To Our Shareowners:
You are cordially invited to
attend the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell, which will be held at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, April 26, 2010 at our
headquarters, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey.
The accompanying notice of
meeting and proxy statement describe the matters to be voted on at the meeting. At this years meeting, you will be asked to
elect directors, approve the appointment of the independent accountants, approve an amendment to
Honeywells Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to reduce the ownership threshold required for shareowners to
call a special meeting of shareowners, cast an advisory vote regarding executive compensation and consider three shareowner
proposals. The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR Proposals 1 through 4 and AGAINST Proposals 5 through 7.
YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. We
encourage you to read the proxy statement and vote your shares as soon as possible. Shareowners may vote via the Internet, by
telephone or by completing and returning a proxy card. Specific voting instructions are set
forth in the proxy statement and on both the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials and proxy card.
On behalf of the Board of
Directors, I want to thank you for your continued support of Honeywell.
A map and directions to
Honeywells headquarters appear at the end of the proxy statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Sincerely, |
|
|
|
|
|
DAVID M. COTE Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF
SHAREOWNERS
The Annual Meeting of
Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. will be held on Monday, April 26, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. local time, at Honeywells
headquarters, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey to consider, if properly raised, and vote on the following matters
described in the
accompanying proxy statement:
|
|
|
|
|
Election of the ten nominees listed in the accompanying proxy statement to the Board of Directors; |
|
|
|
|
|
Approval of the appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent accountants for 2010; |
|
|
|
|
|
A proposal to amend Honeywells
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to reduce the ownership threshold required for shareowners to call special meetings
of shareowners; |
|
|
|
|
|
An advisory vote regarding executive
compensation; |
|
|
|
|
|
Three shareowner proposals described on
pages 6872 in the accompanying proxy statement; and
|
to transact any other business that may
properly come before the meeting.
The Board of Directors has
determined that shareowners of record at the close of business on February 26, 2010 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the
meeting.
The Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has adopted a Notice and Access rule that allows companies to deliver a Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials (Notice of Internet Availability) to shareowners in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy
statement and related materials and the
Companys Annual Report to Shareowners (the Proxy Materials). The Notice of Internet Availability provides
instructions as to how shareowners can access the Proxy Materials online, contains a listing of matters to be considered at the
meeting, and sets forth instructions as to how shares can be voted. Shares
must be voted either by telephone, online or by completing and returning a proxy card. Shares cannot be voted by marking, writing
on and/or returning the Notice of Internet Availability. Any Notices of Internet Availability that are returned will not be counted
as votes. Instructions for
requesting a paper copy of the Proxy Materials are set forth on the Notice of Internet Availability.
This Notice of Annual Meeting
of Shareowners and related Proxy Materials are being distributed or made available to shareowners beginning on or about March 11,
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
By Order of the Board of Directors, |
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas F. Larkins Vice President and Corporate Secretary |
Honeywell
101 Columbia Road
Morris
Township, NJ 07962
March 11, 2010
PROXY STATEMENT
This proxy statement is being
provided to shareowners in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors for use at the Annual Meeting of
Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell or the Company) to be held on Monday, April 26,
2010.
VOTING
PROCEDURES
Your Vote is Very Important
Whether or not you plan to
attend the meeting, please take the time to vote your shares as soon as possible.
Notice and Access
The SEC has adopted a
Notice and Access rule that allows companies to deliver a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials
(Notice of Internet Availability) to shareowners in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy statement and related materials and
the Companys Annual Report to Shareowners (the
Proxy Materials). The Notice of Internet Availability provides instructions as to how shareowners can access the Proxy
Materials online, contains a listing of matters to be considered at the meeting, and sets forth instructions as to how shares can be
voted. Shares must be voted either by telephone, online
or by completing and returning a proxy card. Shares cannot be voted by marking, writing on and/or returning the Notice of Internet
Availability. Any Notices of Internet Availability that are returned will not be counted as votes. Instructions for requesting a
paper copy of the Proxy Materials are
set forth on the Notice of Internet Availability.
Important Notice Regarding
Availability of Proxy Materials:
The Proxy Materials are
available at www.proxyvote.com. Enter the 12-digit control number located on the Notice
of Internet Availability or proxy card.
Methods of Voting
Shareowners of
Record
If your shares are registered
directly in your name with Honeywells transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, you are considered the
shareowner of record of those shares. Shareowners of record can vote via the Internet at www.proxyvote.com, by calling (800) 690-6903 or by signing and returning a proxy card. Votes submitted by Internet or
telephone must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on April 25, 2010.
Beneficial Owners
If
your shares are held in a stock brokerage account, by a bank, broker, trustee,
or other nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of shares held
in street name and these proxy materials are being forwarded to you by your
bank, broker, trustee or nominee who is considered the shareowner of
record of those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct
your bank, broker, trustee or nominee on how to vote via the Internet or
by telephone if the bank, broker, trustee or nominee offers these options
or by signing and returning a proxy card. Your bank, broker, trustee or nominee
will send you instructions for voting your shares. For a discussion of the
changes in rules regarding the voting of shares held by beneficial owners
in the election of directors, please see the section entitled Quorum;
Vote Required; Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes beginning on page 2
of this proxy statement. Votes
directed by Internet or telephone through such a bank, broker, trustee or
nominee must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on April 25,
2010.
Participants in Honeywell Savings
Plans
Participants in the Honeywell
stock funds within Honeywell savings plans are considered the beneficial owners of the shares held by the savings plans. The trustee
of each savings plan is the
shareowner of record for shares held by Honeywell stock funds within that
plan. Participants in Honeywell stock funds within Honeywell savings plans can direct the trustee of the relevant plan to vote their
shares via the Internet at www.proxyvote.com, by calling (800) 690-6903 or by signing and
returning a proxy card. The trustee will vote shares as to which no directions are received in the same ratio as shares with
respect to which directions have been received from other participants in the relevant plan, unless
contrary to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Therefore, we encourage you to provide instructions to the
trustee regarding the voting of your shares. Directions provided by Internet or telephone must be received by 5:00 p.m. eastern
standard time on April 22,
2010.
Revoking Your Proxy
Whether you vote or direct
your vote by mail, telephone or via the Internet, if you are a shareowner of record or a participant in Honeywell stock funds within
Honeywell savings plans, unless otherwise noted, you may later revoke your proxy by:
|
|
|
|
|
sending a written statement to that effect to the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell; |
|
|
|
|
|
submitting a properly signed proxy with a
later date; |
|
|
|
|
|
voting by telephone or via the Internet at
a later time (if initially able to vote in that manner) so long as such vote or voting direction is received by the applicable date
and time set forth above for shareowners of record and participants in Honeywell savings plans; or |
|
|
|
|
|
voting in person at the Annual Meeting
(except for shares held in the savings plans).
|
If you hold your shares
through a bank, broker, trustee or nominee and you have instructed the bank, broker, trustee or nominee to vote your shares, you must
follow the directions received from your bank, broker, trustee or nominee to change those instructions.
Proposals To Be Voted On and The
Boards Voting Recommendations
The following proposals, if
properly raised, will be considered at the Annual Meeting. Honeywells Board recommends that you vote your shares as indicated
below. Proposals 5 through 7 have been submitted by shareowners.
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal |
|
Boards Voting Recommendation |
|
|
|
|
FOR |
|
|
1. |
|
|
Election of
Directors |
|
each nominee to the Board listed on pages 6-10 |
|
|
2. |
|
|
Approval of
Independent Accountants |
|
FOR |
|
|
3. |
|
|
Amendment to the
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation-Right to Call a Special Meeting of Shareowners |
|
FOR
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
Advisory Vote on
Executive Compensation |
|
FOR |
|
|
5. |
|
|
Shareowner Proposal:
Shareholder Action by Written Consent |
|
AGAINST |
|
|
6. |
|
|
Shareowner Proposal:
Independent Chairman |
|
AGAINST |
|
|
7. |
|
|
Shareowner Proposal:
Human RightsDevelop and Adopt Policies |
|
AGAINST |
Quorum; Vote Required; Abstentions and
Broker Non-Votes
The required quorum for the
transaction of business at the meeting is a majority of the total outstanding shares of Honeywell common stock (Common
Stock) entitled to vote at the meeting, either present in person or represented by proxy.
With respect to Proposal No.
1, Honeywells By-laws provide that in any uncontested election of directors (an election in which the number of nominees does
not exceed the number of directors to be
2
elected), any nominee who receives a greater number of votes cast
FOR his or her election than votes cast AGAINST his or her election will be elected to the Board of
Directors. Shares not represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting and broker non-votes will have no effect on the
election of
directors. The By-laws also provide that any nominee who does not receive a majority of votes cast FOR his or her
election in an uncontested election is expected to promptly tender his or her resignation to the Chairman of the Board following the
certification of the shareowner vote, which resignation shall be
promptly considered through a process managed by the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, excluding any nominees who
did not receive a majority vote.
The affirmative vote of a
majority of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock is required for approval of Proposal No. 3. Because approval is based
on a threshold of a majority of all shares outstanding, abstentions, broker non-votes and failures to vote or return a proxy will
have the same effect
as votes against this proposal.
The affirmative vote of a
majority of shares present or represented and entitled to vote on Proposal No. 2 and each of Proposal Nos. 4 through 7 is required
for approval of these proposals. Abstentions will be counted toward the tabulation of votes present or represented on these proposals
and will have the
same effect as votes AGAINST these proposals.
New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) rules prohibit brokers from voting on Proposal Nos. 1, 3 and 5 through 7 without receiving instructions from the
beneficial owner of the shares. In the absence of instructions, shares subject to such broker non-votes will not be counted as voted
or as present or
represented on those proposals and so will have no effect on the vote. Please note that this year the rules regarding how
brokers may vote your shares have changed. Brokers may no longer vote your shares on the election of directors in the absence of your
specific instructions as to how to
vote so we encourage you to provide instructions to your broker regarding the voting of your shares.
Other Business
The Board knows of no other
matters to be presented for shareowner action at the meeting. If other matters are properly brought before the meeting, the persons
named as proxies in the accompanying proxy card intend to vote the shares represented by them in accordance with their best
judgment.
