant Energy that
preceded board sponsored initiatives on the same subject.
Although Stratus may be a small-cap company, the Rules of
Good Corporate Governance make no distinction between small-cap,
mid-cap and large-cap companies.
15
Last year
77% of Stratus shareholders casting votes agreed that it is not
in the best interest of this firm or its shareholders to have a
classified board.
This proponent, who managed to get 77% of the votes cast on his
first attempt, was Harold Mathis with an address of P.O.
Box 1209 in Richmond, Texas 77406. Mathis continues to
believe that it makes a Board less accountable to shareholders
when all directors do not stand for election each year; the
piecemeal election insulating directors and senior management
from the impact of poor performance. Or as Arthur Levitt, former
chairman of the SEC, has said: In my view its best
for the investor if the entire board is elected once a year.
Without annual election of each director shareholders have far
less control over whom represents them.
Why continue the piecemeal approach of waiting three years to
complete your evaluation of the entire board?
PLEASE VOTE YES TO REGISTER YOUR VIEWS ON THE TOTAL
BOARDS
PERFORMANCE EACH YEAR.
Beware! At Stratus Properties, abstentions will have the
same effect as a vote against this proposal.
Board of
Directors Statement in Opposition to Stockholder
Proposal
At the annual meeting held in May 2006, the stockholders adopted
a proposal requesting the board of directors to take steps
necessary to provide for the annual election of directors. The
proposal was approved by 77% of the total votes cast,
representing approximately 41% of the total outstanding shares.
Our board of directors carefully considered both the proposal
and the stockholder vote on the proposal. For the reasons stated
below, our board of directors continues to believe that this
proposal is not in the best interest of our company or our
stockholders.
Our company has had a classified board of directors since
inception in 1992. Members are divided into three classes
serving staggered three-year terms, with one class being elected
each year. We believe that a classified board is more
advantageous to the company and its shareholders than a board
that would be elected annually for the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Protection against Unfair and Abusive Takeover
Tactics. A classified board reduces the
vulnerability of the company to potentially unfair and abusive
takeover tactics and encourages potential acquirers to negotiate
with our board. A classified board does not preclude unsolicited
acquisition proposals but, by eliminating the threat of imminent
removal, it allows the incumbent board to maximize the value of
a potential acquisition by giving the company time and
bargaining power to evaluate and negotiate the adequacy and
fairness of any takeover proposal and to consider alternatives,
including the continued operation of the companys business.
|
|
|
|
Accountability to Shareholders. Directors
elected to three-year terms are just as accountable to
shareholders as directors elected on an annual basis. All
directors are required to uphold their fiduciary duties to
shareholders, regardless of how often they stand for election.
In addition, there is little evidence to indicate that electing
directors to either annual or staggered terms directly
influences stock performance.
|
|
|
|
Stability and Continuity. A classified board
provides for continuity and stability and enhances the
boards ability to implement the companys long-term
strategy and to focus on long-term performance. Each current
member of the board brings valuable knowledge and experience to
the company and a classified board ensures that a majority of
directors at any given time will have prior experience as
directors of the company and will be familiar with our business
strategies and operations.
|
|
|
|
Corporate Governance. The board of directors
is committed to corporate governance practices that will benefit
the companys shareholders and regularly examines those
practices in light of the changing environment. Numerous
well-respected U.S. companies have classified boards.
|
Shareholders should be aware that approval of the proposal would
not declassify the board. To declassify the board, the board
must propose to the stockholders an amendment to the relevant
section of the certificate of incorporation, following which 85%
of the total outstanding shares of common stock must approve the
proposed amendment. For the reasons set forth above, our
board of directors unanimously recommends a vote AGAINST
the adoption of this proposal.
16
STRATUS PROPERTIES INC.
Proxy Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors for
Annual Meeting of Stockholders, May 8, 2007
The undersigned hereby appoints William H. Armstrong III and Kenneth N. Jones, or either of
them, as proxies, with full power of substitution, to vote the shares of the undersigned in Stratus
Properties Inc. at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at 9:00
a.m., and at any adjournment thereof, on all matters coming before the meeting. The proxies will
vote: (1) as you specify on the back of this card, (2) as the Board of Directors recommends where
you do not specify your vote on a matter listed on the back of this card, and (3) as the proxies
decide on any other matter.
If you wish to vote on all matters as the Board of Directors recommends, please sign, date and
return this card. If you wish to vote on items individually, please also mark the appropriate boxes
on the back of this card.
PLEASE MARK, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS PROXY PROMPTLY
IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE
(continued on reverse side)
5 FOLD AND DETACH HERE 5
|
|
|
Please mark
your votes as
indicated in
this example
|
|
x |
Your Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR Items 1 and 2 below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR |
|
WITHHOLD |
|
|
Item 1
|
|
Election of the nominee for director.
William
H. Armstrong III
|
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR
|
|
AGAINST
|
|
ABSTAIN |
Item 2
|
|
Ratification of appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
as independent auditors.
|
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
o |
Your Board of Directors recommends a
vote AGAINST Item 3 below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR |
|
AGAINST |
|
ABSTAIN |
Item 3
|
|
Stockholder proposal regarding the
declassification of the Board of
Directors.
|
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature(s)
|
|
|
|
Dated:
|
|
|
|
, 2007 |
You may specify your votes by marking the appropriate boxes on this side.You need not mark any
boxes, however, if you wish to vote all items in accordance with the Board of Directors
recommendation. If your votes are not specified, this proxy will be voted FOR Items 1 and 2, and
AGAINST Item 3.
5 FOLD AND DETACH HERE 5
STRATUS PROPERTIES INC. OFFERS STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD
TWO WAYS TO VOTE YOUR PROXY
Your Internet vote authorizes the named proxies to vote your shares in the same manner as if
you had returned your proxy card. We encourage you to use this cost effective and convenient way of
voting, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
INTERNET VOTING
Visit the Internet voting website at
http://www.ivselection.com/stratus07. Have this
proxy card ready and follow the instructions on
your screen. You will incur only your usual
Internet charges. Available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time on May 7, 2007.
VOTING BY MAIL
Simply sign and date your proxy card and return
it in the postage-paid envelope to Kenneth N.
Jones, General Counsel and Secretary, Stratus
Properties Inc., P.O. Box 17149, Wilmington,
Delaware 19885-9810. If you are voting by
Internet, please do not mail your proxy card.