Starwood 2015 Annual Report Download - page 18

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 18 of the 2015 Starwood annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 64

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64

Table of Contents
subjectively determined by the Compensation Committee. The individual performance goals were established at levels that the Compensation Committee believed
were reasonably difficult to achieve relative to historical trends and future expectations, and generally required significant effort on the part of our participating
named executive officers to achieve.
The following table sets forth, for each named executive officer, his or her salary at the time the target award was determined, target award as both a percentage of
that salary and a dollar amount and actual award:
Name
Salary
($)
Award Target
Relative to Salary
(%)
Award
Target
($)
Actual
Award
($)
Mangas 700,000 100% 700,000 847,875
Poulter 700,000 100% 700,000 714,000
Rivera 749,696 100% 749,696 774,248
Schnaid (1) 400,932 65% 260,606 292,400
Turner 766,785 100% 766,785 821,227
Aron 1,000,000 200% 2,000,000 2,040,000
Van Paasschen (2) 1,250,000 200% 2,500,000 N/A
(1) TheannualincentiveprogramthatappliedtoMr.Schnaidisfurtherdescribedbelow.
(2) Inconnectionwithhisseparation from the Company, Mr.vanPaasschenreceivedcashseveranceof$425,000,whichwasanamount equal invaluetoone-sixthofthe
annualincentivetheCompensationCommitteedeterminedhewouldhaveearnedundertheAnnualIncentivePlanfor2015werehetoremainemployedfortheentiretyof
2015.
EvaluationProcess.In February 2016, Mr. Mangas, as Chief Executive Officer, along with Jeff Cava, the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Human
Resources Officer, and with oversight and input from the Compensation Committee, conducted a formal performance review process to evaluate the performance
of each continuing named executive officer (other than Mr. Schnaid) against such officer’s strategic/operational goals for 2015 through the Performance
Management Process (or PMP), which resulted in a PMP rating for each officer. This PMP rating corresponded to a payout range under the Executive Plan that was
determined by the Compensation Committee for 2015. In performing their review, in addition to the original performance goals established for such continuing
named executive officers and their performance against such goals, Mr. Mangas and Mr. Cava took into consideration business developments during 2015
(primarily consisting of the spin-off and sale process of SVO, the exploration of strategic alternatives and sale process for the Company and the Chief Executive
Officer transitions. These developments became additional priorities on which our named executive officers focused in 2015.
At the conclusion of the review process, Mr. Mangas submitted the recommendations to the Compensation Committee for final review and approval. In
determining the actual award payable to each continuing named executive officer under the Executive Plan, the Compensation Committee both reviewed
Mr. Mangas and reviewed Mr. Mangas’ and Mr. Cava’s evaluations of such continuing named executive officers and made a final subjective determination as to
how each such continuing named executive officer performed against his or her key strategic/operational/leadership goals and generally toward overall Company
performance for 2015. Similar to Mr. Mangas’ and Mr. Cava’s review, in addition to the original performance goals established for the continuing named executive
officers (other than Mr. Schnaid) and their performance against such goals, the Compensation Committee also considered each named executive officer’s
performance under the changing conditions and business events described above that affected the Company during 2015. The Compensation Committee also
determined, based on management’s report, the extent to which our financial performance goals were achieved and whether we achieved the applicable minimum
threshold required to pay annual incentive awards. Mr. Mangas also met in executive session with the Board to inform the Board of his and Mr. Cava’s
performance assessments regarding the continuing named executive officers (other than Mr. Schnaid) and the
16