Confidential Voting Policy
It is our policy that any
proxy, ballot or other voting material that identifies the particular vote of a shareowner and contains the shareowners request
for confidential treatment will be kept confidential, except in the event of a contested proxy solicitation or as may be required by
law. We may be informed
whether or not a particular shareowner has voted and will have access to any comment written on a proxy, ballot or other material
and to the identity of the commenting shareowner. Under the policy, the inspectors of election at any shareowner meeting will be
independent parties unaffiliated with Honeywell.
Results of the Vote
We will announce preliminary
voting results at the Annual Meeting and publish them on our website www.honeywell.com.
Voting results will also be disclosed on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC within four business days after the Annual Meeting, which will
be available on our website.
Shares Outstanding
At the close of business on
February 26, 2010, there were [ ] shares
of Common Stock outstanding. Each share outstanding as of the February 26, 2010 record date is entitled to one vote at the Annual
Meeting on each matter properly brought before the meeting.
3
Householding
Beneficial owners of Common
Stock who share a single address may receive only one copy of the Notice of Internet Availability or the Proxy Materials, as the case
may be, unless their broker, bank, trustee or nominee has received contrary instructions from any beneficial owner at that address.
This
practice, known as householding, is designed to reduce printing and mailing costs. If any beneficial shareowner(s)
sharing a single address wish to discontinue householding and receive a separate copy of the Notice of Internet Availability or the
Proxy Materials, as the case may be, they may contact
Broadridge, either by calling (800) 579-1639, or by writing to Broadridge, Householding Department, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, New
York, 11717.
ATTENDANCE AT THE ANNUAL MEETING
If you are a shareowner of
record who plans to attend the meeting, please mark the appropriate box on your proxy card or follow the instructions provided when
you vote via the Internet or by telephone. If your shares are held by a bank, broker, trustee or nominee and you plan to attend,
please send written
notification to Honeywell Shareowner Services, P.O. Box 50000, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962, and enclose evidence of your
ownership of shares of Common Stock as of February 26, 2010 (such as a letter from the bank, broker, trustee or nominee confirming
your ownership or a bank or brokerage firm
account statement). The names of all those planning to attend will be placed on an admission list held at the registration desk at
the entrance to the meeting. All shareowners attending the meeting will be asked to provide proof of identification. If your
shares are held by a bank, broker, trustee or
nominee and you have not provided advance written notification that you will attend the meeting, you will be admitted to the
meeting only upon presentation of evidence of ownership of shares of Common Stock as of February 26, 2010.
4
Proposal
No. 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Honeywells directors are
elected at each Annual Meeting of Shareowners and hold office for one-year terms or until their successors are duly elected and
qualified. The Board has nominated ten candidates for election as directors for a term ending at the 2011 Annual Meeting of
Shareowners or when their
successors are duly elected and qualified. All nominees are currently serving as directors. If prior to the Annual Meeting any
nominee should become unavailable to serve, the shares represented by a properly signed and returned proxy card or voted by telephone
or via the Internet will be voted for the election of
such other person as may be designated by the Board, or the Board may determine to leave the vacancy temporarily unfilled or reduce
the authorized number of directors in accordance with the By-laws.
Directors may serve until the
Annual Meeting of Shareowners immediately following their 72nd birthday. In accordance with this policy, Mr. Stafford will retire at
the 2010 Annual Meeting.
The Board of Directors, acting
through its Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee (CGRC), is responsible for nominating a slate of director
nominees that collectively have the complementary experience, qualifications, skills and attributes to guide the Company and function
effectively as a
Board. See Corporate GovernanceIdentification and Evaluation of Director Candidates on pages 16-17 of this proxy
statement for further discussion.
Honeywell is a diversified
technology and manufacturing leader with global businesses organized into four operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control
Solutions, Specialty Materials and Transportation Systems. The CGRC seeks directors with established strong professional reputations
and
experience in areas relevant to the strategy and operations of the Companys businesses, particularly industries, end-markets
and growth segments that Honeywell serves, such as aerospace, construction, transportation, infrastructure, and energy efficiency, as
well as key geographic markets where it operates,
such as the United States, Latin America and Europe. Each of the nominees for election as a director at the Annual Meeting of
Shareowners holds or has held senior executive positions in large, complex organizations and has operating experience that meets this
objective, as described below. In these positions,
they have also gained experience in core management skills, such as strategic and financial planning, public company financial
reporting, compliance, risk management and leadership development. Each of our directors also has experience serving on boards of
directors and board committees of other public
companies and has an understanding of corporate governance practices and trends.
The
CGRC also believes that each of the nominees has other key attributes that
are important to an effective board: integrity, candor, analytical skills,
the willingness to engage management and each other in a constructive and
collaborative fashion, and the ability and commitment to devote significant
time and energy to service on the Board and its Committees. The CGRC takes
into account diversity considerations in determining the Companys slate
and planning for Director succession and believes that, as a group, the nominees
bring a diverse range of perspectives to the Boards deliberations.
Each of the nominees, other than Mr. Cote, is also independent of the Company
and management. See Director Independence beginning on page 15
of this proxy statement.
In addition to the above, the
CGRC also considered the specific experience described in the biographical details that follow in determining to nominate the
individuals set forth below for election as directors.
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOMINEES FOR ELECTION |
|
|
|
GORDON M. BETHUNE, Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Continental Airlines,
Inc. Mr. Bethune is the retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Continental
Airlines, Inc., an international commercial airline company. Mr. Bethune joined Continental Airlines, Inc. in February 1994 as
President and Chief Operating Officer. He was elected President and Chief
Executive Officer in November 1994 and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer in 1996, in which positions he served
until his retirement in December of 2004. Prior to joining Continental, Mr. Bethune held senior management positions with the Boeing
Company, Piedmont Airlines,
Western Airlines, Inc. and Braniff Airlines. Additionally, Mr. Bethune served as Vice President/General Manager of the Boeing
Renton division where he was responsible for the manufacturing and design of the B757 and B737 aircraft programs. He is licensed as a
commercial pilot, type rated
on the B757 and B767 airplanes and the DC-3. He is also a licensed airframe and power plant mechanic. Mr. Bethune is also a
director of Prudential Financial Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation. He previously served as a director of Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
(20042008). Mr. Bethune was a
director of Honeywell Inc. from April 1999 to December 1999. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Commercial airlines, including marketing, branding, cost control and restructuring, international
operations and government regulation; aircraft manufacturing, design, maintenance and repair; financial services;
insurance. |
|
|
|
Director since 1999 |
|
Age 68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEVIN BURKE, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con
Edison)
Mr. Burke joined Con Edison in 1973 and has held positions of increasing responsibility
in system planning, engineering, law, nuclear power, construction, and corporate
planning. He served as senior vice president, with responsibility for customer
service and for Con Edisons electric
transmission and distribution systems. In 1999, Mr. Burke was elected president
of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., a subsidiary of Con Edison. He was elected
president and chief operating officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York
in 2000 and elected chief executive officer in 2005. Mr. Burke was appointed
president and chief executive officer of Con Edison in 2005, and elected chairman
in 2006. In addition, Mr. Burke is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Consolidated
Edison of New York and a director of Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., both
of which are affiliates of Con Edison. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Energy production and distribution; energy efficiency; alternative sources of energy; engineering
and construction; development of new service offerings; government regulation. |
|
|
|
Director since 2010 |
|
Age 59 |
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JAIME CHICO PARDO, Co-Chairman of the Board of Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V.
(TELMEX) Mr. Chico Pardo has been Co-Chairman of the Board of TELMEX, a telecommunications company
based in Mexico City, since April 2009 and previously served as Chairman from October 2006 to April 2009. He joined TELMEX as Vice
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in 1995, a position
which he held until October 2006. In November 2006, Mr. Chico Pardo became Co-Chairman of the Board of IDEAL, a company engaged
in investment in and management of infrastructure assets in Latin America. He has also been Chairman of Carso Global Telecom, S.A. de
C.V. since
1996. Prior to joining TELMEX, Mr. Chico Pardo served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo Condumex, S.A. de
C.V., a manufacturer of products for the construction, automobile and telecommunications industries, and Euzkadi/General Tire de
Mexico, a manufacturer of
automotive and truck tires. Mr. Chico Pardo has also spent a number of years in the international and investment banking
business. Mr. Chico Pardo is a director of IDEAL, CICSA, Carso Global Telecom, Grupo Carso, S.A. de C.V., Telefonos de Mexico,
S.A.B de C.V. and Telmex
Internacional, all of which are affiliates of TELMEX. Mr. Chico Pardo will not be standing for re-election to the boards of
Telmex Internacional, Carso Global Telecom and Grupo Carso in 2010. Mr. Chico Pardo is also a director of AT&T, Inc. He
previously served as a director of America Movil,
S.A.B. de C.V. (20012009) and America Telecom (20012006), both of which are affiliates of TELMEX. Mr. Chico Pardo
was a director of Honeywell Inc. from September 1998 to December 1999. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Telecommunications; automotive; manufacturing; engineering; construction; management of
infrastructure assets. |
|
|
|
Director since 1999 |
|
Age 60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAVID M. COTE, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Honeywell International Inc. Mr. Cote
has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since July 2002. He joined Honeywell as President and Chief Executive Officer in
February 2002. Prior to joining Honeywell, he served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of TRW Inc., a provider of
products and
services for the aerospace, information systems and automotive markets, from August 2001 to February 2002. From February 2001
to July 2001, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer and from November 1999 to January 2001 he served as President and
Chief Operating Officer
of TRW. Mr. Cote was Senior Vice President of General Electric Company and President and Chief Executive Officer of GE
Appliances from June 1996 to November 1999. He is also a director of JPMorgan Chase & Co. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Senior leadership roles in global, multi-industry organizations; ability to drive a consistent
One Honeywell approach across a large multi-national organization; detailed knowledge and unique perspective and insights regarding
the strategic and operational
opportunities and challenges, economic and industry trends, and competitive and financial positioning of the Company and its
businesses. |
|
|
|
Director since 2002 |
|
Age 57 |
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. SCOTT DAVIS, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) Mr.
Davis joined United Parcel Service, Inc., a leading global provider of package delivery, specialized transportation and logistics
services in 1986, and has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since January 1, 2008. Prior to this, he served as Vice
Chairman since December 2006
and as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since January 2001. Previously, Mr. Davis held various
leadership positions with UPS, primarily in the finance and accounting areas. Prior to joining UPS, he was Chief Executive Officer of
II Morrow, a developer of general
aviation and marine navigation instruments. Mr. Davis is a Certified Public Accountant. He previously served as the chairman of
the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (20032009). |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Transportation and logistics services; international operations, global economic indicators and
issues; public policy; financial reporting, accounting and controls. |
|
|
|
Director since 2005 |
|
Age 58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LINNET F. DEILY, Former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and Ambassador Ms. Deily was Deputy
U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization from 2001 to 2005. From 2000 until 2001, she was Vice
Chairman of The Charles Schwab Corp. Ms. Deily served as President of the Schwab Retail Group from 1998 until 2000 and
President of Schwab InstitutionalServices for Investment Managers from 1996 to 1998. Prior to joining Schwab, she was the
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of First Interstate Bank of Texas from 1990 until 1996. She is also a
director of Chevron Corporation. Ms.
Deily previously served as a director of Alcatel-Lucent (20062008) and Lucent Technologies
(20052006). |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: International trade; capital markets; banking; corporate finance; government and public policy;
telecommunications and information services; refinery and petrochemical industries; financial reporting; accounting and
controls. |
|
|
|
Director since 2006 |
|
Age 64 |
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLIVE R. HOLLICK, Senior Adviser, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. In April of 2005, Lord
Hollick joined Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., a private equity firm, as a Managing Director, focusing on investments in the media
and financial services sectors, and was appointed Partner in April 2006 and then Senior Adviser in February 2009. Prior to that time,
and
beginning in 1996, Lord Hollick was the Chief Executive of United Business Media plc, a London-based, international
information, broadcasting, financial services and publishing group. From 1974 to 1996, he held various leadership positions with MAI
plc (which merged into United Business
Media in 1996) and its predecessor companies. Lord Hollick is also a director of Diageo plc, and ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG. He
previously served as a director of The Nielsen Company B.V. (20082009) and United Business Media
(19962005). |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: International media (information, broadcasting and publishing); financial services; marketing and
branding; technology and innovation; operating environment and trends in European markets; mergers and acquisitions, including in a
private equity context; public
policy in the UK and Europe. |
|
|
|
Director since 2003 |
|
Age 64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEORGE PAZ, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Express Scripts, Inc. Mr. Paz
was elected a director of Express Scripts, Inc. in January 2004 and has served as Chairman of the Board since May 2006. Mr. Paz was
elected President of Express Scripts in October 2003 and assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer in April 2005. Mr. Paz joined
Express Scripts
as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in January 1998 and continued to serve as its Chief Financial Officer
following his election as President until April 2004. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Tax; financial reporting; accounting and controls; insurance and risk management; government
regulation; employee health benefits. |
|
|
|
Director since 2008 |
|
Age 54 |
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRADLEY T. SHEARES, Former Chief Executive Officer of Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Former President, U.S. Human Health,
Merck & Co., Inc. Dr. Sheares served as Chief Executive Officer of Reliant Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a pharmaceutical company with integrated sales, marketing and development expertise that marketed a portfolio of branded
cardiovascular pharmaceutical products, from January 2007 through its acquisition by
GlaxoSmithKline plc in December 2007. Prior to joining Reliant, Dr. Sheares served as President of U.S. Human Health, Merck
& Co. from March of 2001 until July 2006. Prior to that time, he served as Vice President, Hospital Marketing and Sales for
Mercks U.S. Human Health business. Dr.
Sheares joined Merck in 1987 as a research fellow in the Merck Research Laboratories and held a wide range of positions within
Merck, in business development, sales, and marketing, before becoming Vice President in 1996. He is also a director of The
Progressive Corporation, Covance
Inc., IMS Health Incorporated and Henry Schein, Inc. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Sales and marketing; advertising and promotion; brand management; research and development;
healthcare; complex regulatory and legal issues; risk management; mergers and
acquisitions. |
|
|
|
Director since 2004 |
|
Age 53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MICHAEL W. WRIGHT, Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of SUPERVALU
INC. Mr. Wright was elected President and Chief Operating Officer of SUPERVALU INC., a food
distributor and retailer, in 1978, Chief Executive Officer in 1981, and Chairman of the Board in 1982. He retired as President and
CEO in June 2001, and as Chairman in May 2002. He joined
SUPERVALU INC. as Senior Vice President of Administration and as a member of the board of directors in 1977. Prior to 1977, Mr.
Wright was a partner in the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney. Mr. Wright is also a director of Canadian Pacific Railway. He
previously served as a director of Wells
Fargo & Company (19992009). Mr. Wright was a director of Honeywell Inc. from April 1987 to December
1999. |
|
|
|
Areas of Relevant Experience: Retail distribution; transportation and logistics; banking and financial services;
law. |
|
|
|
Director since 1999 |
|
Age 71 |
|
|
|
10
CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
The primary functions of
Honeywells Board of Directors are:
|
|
|
|
|
to oversee management performance on behalf of shareowners; |
|
|
|
|
|
to ensure that the long-term interests of
the shareowners are being served; |
|
|
|
|
|
to monitor adherence to Honeywell standards
and policies; |
|
|
|
|
|
to promote the exercise of responsible
corporate citizenship; and |
|
|
|
|
|
to perform the duties and responsibilities
assigned to the Board by the laws of Delaware, Honeywells state of incorporation.
|
BOARD
MEETINGS
The Board of Directors held
seven meetings during 2009. The average attendance at meetings of the Board and Board Committees during 2009 was 96%. During this
period, all of the directors attended or participated in more than 85% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings of the Board
of
Directors and the total number of meetings held by all Committees of the Board of Directors on which each such director
served.
BOARD
LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE
The Board of Directors
believes that Mr. Cotes service as both Chairman of the Board and CEO is in the best interest of the Company and its
shareowners. Mr. Cote possesses detailed and in-depth knowledge of the issues, opportunities and challenges facing the Company and
its businesses and is thus
best positioned to develop agendas that ensure that the Boards time and attention are focused on the most critical
matters.
His combined role enables
decisive leadership, ensures clear accountability, and enhances the Companys ability to communicate its message and strategy
clearly and consistently to the Companys shareowners, employees, customers and suppliers, particularly during times of
turbulent economic and
industry conditions. This has been beneficial in driving a unified One Honeywell approach to core operating processes
across a global, multi-industry organization of approximately 122,000 employees.
Each of the directors other
than Mr. Cote is independent and the Board believes that the independent directors provide effective oversight of management.
Moreover, in addition to feedback provided during the course of Board meetings, the independent directors have regular executive
sessions. Directors
serve as the chairperson, or presiding director, for these executive sessions on a rotating basis (meeting-by-meeting) in
accordance with years of service on the Board. The Company believes that this approach effectively encourages full engagement of all
directors in executive sessions, while avoiding
unnecessary hierarchy. Following an executive session of independent directors, the presiding director acts as a liaison between
the independent directors and the Chairman regarding any specific feedback or issues, provides the Chairman with input regarding
agenda items for Board and Committee meetings,
and coordinates with the Chairman regarding information to be provided to the independent directors in performing their duties. The
Board believes that this approach appropriately and effectively complements the combined CEO/Chairman structure.
Although the Company believes
that the combination of the Chairman and CEO roles is appropriate in the current circumstances, Honeywells Corporate Governance
Guidelines do not establish this approach as a policy, but as a matter that is part of succession planning for the Chief Executive
Officer
position.
BOARD
COMMITTEES
The
Board currently has the following Committees: Audit; Corporate Governance
and Responsibility; Management Development and Compensation; and Retirement
Plans. Each Committee consists entirely of independent, non-employee directors
(see Director Independence beginning on page 15). The
charter of
each Committee of the Board of Directors is available free of charge on our
website, www.honeywell.com, under
the heading Investor Relations (see Corporate
GovernanceBoard
11
Committees) or by writing to Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris
Township, NJ 07962, c/o Vice President and Corporate Secretary.
The table below lists the
current membership of each Committee and the number of Committee meetings held in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Audit |
|
Corporate Governance and Responsibility |
|
Management Development and Compensation |
|
Retirement Plans |
Mr.
Bethune |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Mr.
Burke |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
Mr. Chico
Pardo |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
* |
|
Mr.
Davis |
|
|
|
X |
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
Ms.
Deily |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Hollick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
Mr.
Paz. |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.
Sheares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
Mr.
Stafford |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
* |
|
|
|
Mr.
Wright |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
* |
|
|
|
|
|
2009
Meetings |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Mr. Stafford will retire at
the 2010 Annual Meeting. Effective April 26, 2010, Mr. Davis will become Chair of the Management Development and Compensation
Committee, and Ms. Deily will become Chair of the Audit Committee. Mr. Davis will remain on the Audit Committee, but not on the
Retirement Plans
Committee.
The primary functions of each
of the Board Committees are described below.
Audit Committee
The primary functions of this
Committee are to: appoint (subject to shareowner approval), and be directly responsible for, the compensation, retention and
oversight of, the firm that will serve as independent accountants to audit our financial statements and to perform services related
to the audit (including
the resolution of disagreements between management and the independent accountants regarding financial reporting); review the scope
and results of the audit with the independent accountants; review with management and the independent accountants, prior to the
filing thereof, the annual and interim financial
results (including Managements Discussion and Analysis) to be included in Forms 10-K and 10-Q, respectively; consider the
adequacy and effectiveness of our internal accounting controls and auditing procedures; review, approve and thereby establish
procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of
complaints received by Honeywell regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters and for the confidential,
anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters; and consider the
accountants independence and establish policies and
procedures for pre-approval of all audit and non-audit services provided to Honeywell by the independent accountants who audit its
financial statements. At each meeting, Committee members meet privately with representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our
independent accountants, and with
Honeywells Vice PresidentCorporate Audit. The Board has determined that Mr. Davis, Ms. Deily and Mr. Paz satisfy the
accounting or related financial management expertise requirements set forth in the NYSE Corporate Governance Rules, and
has designated Mr. Davis as the audit committee financial
expert, as such term is defined by the SEC. See page 64 for the Audit Committee Report.
Corporate Governance and Responsibility
Committee
The primary functions of this
Committee are to: identify individuals qualified to become Board members and recommend to the Board the nominees for election to the
Board at the next Annual Meeting of Shareowners; review and make a recommendation to the Board regarding whether to accept a
resignation tendered by a Board nominee who does not receive a majority of votes cast for his or her election in an uncontested
election of directors; review annually and recommend changes to the Corporate Governance Guidelines; lead the Board in its annual
review of the performance of the
12
Board and its Committees; review policies and make recommendations to the
Board concerning the size and composition of the Board, the qualifications and criteria for election to the Board, retirement from
the Board, compensation and benefits of non-employee directors, the conduct of business between
Honeywell and any person or entity affiliated with a director, and the structure and composition of Board Committees; and review
Honeywells policies and programs relating to compliance with its Code of Business Conduct, health, safety and environmental
matters, equal employment opportunity and such other
matters as may be brought to the attention of the Committee regarding Honeywells role as a responsible corporate citizen. See
Identification and Evaluation of Director Candidates on pages 16-17 and Director Compensation on pages
1820.
Management Development and Compensation
Committee
The Companys executive
compensation program is administered by the Management Development and Compensation Committee. Each member of the Committee qualifies
as an outside director within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Internal
Revenue Code). The primary functions of this Committee are to: evaluate and approve executive compensation plans, policies
and programs, including review and approval of executive compensation-related corporate goals and objectives (i.e., determination of
performance metrics under the Companys
incentive and equity-based compensation plans); review and approve the individual goals and objectives of the Companys
executive officers; evaluate the CEOs performance relative to established goals and objectives and, together with the other
independent directors, determine and approve the CEOs
compensation level based on this evaluation; review and determine the annual salary and other remuneration (including under
incentive compensation and equity-based plans) of all other officers; review and discuss with management, prior to the filing
thereof, the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and other
executive compensation disclosure included in this proxy statement; produce the annual Compensation Committee Report included in
this proxy statement; review the management development program, including executive succession plans; recommend individuals for
election as officers; and review or take
such other action as may be required in connection with the bonus, stock and other benefit plans of Honeywell and its subsidiaries.
While the Committees charter authorizes it to delegate its powers to sub-committees, the Committee did not do so during 2009.
See page 39 for the Report of the Management
Development and Compensation Committee.
Role of Consultant
The Committee has sole
authority to retain and terminate a compensation consultant to assist in the evaluation of CEO or senior executive compensation.
Under the Committees established policy, its consultant cannot provide any other services to the Company. Since October 2009,
the Committee has
retained Pearl Meyer & Partners as its independent compensation consultant. Previously the Committee retained Semler Brossy
Consulting Group to serve as its independent compensation consultant. In accordance with its policy, neither of these consultants
provided any other services to the Company.
The consultant compiles
information and provides advice regarding the components and mix (short-term/long-term; fixed/variable; cash/equity) of the executive
compensation programs of the Company and its Peer Group (see page 30 of this proxy statement for further detail regarding
the Peer Group) and
analyzes the relative performance of the Company and the Peer Group with respect to the financial metrics used in the programs. The
consultant also provides information regarding emerging trends and best practices in executive compensation. In addition to
information compiled by the consultant, the
Committee also reviews general survey data compiled and published by third parties; neither the Committee nor the Company has any
input into the scope of or companies included in these third party surveys.
While the Committee reviews
information provided by its consultant regarding compensation paid by the Peer Group, as well as third party survey data, as a
general indicator of relevant market conditions, the Committee does not target a specific competitive position relative to the market
in making its
compensation determination. See Peer Group on page 30 of this proxy statement for further discussion.
13
The consultant retained by the Committee reports
to the Committee Chair and has direct access to Committee members. The consultant periodically attends Committee meetings either in
person or by telephone, and meets with the Committee in executive session without management present.
Input From Senior
Management
The Committee considers input
from senior management in making determinations regarding the overall executive compensation program and the individual compensation
of the executive officers. As part of the Companys annual planning process, the CEO, CFO and Senior Vice PresidentHuman
Resources and Communications develop targets for the Companys incentive compensation programs and present them to the
Committee. These targets are reviewed by the Committee to ensure alignment with the Companys strategic and annual operating
plans, taking into account the targeted year-over-year
and multi-year improvements as well as identified opportunities and risks. Based on performance appraisals, including an assessment
of the achievement of pre-established financial and non-financial management objectives, the CEO recommends base salary adjustments
and cash and equity incentive award
levels for the Companys other executive officers. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 24
of this proxy statement for additional discussion. Each year, the CEO presents to the Committee and the full Board his evaluation of
each executive officers contribution and performance over
the past year, strengths and development needs and actions, and reviews succession plans for each of the executive
officers.
Retirement Plans Committee
The primary functions of this
Committee are to: appoint the trustees for funds of the employee pension benefit plans of Honeywell and certain subsidiaries; review
funding strategies; review investment policy for fund assets; and oversee members of the committees that direct the investment of
pension fund
assets.
BOARDS
ROLE IN RISK OVERISGHT
The Board as a whole has
responsibility for risk oversight, with reviews of certain areas being conducted by the relevant Board Committees that report on
their deliberations to the Board. The oversight responsibility of the Board and its Committees is enabled by management reporting
processes that are
designed to provide visibility to the Board about the identification, assessment and management of critical risks and
managements risk mitigation strategies. These areas of focus include competitive, economic, operational, financial (accounting,
credit, liquidity, and tax), legal, regulatory, compliance, health,
safety and environment, political, and reputational risks. The Board and its Committees oversee risks associated with their
respective principal areas of focus, as summarized below. Each Committee meets in executive session with key management personnel and
representatives of outside advisors (for example,
the Vice PresidentInternal Audit meets in executive session with the Audit Committee).
|
|
|
Board/Committee |
|
Primary Areas of Risk Oversight |
Full Board |
|
Strategic, financial and execution risks and exposures associated with the annual operating plan, and five-year strategic plan
(including matters affecting capital allocation); major litigation and regulatory exposures and other current matters that may
present material risk to the Companys operations,
plans, prospects or reputation; acquisitions and divestitures (including through post-closing reviews); senior management
succession planning. |
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
Board/Committee |
|
Primary Areas of Risk Oversight |
Audit Committee |
|
Risks and exposures associated with financial matters, particularly financial reporting, tax, accounting, disclosure, internal
control over financial reporting, financial policies, investment guidelines and credit and liquidity matters. |
Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee |
|
Risks and exposures relating to Honeywells programs and
policies relating to legal compliance; health, safety, and environment; corporate governance; and director succession
planning.
|
Management Development and Compensation Committee |
|
Risks and exposures associated with leadership assessment,
management succession planning, and executive compensation programs and arrangements, including incentive plans.
|
Retirement Plans Committee |
|
Risks and exposures associated with Honeywells employee pension and savings plans, including their relative investment
performance, asset allocation strategies and funded status. |
DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
The Companys Corporate
Governance Guidelines state that the Board intends that, at all times, a substantial majority of its directors will be
considered independent under relevant NYSE and SEC guidelines. The Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee conducts
an annual review of the
independence of the members of the Board and its Committees and reports its findings to the full Board. Based on the report and
recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee, the Board has determined that each of the non-employee
nominees standing for election to the Board at
the Annual MeetingMessrs. Bethune, Burke, Chico Pardo, Davis, Hollick, Paz, Sheares, and Wright and Ms. Deilysatisfies
the independence criteria (including the enhanced criteria with respect to members of the Audit Committee) set forth in the
applicable NYSE listing standards and SEC rules. Mr. Stafford,
who is retiring from the Board, is also independent under these standards. Each Board Committee member qualifies as a non-employee
director within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act).
For a director to be
considered independent, the Board must determine that the director does not have any direct or indirect material relationships
(including vendor, supplier, consulting, legal, banking, accounting, charitable and family relationships) with Honeywell, other than
as a director and shareowner.
NYSE listing standards also impose certain per se bars to independence, which are based upon a directors relationships with
Honeywell currently and during the three years preceding the Boards determination of independence.
The Board considered all
relevant facts and circumstances in making its determinations, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
No non-employee director receives any direct compensation from Honeywell other than under the director compensation program
described on pages 1820 of this proxy statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
No immediate family member (within the
meaning of the NYSE listing standards) of any non-employee director is an employee of Honeywell or otherwise receives direct
compensation from Honeywell. |
|
|
|
|
|
No non-employee director is an employee of
Honeywells independent accountants and no non-employee director (or any of their respective immediate family members) is a
current partner of |
15
|
|
|
|
Honeywells independent accountants, or was within the last three years, a partner or employee of Honeywells
independent accountants and personally worked on Honeywells audit. |
|
|
|
|
|
No non-employee director is a member,
partner, or principal of any law firm, accounting firm or investment banking firm that receives any consulting, advisory or other
fees from Honeywell. |
|
|
|
|
|
No Honeywell executive officer is on the
compensation committee of the board of directors of a company that employs any of our non-employee directors (or any of their
respective immediate family members) as an executive officer. |
|
|
|
|
|
No non-employee director (or any of their
respective immediate family members) is indebted to Honeywell, nor is Honeywell indebted to any non-employee director (or any of
their respective immediate family members). |
|
|
|
|
|
No non-employee director serves as an
executive officer of a charitable or other tax-exempt organization that received contributions from Honeywell. |
|
|
|
|
|
Honeywell has commercial relationships
(purchase and/or sale of products and services) with companies at which our directors serve, or during the last completed fiscal year
served, as officers (TELMEX, UPS, and Con Edison). In each case, (i) the relevant products and services were provided on the
same terms and conditions as similar products and services provided by or to similarly situated customers and suppliers; (ii)
the relevant director did not initiate or negotiate the relevant transaction, each of which was in the ordinary course of business of
both companies, and (iii) the combined amount of
such purchases and sales was less than 0.39% of the consolidated gross revenues of each of Honeywell and the other company in
each of the last three completed fiscal years. This level is significantly below the relevant per se bar to independence set forth in
the NYSE listing standards, which uses a 2%
of total revenue threshold and applies it to each of purchases and sales rather than the combination of the two. |
|
|
|
|
|
While a non-employee directors
service as an outside director of another company with which Honeywell does business is not within the NYSE per se independence bars
and would generally not be expected to raise independence issues, the Board also considered those relationships and confirmed the
absence of any material commercial relationships with any such company. Specifically, those commercial relationships were in
the ordinary course of business for Honeywell and the other companies involved and were on terms and conditions available to
similarly situated customers and suppliers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although not within the NYSE per se
independence bars, the Board also considered Mr. Cotes service on a KKR Advisory Board regarding the integration and operation
of acquired companies (Mr. Hollick is a Senior Adviser to KKR) and determined that the relationship was not material.
|
The above information was derived from the
Companys books and records and responses to questionnaires completed by the directors in connection with the preparation of
this proxy statement.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF DIRECTOR CANDIDATES
The Board has determined that
its Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee shall, among other responsibilities, serve as the nominating committee. The
Committee consists entirely of independent directors under applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. The Committee operates
under
a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors. A copy of the charter is available at the Companys website www.honeywell.com, under the heading Investor Relations (see Corporate
GovernanceBoard Committees), or by writing to Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962 c/o Vice
President and Corporate Secretary. The Committee is charged with seeking individuals qualified to
become directors and recommending candidates for all directorships to the full Board of Directors. The Committee considers director
candidates in anticipation of upcoming director elections and other potential or expected Board vacancies.
The Committee considers
director candidates suggested by members of the Committee, other directors, senior management and shareowners. The Committee has
retained, at the expense of the Company, a search firm to identify potential director candidates, and is also authorized to retain
other external
advisors for specific purposes, including performing background reviews of potential candidates. The search firm retained by the
Committee has been provided guidance as to the
16
particular experience, skills and other characteristics that the Board is
seeking. The Committee has delegated responsibility for day-to-day management and oversight of the search firm engagement to the
Chairman of the Board and/or the Companys Senior VPHuman Resources and Communications.
Preliminary interviews of
director candidates may be conducted by the Chairman of the Committee or, at his request, any other member of the Committee, the
Chairman of the Board and/or a representative of the search firm retained by the Committee. Background material pertaining to
director candidates is
distributed to the members of the Committee for their review. Director candidates who the Committee determines merit further
consideration are interviewed by the Chairman of the Committee and such other Committee members, directors and key senior management
personnel as determined by the Chairman of
the Committee. The results of these interviews are considered by the Committee in its deliberations.
The Committee annually reviews
with the Board the requisite skills and characteristics of Board members, as well as the composition of the Board as a whole. This
assessment includes a consideration of independence, diversity, age, skills, experience and industry backgrounds in the context of
the needs of
the Board and the Company, as well as the ability of current and prospective directors to devote sufficient time to performing
their duties in an effective manner. Directors are expected to exemplify the highest standards of personal and professional
integrity; and to constructively challenge management through
their active participation and questioning. In particular, the Committee seeks directors with established strong professional
reputations and expertise in areas relevant to the strategy and operations of the Companys businesses. While the Companys
Corporate Governance Guidelines do not prescribe diversity
standards, as a matter of practice, the Committee considers diversity in the context of the Board as a whole and takes into account
the personal characteristics (gender, ethnicity, age) and experience (industry, professional, public service) of current and
prospective directors to facilitate Board deliberations that
reflect a broad range of perspectives. The Committee conducts regular reviews of current directors whose terms are nearing
expiration, but who may be proposed for re-election, in light of the considerations described above and their past contributions to
the Board.
This year, one director, Kevin
Burke, is nominated for election to the Board of Directors who has not previously stood for election to the Board by the shareowners.
Mr. Burke was identified by a third-party search firm and was elected to the Board, effective January 6, 2010.
Shareowners
wishing to recommend a director candidate to the Committee for its consideration
should write to the Committee, in care of Vice President and Corporate Secretary,
Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962. To receive
meaningful consideration, a recommendation
should include the candidates name, biographical data, and a description
of his or her qualifications in light of the above criteria. Shareowners wishing
to nominate a director should follow the procedures set forth in the Companys
By-laws and described under Director Nominations on page 73 of
this proxy statement.
The Company did not receive in
a timely manner, in accordance with SEC requirements, any recommendation of a director candidate from a shareowner, or group of
shareowners, that beneficially owned more than 5% of the Common Stock for at least one year as of the date of
recommendation.
PROCESS FOR
COMMUNICATING WITH BOARD MEMBERS
Interested parties may
communicate directly with the presiding director for an upcoming meeting or the non-employee directors as a group by writing to
Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962, c/o Vice President and Corporate Secretary. Communications may also
be sent to
individual directors at the above address.
DIRECTOR
ATTENDANCE AT ANNUAL MEETINGS
The Company has no specific
policy regarding director attendance at its Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Generally, however, Board and Committee meetings are held
immediately preceding and following the Annual Meeting of Shareowners, with directors attending the Annual Meeting. All of the
directors
attended last years Annual Meeting of Shareowners.
17
DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION
The Corporate Governance and
Responsibility Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the form and amount of compensation for
non-employee directors. Directors who are employees of Honeywell receive no compensation for service on the Board. Honeywells
director
compensation program is designed to enable continued attraction and retention of highly qualified directors by ensuring that
director compensation is in line with peer companies competing for director talent, and is designed to address the time, effort,
expertise and accountability required of active Board
membership. In general, the Corporate Governance and Responsibility Committee and the Board believe that annual compensation for
non-employee directors should consist of both a cash component, designed to compensate members for their service on the Board and its
Committees, and an equity
component, designed to align the interests of directors and shareowners and, by vesting over time, to create an incentive for
continued service on the Board.
Annual Compensation
Each non-employee director
receives an annual Board cash retainer of $80,000. Each also receives a cash fee of $2,500 for each Board meeting attended, an annual
cash retainer of $10,000 for each Board Committee on which he or she serves ($15,000 for Audit Committee), and an additional Committee
Chair cash retainer of $15,000 for the Audit Committee and $10,000 for all other Board Committees. While no fees are generally paid
for attending Committee meetings, a $1,000 cash fee is paid for attendance at a Committee meeting, or other extraordinary meeting
related to Board business, which occurs apart
from a regularly scheduled Board meeting.
At the commencement of each
year, $60,000 in common stock equivalents is automatically credited to each directors account in the Deferred Compensation Plan
for Non-Employee Directors, which amounts are only payable after termination of Board service, and are paid, in cash, as either a
lump sum or in
equal annual installments.
Each director receives an
annual grant of options to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock at the fair market value on the date of grant, which is the date of
the Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Starting in 2007, the vesting period was extended from three to four years, with the vesting
occurring in four
equal annual installments. These options also become fully vested at the earliest of the directors retirement from the Board
on or after the mandatory retirement age set by the Board and in effect on the date of grant, death, disability or change in control,
as set forth in the 2006 Stock Plan for Non-Employee
Directors of Honeywell (the Non-Employee Director Plan) or applicable predecessor plan.
Deferred Compensation
A director may also elect to
defer, until a specified calendar year or termination of Board service, all or any portion of his or her annual cash retainers and
fees that are not automatically deferred, and to have such compensation credited to his or her account in the Deferred Compensation
Plan for Non-
Employee Directors. Amounts credited either accrue interest (7.2% for 2009 and set at 4.8% for 2010) or are valued as if invested
in a Honeywell common stock fund or one of the other funds available to participants in our employee savings plan. The unit price of
the Honeywell common stock fund is increased to
take dividends into account. Upon a change of control, as defined in the Non-Employee Director Plan, a director may elect a
lump-sum payment of amounts deferred before 2006.
The non-employee directors of
the Company who were previously non-employee directors of Honeywell Inc. (Messrs. Bethune, Chico Pardo and Wright) participate in the
legacy Honeywell Inc. Non-Employee Directors Fee and Stock Unit Plan. The last fee deferral under this plan occurred on December 1,
1999. Since that date, deferred amounts are increased only by cash dividends that are converted into shares of Common Stock by
dividing the cash amount by the closing price of the Common Stock on the dividend payment date. Payment will be made to a
participating director in whole shares of Common Stock
following the earlier of a change in control or the directors termination of Board service for any reason. Fractional shares
will be paid in cash. Share payments will be made to a participating director in one payment or annual installments, as elected by
the director. A director may elect to change the payment form
if such election is made at least one year prior to the payment date.
18
Other Benefits
Non-employee directors are
also provided with $350,000 in business travel accident insurance. They are also eligible to elect $100,000 in term life insurance
and medical and dental coverage for themselves and their eligible dependents that is identical to similar coverage offered to the
Companys active
salaried employees. In September 2008, the Board determined that new directors would be responsible for paying premiums for term
life insurance and medical and dental coverage which they elected to receive. Honeywell also matches, dollar for dollar, any
charitable contribution made by a director to any
qualifying educational institution or charity, up to a maximum of $25,000 in the aggregate per director, per calendar year. In
addition, directors may use company aircraft for travel to and from Board and Committee meetings.
Prior to January 1, 2010,
under the terms of the Companys aircraft usage policy, if the presence of the directors spouse at a Board function is
requested by the Company and the spouse travels with the director to such function on Company aircraft, the Company imputed income to
the director for spousal
travel for income tax purposes and reimbursed the director for the estimated taxes related to the imputed income. Effective January
1, 2010, the Company will no longer reimburse the directors for the estimated taxes related to imputed income from spousal travel on
Company aircraft.
Restricted Stock Unit Grant Upon Election to
Board
New directors receive a
one-time grant of 3,000 restricted stock units that vest on the earliest of the fifth anniversary of continuous Board service, death,
disability or change in control. During this period, the director will receive dividend equivalents that will be deemed automatically
reinvested into additional
restricted stock units to be paid out only when the underlying shares vest and will not have any voting rights. The director may
defer the receipt of the restricted stock units on substantially the same terms and conditions as officers of the Company with
respect to new grants of restricted stock units.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
Director stock ownership
guidelines have been adopted under which each non-employee director, while serving as a director of the Company, must (i) hold at
least $300,000 of Common Stock (including restricted shares and restricted stock units) and/or common stock equivalents and (ii) hold
net gain
shares from option exercises for one year. Net gain shares means the number of shares obtained by exercising the
option, less the number of shares the director sells to cover the exercise price of the options and pay applicable taxes. Directors
have five years from election to the Board to attain the prescribed
ownership threshold. All directors other than Mr. Paz (elected to the Board on December 12, 2008) have attained the prescribed
ownership threshold.
Director
CompensationFiscal Year 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Name |
|
Fees Earned or Paid in Cash (1) ($) |
|
Stock Awards (2) ($) |
|
Option Awards (2) (3) ($) |
|
Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings (4)($) |
|
All Other Compensation (5) ($) |
|
Total ($) |
Gordon
Bethune |
|
|
$ |
|
179,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
31,444 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,504 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
257,048 |
|
Jaime Chico
Pardo |
|
|
$ |
|
186,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
21,110 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
244,710 |
|
D. Scott
Davis |
|
|
$ |
|
201,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,521 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
956 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
247,577 |
|
Linnet
Deily |
|
|
$ |
|
187,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
30,357 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
255,457 |
|
Clive
Hollick |
|
|
$ |
|
178,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,629 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
218,733 |
|
George
Paz |
|
|
$ |
|
187,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,004 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
250,104 |
|
Bradley
Sheares |
|
|
$ |
|
176,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,956 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,605 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
248,161 |
|
John
Stafford |
|
|
$ |
|
195,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
72,044 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28,079 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
332,723 |
|
Michael
Wright |
|
|
$ |
|
197,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
27,935 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
263,035 |
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
All fees earned, whether paid in cash or deferred under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (including
amounts treated as deferred in the Honeywell common stock fund). |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
The outstanding stock awards and option
awards held at December 31, 2009 by each of the listed individuals are set forth in the chart below:
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Name |
|
Outstanding Stock
Awards at 12/31/09 |
|
Outstanding Option
Awards at 12/31/09 |
Mr.
Bethune |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,000 |
|
|
|
Mr. Chico
Pardo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,000 |
|
|
|
Mr.
Davis |
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
Ms.
Deily |
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
Mr.
Hollick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
Mr.
Paz. |
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
Dr.
Sheares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
Mr.
Stafford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,000 |
|
|
|
Mr.
Wright |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,000 |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
|
|
The amounts set forth in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of option awards computed in accordance with
FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing
model. Option awards for non-employee
directors were made in April 2009 with a Black-Scholes value of $7.52 per share. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions
used in the valuation of option awards made in fiscal year 2009 may be found in Note 20 of the Notes to the Financial Statements in
the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009. |
|
(4) |
|
|
|
Amounts included in this column reflect
above-market earnings on deferred compensation. Amounts invested in cash under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors are credited with the same rate of interest that applies to executives under the Honeywell Salary and Incentive Award
Deferral Plan for Selected Employees. Deferrals for the 2006 plan year and later earn a rate of interest, compounded daily,
based on the Companys 15-year cost of borrowing. The rate is subject to change annually. For 2009, this rate was 7.2%, and set
at 4.8% for 2010. Deferrals for the 2005 plan year earn
a rate of interest, compounded daily, which was set at an above-market rate before the beginning of the plan year and is
subject to change annually. Deferrals for the 2004 plan year and prior plan years earn a rate of interest, compounded daily, that was
set at an above-market rate before the beginning of
each plan year. This rate is fixed until the deferral is distributed. |
|
(5) |
|
|
|
See Director CompensationOther
Benefits above for a description of the items included in the All Other Compensation column for 2009. Honeywell matched
charitable contributions in the amounts of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Name |
|
Matched
Charitable Contributions |
Mr.
Bethune |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Chico Pardo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms.
Deily |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
24,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Paz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.
Sheares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Stafford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Wright |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
Applicable Policies and
Procedures
The Company has written
policies and procedures for approval or ratification of related person transactions. Article EIGHTH of Honeywells Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that a related or interested party transaction shall not be void or voidable if such
transaction is duly
authorized or ratified by a majority of the disinterested members of the Board of Directors. Consistent with SEC rules, a related
or interested party transaction includes a transaction between the Company and a director, director nominee or executive officer of
the Company or a beneficial owner of more than 5%
of the Companys Common Stock or any of their respective immediate family members. Furthermore, the Honeywell Code of Business
Conduct requires that each director and executive officer report to the Board of Directors on an ongoing basis any relationship or
transaction that may create or appear to create
a conflict between the personal interests of those individuals (or their
20
immediate family members) and the interests of the Company. A conflict, or
appearance of a conflict, might arise, for example, by accepting gifts or loans from a current or potential customer, supplier or
competitor, owning a financial interest in, or serving in a business capacity with, an outside enterprise that
competes with or does or wishes to do business with, the Company, serving as an intermediary for the benefit of a third party in
transactions involving the Company or using confidential Company information or other corporate assets for personal profit.
If a conflict of interest or
related party transaction is of a type or a nature that falls within the scope of oversight of a particular Board Committee, it is
referred to that Committee for review. The Board or the responsible Committee thereof must review any potential conflict and
determine whether any action is
required, including whether to authorize, ratify or direct the unwinding of the relationship or transaction under consideration, as
well as ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect the Company and its shareowners. In making that determination, the
Board or responsible Committee considers all
relevant facts and circumstances, such as the benefits of the transaction to the Company; the terms of the transaction and whether
they are arms-length and in the ordinary course of the Companys business; the direct or indirect nature of the related
persons interest in the transaction; the size and expected
term of the transaction; and other facts and circumstances that bear on the materiality of the related person transaction under
applicable law and listing standards.
In order to ensure that all
material relationships and related person transactions have been identified, reviewed and disclosed in accordance with applicable
policies, procedures and regulations, each director and officer also completes and signs a questionnaire at the end of each fiscal
year that requests
confirmation that there are no material relationships or related person transactions between such individuals and the Company other
than those previously disclosed to the Company.
Related Person Transaction
The Honeywell ADI business
leases its administrative office building in Melville, New York at a current rent of $958,713 per year. Subsequent to the time that
ADI entered into this lease, the property was acquired by a partnership known as New Island Holdings. There have been no
material amendments to
the lease since the property was acquired by New Island Holdings. Each of Mr. Fradin, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Honeywell Automation and Control Solutions and Mr. Andreas Kramvis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell Specialty
Materials, is a limited partner in New Island Holdings,
holding 12% and 9% ownership interests, respectively. The limited partners of New Island Holdings receive distributions based on
total lease payments generated from the portfolio of buildings that the partnership owns, less applicable mortgage and other
expenses.
STOCK
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Five Percent Owners of Company
Stock
The following table sets forth
information as to those holders known to Honeywell to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of Common
Stock as of December 31, 2009. State Street Corporation is listed in the table below because one of its subsidiaries (State Street
Bank and
Trust Company) holds 7.1% of our outstanding Common Stock as trustee for certain Honeywell savings plans. See notes below for
additional details.
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Complete
Mailing Address |
|
Number of Shares |
|
Percent of Common Stock Outstanding |
State Street
Corporation |
|
|
|
80,328,567 |
(1) |
|
|
|
|
10.5 |
(2) |
|
State Street Financial Center, One
Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111 |
|
|
|
|
BlackRock
Inc. |
|
|
|
38,745,635 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
40 East 52nd Street New York, NY
10022
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
(1) |
|
|
|
State Street Corporation has shared voting power and shared dispositive power in each case in respect of the 80,328,567 shares
listed above. |
|
|
|
|
|
State Street Bank and Trust Company, a
subsidiary of State Street Corporation, has shared voting power and shared dispositive power in each case in respect of 74,008,482
shares included above. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
State Street Bank and Trust Company holds
7.1% of our outstanding Common Stock as trustee for certain Honeywell savings plans. Under the terms of the plans, State Street is
required to vote shares attributable to any participant in accordance with instructions received from the participant and to vote all
shares for which it does not receive instructions in the same ratio as the shares for which instructions were
received. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
BlackRock
Inc. has sole voting power and sole dispositive power in respect of all
38,745,635 shares. On December 1, 2009, BlackRock Inc. completed its
acquisition of Barclays Global Investors from Barclays Bank PLC. As a
result, the Barclays entities that hold Honeywell securities are now
included as subsidiaries of BlackRock for purposes of Schedule 13G filings.
|
Stock Ownership of Directors and Executive
Officers
The following table sets forth
information as of [February 26, 2010] with respect to the beneficial ownership of Common Stock by each director or director nominee,
each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table herein, and by all directors (including nominees) and executive
officers of
Honeywell as a group. Except as otherwise noted, the individuals listed in the table below have the sole power to vote or transfer
the shares reflected in the table.
[For
illustrative purposes, the stock ownership numbers set forth below are
provided as of January 15, 2010, and where practicable as of February 16,
2010, and include restricted stock units and stock options vesting within
60 days of the record date, February 26, 2010. Prior to final completion
of the proxy statement, the totals will be updated and will be replaced
by numbers as of the record date, February 26, 2010.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of Beneficial Ownership
(Number of Shares) |
Name(1) |
|
Total Number
of Shares(2) |
|
Common Stock
Beneficially
Owned(3) |
|
Right
to
Acquire(4) |
|
Other
Stock-Based
Holdings(5) |
Gordon M.
Bethune |
|
|
|
50,374 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
30,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
16,874 |
|
|
Kevin
Burke |
|
|
|
7,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,484 |
|
|
Jaime Chico
Pardo |
|
|
|
59,829 |
|
|
|
|
|
8,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
30,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
20,947 |
|
|
David M.
Cote |
|
|
|
6,209,173 |
|
|
|
|
|
69,113 |
|
|
|
|
|
5,789,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
350,360 |
|
|
D. Scott
Davis |
|
|
|
27,887 |
|
|
|
|
|
7,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
12,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
8,387 |
|
|
Linnet F.
Deily |
|
|
|
22,412 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
12,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
6,912 |
|
|
Clive R.
Hollick |
|
|
|
38,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
22,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
13,044 |
|
|
George
Paz. |
|
|
|
4,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,541 |
|
|
Bradley T.
Sheares. |
|
|
|
29,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
2,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
17,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
10,108 |
|
|
John R.
Stafford |
|
|
|
81,837 |
|
|
|
|
|
23,441 |
|
|
|
|
|
30,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
27,896 |
|
|
Michael W.
Wright |
|
|
|
128,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
5,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
30,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
92,968 |
|
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
|
|
1,209,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,086 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,017,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
191,212 |
|
|
Roger
Fradin. |
|
|
|
1,196,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
93,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
987,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
115,760 |
|
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
|
|
1,025,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
135,726 |
|
|
|
|
|
842,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
47,152 |
|
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
|
|
234,691 |
|
|
|
|
|
14,887 |
|
|
|
|
|
216,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,354 |
|
|
Robert J.
Gillette(6) |
|
|
|
80,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
80,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
All directors,
nominees and executive officers as a group, including the above-named persons (21 people) |
|
|
|
10,971,867 |
|
|
|
|
|
504,585 |
|
|
|
|
|
9,551,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
916,282 |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
c/o Honeywell International Inc., 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962.
|
22
|
(2) |
|
|
|
The
total beneficial ownership for any individual is less than [.82%] and
the total for the group is approximately [1.44%] of the shares of Common
Stock outstanding. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
Includes the following number of shares
subject to shared dispositive power: Mr. Stafford, 8,000 shares and Mr. Kittelberger, 132,594 shares; and all directors and executive
officers as a group, 140,594 shares. |
|
(4) |
|
|
|
Includes shares which the named individual
or group has the right to acquire through the exercise of vested stock options, and shares which the named individual or group has
the right to acquire through the vesting of restricted units and stock options within 60 days of February 26, 2010. |
|
(5) |
|
|
|
Includes shares and/or share-equivalents in
deferred accounts, as to which no voting or investment power exists. |
|
(6) |
|
|
|
Mr. Gillette resigned from the Company in
October 2009.
|
SECTION
16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE
Section 16(a) of the Exchange
Act requires our directors, executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of our Common Stock to file reports of ownership
and changes in ownership of our Common Stock with the SEC. During 2009, the Company became aware that a Form 4 had not been filed for
Mark James concerning a roll-over transaction from the Honeywell Common Stock Fund under the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan
into an individual retirement account in 2007. Other than this case, based on the information available to us during fiscal year
2009, we believe that all applicable Section
16(a) filing requirements were met on a timely basis.
SEC FILINGS AND
REPORTS; KEY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS
We maintain an internet
website at http://www.honeywell.com. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q, current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendment to those reports, are available free of charge on our website under the
heading Investor Relations (see SEC Filings & Reports) immediately after they are
filed with or furnished to the SEC. Honeywells Code of Business Conduct, Corporate Governance Guidelines and Charters of the
Committees of the Board of Directors are also available free of charge on our website under the heading Investor
Relations (see Corporate Governance), or by writing to
Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962, c/o Vice President and Corporate Secretary. Honeywells Code
of Business Conduct applies to all directors, officers (including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Controller) and employees. Amendments to or waivers of
the Code of Conduct granted to any of the Companys directors or executive officers will be published on our
website.
23
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In this section, we review the
objectives and elements of Honeywells executive compensation program and discuss and analyze the 2009 compensation decisions
regarding our Named Executive Officers (the CEO, CFO and three other most highly compensated executive officers, as well as one former
executive officer):
|
|
|
|
|
David CoteChairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
David AndersonSenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
Roger FradinPresident and Chief
Executive Officer-Automation and Control Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
Larry KittelbergerSenior Vice
President-Technology and Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas KramvisPresident and Chief
Executive Officer-Specialty Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
Robert GilletteFormer President and
Chief Executive Officer-Aerospace
|
Executive Summary
2009 Company
Performance
Honeywell is a diversified
technology and manufacturing leader, with global businesses organized into four strategic business groups known as SBGs: Aerospace,
Automation and Control Solutions (ACS), Specialty Materials and Transportation Systems. Highlights of 2009 Company performance and
actions
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
The Company demonstrated its ability to execute well in challenging times, while continuing to invest for future growth. For
example, free cash flow (cash flow from operations less capital expenditures) for 2009 was $3.3 billion, an improvement over 2008
despite a 23% decline in net income. Free cash flow
was 155% of net income, indicating strong quality of earnings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Management actions and leadership helped
offset the top and bottom line impacts of volume declines through new product introductions, growth in emerging regions, realization
of the benefits of prior repositioning projects, and aggressive cost control actions. The Companys overall segment margin
remained flat vs. the prior year despite a 15% sales decline. |
|
|
|
|
|
Management continued to make seed
planting investments during 2009 that are building blocks for future growth. These investments include development of new
technologies, products and services, expansion of the Companys global footprint, strategic acquisitions, rigorous execution of
key process
initiatives, continued implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, and funding $224 million of repositioning
projects that will benefit 2010 and beyond. |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareowner Return or TSR (stock price
appreciation plus reinvested dividends) for 2009 was a positive 23.7% as company performance and improving business conditions in the
Companys end markets began to be reflected in share price.
|
2009 Compensation
Decisions
Based on the results and
actions discussed above, the Management Development and Compensation Committee (the Committee) took the following key
compensation actions in 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Base salaries: No merit increases in 2009 for manager-level and above employees, including the Named Executive Officers, in
light of the difficult global economic conditions that persisted throughout the year. |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual incentive compensation plan
(ICP) awards: No incentive bonus awards for 2009 were paid out to the CEO and his direct staff, including the Named
Executive Officers, based on the CEOs recommendation and the Committees desire to de-emphasize short-term compensation
for the Named
Executive Officers during an economic downturn. Other executives received ICP awards significantly below prior year amounts.
ICP awards for 2009 were significantly below |
24
|
|
|
|
levels that would otherwise have resulted from a consideration of performance against the target ICP metrics. |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term incentive awards: Named Executive
Officers received stock options with four-year ratable vesting, which represented the most significant component of their total
compensation opportunity. Due to the difficulty of establishing meaningful goals in an uncertain economic downturn, the Committee
suspended the Growth Plan for 2009. In light of that decision, the Named Executive Officers also received restricted stock
units which vest entirely on the third anniversary of the date of grant in lieu of awards of cash-based Growth Plan Units. The
Committee plans to reinstitute the Growth Plan for
20102011. |
|
|
|
|
|
2009 vs. 2008: These Committee actions
resulted in a year-over-year reduction of 49% to 57% in total direct compensation (includes base salary, ICP awards, annual stock
option grants, and restricted stock unit grants in 2009 in lieu of Growth Plan units) for the Named Executive Officers in 2009
compared to the prior year.
|
Best Practices
The Committee regularly
reviews best practices in governance and executive compensation and in recent years has revised Honeywells policies and
practices to:
|
|
|
|
|
eliminate tax reimbursement payments (known as tax gross-ups) on both perquisites received by officers and excise
taxes that may become due upon a change in control for new participants in the Companys severance plan (in each case, effective
January 1, 2010); |
|
|
|
|
|
lengthen the vesting periods for equity
grants; |
|
|
|
|
|
require officers to maintain specific stock
ownership levels; |
|
|
|
|
|
require automatic reinvestment of dividend
equivalents on restricted stock units into additional restricted stock units, which are only paid out upon vesting; |
|
|
|
|
|
eliminate the annual cash flexible
perquisite allowance for executive officers; |
|
|
|
|
|
reduce the interest rate on deferred
compensation by tying it to the Companys cost of capital;
|
|
|
|
|
|
permit the recapture of incentive compensation in the event of a significant restatement; |
|
|
|
|
|
permit the cancellation and recovery of
equity awards from employees who leave the Company to join a competitor; and |
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit the Committees independent
compensation consultant from performing any services for the Company.
|
In addition, the
Companys Stock Incentive Plan prohibits (i) the granting of stock options with an exercise price less than the fair market
value of the Companys Common Stock on the date of grant, (ii) the repricing (reduction in exercise price) of stock options
without prior shareowner approval and (iii) the
inclusion of reload provisions in any stock option granted.
Objectives
Honeywells executive
compensation program is designed to achieve the following key objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
Attract and Retain highly qualified executives with the leadership skills,
behavioral attributes and experience necessary to develop and execute business strategies, drive superior results and process
improvements, meet diverse challenges and build long-term shareowner value in an enterprise with the
Companys scale, breadth, complexity and global footprint; |
|
|
|
|
|
Pay
for Performance by rewarding and differentiating among executives based on the achievement of Company, SBG and functional
objectives consistent with the Honeywell Initiatives; |
|
|
|
|
|
Align Executive and Shareowner Interests by emphasizing variable, at-risk compensation tied to an appropriate balance of
near-term and long-term objectives; and
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
Manage Risk through oversight and compensation design features and practices that balance short-term and long-term
incentives.
|
Compensation Mix
In setting total compensation, the Committee
seeks to achieve the optimal balance between:
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed and variable (or at risk) pay elements; |
|
|
|
|
|
Short- and long-term pay elements;
and |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and equity-based elements.
|
The Companys executive
compensation program is designed to emphasize variable, performance-based elements that align actual compensation with shareowner
value. The mix of compensation elements for Named Executive Officers, and especially the CEO, is more heavily leveraged toward
variable,
performance-based compensation than for the balance of the executive population. The Committee determined that the CEO should have
greater emphasis on variable compensation than all other executives because his actions can have a greater influence on the
performance of the Company. The 2009
compensation elements that comprise target annual total direct compensation opportunity and their approximate
weightings are shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
Compensation Element |
|
%
of Target
Annual Total
Direct
Compensation
Opportunity |
|
Type
of
Compensation |
|
Key
Objectives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Salary |
|
10%20% |
|
Fixed
Annual
Cash |
|
Attract and
compensate high-performing and experienced leaders at a competitive
level of cash compensation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Awards at
Target |
|
15%20% |
|
Variable
Annual
Cash |
|
Motivate
and reward executives for achieving annual corporate, SBG and functional
goals in key areas of financial and operational performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
Fair Value of
Long-Term Incentive Awards
Ø Stock
Options
Ø Restricted Stock Units
(RSUs) |
|
60%70% |
|
Variable
Long-Term
Equity |
|
Directly
align the interests of shareowners and executives and motivate long-term
operational and financial performance that will build shareowner value.
The mix of long-term incentive award types is intended to help attract
and retain successful leaders over the long term. |
The percentages above are
based on target annual total direct compensation and do not necessarily correspond to, and are not a substitute for, the
amounts disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table and supplemental tables.
Compensation Elements
Each element of
Honeywells executive compensation program is described below.
Base Salary.
Base salaries are primarily based on scope of responsibility and years of experience. Salary increases are based on the
Committees evaluation of current and expected future performance and may reflect the assumption of material additional
responsibilities. Typically, base salaries make up
the smallest component of total compensation of the Named Executive Officers.
26
In 2009, as part of the Companys cost
control measures in light of the global recession, executives did not receive annual merit increases.
Annual Incentive Bonus
(ICP). Each Named Executive Officer has an annual target ICP opportunity expressed as a percentage of base
salary. The CEOs target opportunity is 175% of base salary, while the other Named Executive Officers target opportunity
is 100% of base salary. ICP payouts can vary
significantly from year-to-year, but are capped at 200% of each Named Executive Officers annual ICP target opportunity. The
aggregate annual ICP payout for senior executive employees is also limited to 2% of the Companys consolidated earnings for the
year (subject to adjustment for extraordinary items).
At the beginning of each year,
the Committee sets specific annual corporate financial objectives. For 2009, the ICP goals and actual performance were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measure(1) |
|
2009
Target |
|
2009
Actual |
|
Rationale
for Metric |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings
per share |
|
$3.20$3.55 |
|
$2.85 |
|
Measures
delivery of shareowner value at the corporate level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free cash
flow
conversion |
|
At
least 100% |
|
155% |
|
Emphasizes
link between net income and strong cash generation during global recession |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working capital
turns(2) |
|
6.3
turns |
|
5.6
turns |
|
Measures
efficiency and effectiveness of the Companys business operations |
|
(1) |
|
|
|
Each SBG has corresponding objectives, with net income being used in lieu of earnings per share; unusual, infrequently
occurring and/or extraordinary items are excluded in determining achievement of Corporate and SBG objectives. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
Defined as sales divided by working
capital, which is trade accounts receivable plus inventory less accounts payable and customer advances.
|
After the end of the year, the
Committee determines individual ICP awards for the Named Executive Officers based on its consideration of achievement of the ICP
goals above, as well as a discretionary evaluation of:
|
Ø |
|
|
|
Other key performance measures which assess both the strength and degree of difficulty of actual corporate and SBG performance,
such as:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year-over-year variance in segment profit, margin expansion, revenue conversion and free cash flow conversion |
|
|
|
|
|
Quality of earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
Relative performance of SBGs or business
units within each SBG |
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant industry and economic
conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of stretch in targets;
|
|
Ø |
|
|
|
Achievement of individual management objectives aligned with the Honeywell Initiatives; and |
|
Ø |
|
|
|
Demonstrated leadership
behaviors.
|
As part of its evaluation of
performance achievements, the Committee also considers the Companys relative EPS performance, as measured against an expanded
peer group described below under Peer Group Compensation Data.
The Committee does not assign
specific weights to these factors, but in four of the last five years, the Committee applied its negative discretion to reduce ICP
awards for the Named Executive Officers. For the reasons set forth above, the Committee determined that the Named Executive Officers
would not
receive any ICP awards for 2009.
Long-Term Incentive
Compensation. All long-term incentive awards to officers are approved by the Committee (and by all of the independent
directors in the case of the CEO). Since 2003, the
27
Company has historically provided long-term incentive awards in a mix of
annual stock option grants and cash-based Growth Plan Units issued in the first year of each two-year performance cycle. For 2009
only, the Committee determined that it would not provide awards under the Growth Plan due to the
difficulty of setting appropriate performance targets under volatile, declining market conditions. Instead, in 2009, Named
Executive Officers received RSUs that vest only at the end of three years. For 2010, the Committee has determined to reinstate the
mix of stock options and awards of Growth Plan Units in
light of the relative stabilization in global economic conditions.
In addition to annual awards
of long-term incentive compensation, the Committee periodically considers discretionary RSU awards as may be deemed necessary for
retention and recruitment. Grants may only be made on regularly scheduled Committee meeting dates. None of the Named Executive
Officers
received discretionary RSU awards during 2009.
Equity grants to officers are
subject to the Companys Stock Ownership Guidelines that require net gain shares to be held for at least one year after stock
option exercise or RSU vesting. Executive officers must also hold Common Stock equal in value to at least 4x (6x for the CEO) their
base salary.
Long-Term Incentive
Compensation (Equity). Annual equity grants are made in February of each year during an open trading window period following
the release of Honeywells final results for the preceding fiscal year. Equity grants are made pursuant to the Companys
2006 Stock Incentive Plan and are
typically subject to vesting restrictions that require executives to remain employed with the Company to receive value.
Stock Options: Options only have value to recipients if the stock price increases over the Exercise Price, which
is set equal to the fair market value of the Companys Common Stock on the grant date. Options granted to our Named Executive
Officers generally vest in equal 25% increments over a
four-year period.
Restricted Stock Units: RSUs are linked with shareowner value since the value of RSU grants rise or fall with the
stock price. RSUs are also intended to encourage retention as they generally vest over a period of three to seven years.
CEO 2007 Performance Shares: Performance shares are tied to both continued employment and Company performance. In
2007, the Committee granted performance shares to the CEO that would be earned at the end of the four-year performance period, and
paid out in equal 50% installments in the
first quarters of 2011 and 2012, subject to continued employment through the date of payment. The grant only has value to the
extent that the Companys TSR over the four-year performance period (January 1, 2007December 31, 2010) compares favorably
to the TSR for the S&P 100. The targeted number of
shares of 125,000 will be earned if the Companys relative TSR is at 60th percentile. Potential payouts range from zero (if the
relative four-year TSR is below the 40th percentile) to 250,000 shares (if the relative four-year TSR is 85th percentile or
higher).
Long-term incentive
compensation (Cash). The Company adopted the Growth Plana cash-based long-term planin 2003 to focus executive
officers on achievement of specific two-year financial objectives that are aligned with business fundamentals rather than stock price
appreciation. The Growth Plan is
designed to reward sustainable, profitable growth, consistent with the Honeywell Initiative on Growth and the Companys
strategic plan. The two-year performance cycles do not overlap so that Growth Plan payouts reported as Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation in the Summary Compensation Table in a
single year (2008) are considered by the Committee as compensation for the two-year performance period (20072008).
The Growth Plan for the
2007-2008 performance cycle had dual objectives that were equally weighted between: (i) organic revenue growth, excluding the impact
of acquisitions and divestitures and (ii) improvement of return on investment (ROI)(1). For SBG executives (including
Messrs. Fradin and Kramvis
and formerly for Mr. Gillette), 50% of the payouts for the 2007-2008 performance cycle
(1) |
|
|
|
ROI is defined as the ratio of net income
before interest expense to cash employed in the Companys businesses. ROI is a measure of the Companys ability to convert
investments such as inventory, property, plant and equipment into profits. The ROI calculation excludes the impact of acquisitions
and divestitures during the performance cycle (unless there is deemed to be sufficient
certainty as to their completion at the time of the setting of the targets for the performance cycle) and pension
income/expense.
|
28
was based on achievement of the corporate metrics, with the remaining 50%
based on achievement of corresponding SBG objectives. These dual objectives were selected to complement, but not duplicate, the three
annual corporate financial objectives utilized for ICP purposes.
In contrast to annual ICP
awards, which are intended to provide an appropriate level of annual cash compensation, payouts under the Growth Plan are intended to
promote retention, as 50% of the earned award is paid in the first quarter of the first year after the performance cycle ends, and
50% of the
earned award is paid in the first quarter of the second year after the performance cycle ends. Payments are forfeited if the Named
Executive Officer is not employed by the Company on the payout dates. In light of the relative stabilization in global economic
conditions, the Growth Plan has been reinstituted with
the establishment of a new 2010-2011 performance cycle.
Retirement Plans.
The Company offers certain retirement benefits to our Named Executive Officers. Specifically, Named Executive Officers may
participate in broad-based plans available to all executive employees, including a defined benefit pension plan and a 401(k) savings
plan that provides matching
Company contributions up to the first 8% of base salary contributed to the plan (subject to IRS limitations). In June of 2009,
matching contributions under the savings plan were reduced by 50%. Because the Internal Revenue Code limits the pension benefits that
can be accrued under a tax-qualified defined
benefit pension plan, the Company maintains an unfunded supplemental retirement plan to replace the portion of an executives
pension benefit subject to the IRS limitations. In addition, certain Named Executive Officers are entitled to supplemental retirement
benefits deemed appropriate in light of circumstances
surrounding the recruitment or retention of these individuals. These plans are explained in detail beginning on page 46.
Nonqualified Deferred
Compensation Plans. The Company offers executive officers (including the Named Executive Officers) the ability to participate
in certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans to permit retirement savings in a tax-efficient manner. Under this plan,
executive officers can elect to
defer up to 100% of their annual ICP awards. In addition, executive officers may also participate in a supplemental savings plan
maintained to permit deferral of base salary that cannot be contributed to the Companys 401(k) plan due to Internal Revenue
Code limitations. These amounts are matched on the
same basis as 401(k) plan contributions. Deferred compensation balances earn interest at a fixed rate based on the Companys
15-year cost of borrowing, which is subject to change on an annual basis (7.2% in 2009, set at 4.8% for 2010). Consistent with the
long-term focus of the executive compensation
program, matching contributions are treated as if invested in Company Common Stock. Distributions are limited by plan rules, prior
employee elections and Internal Revenue Code restrictions. These plans are explained in detail beginning on page 54.
Benefits and
Perquisites. Our Named Executive Officers are entitled to participate in Company-wide benefits such as life, medical, dental,
accidental death and disability insurance that are competitive with other similarly-sized companies. The Named Executive Officers
participate in these programs on the
same basis as the rest of the Companys salaried employees. The Company maintains excess liability coverage for management
personnel, including the Named Executive Officers. Two Named Executive Officers also receive additional life insurance benefits. The
Companys security policy requires the CEO to
use company aircraft for all air travel (business or personal) to ensure the personal security of the CEO and protect the
confidentiality of the Companys business, and to have home security and back-up power systems. The Company may also permit
limited personal usage of corporate aircraft by other executive
officers.
Compensation Decisions: Factors
Considered
General
Considerations
Within the overall framework
of the objectives discussed above, the factors that generally shape particular executive compensation decisions are the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
Executives relative level of responsibility within Honeywell and the impact of his or her position on Honeywells
performance with recognition that both the amount and at-risk nature of the compensation should increase with the level
of responsibility;
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
Overall operational and financial
performanceCorporate and SBG (as discussed above and below); |
|
|
|
|
|
Executives individual record of
performance consistent with the Honeywell Initiatives (Growth, Productivity, Cash, People and Key Processes); and |
|
|
|
|
|
Executives long-term leadership
potential with Honeywell and associated retention risk.
|
The Committee also periodically requests and
reviews additional information as context for its consideration of the factors listed above. For example in 2009 the Committee also
reviewed information regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
Trends and best practices in executive compensation; |
|
|
|
|
|
Pay levels and practices for the
competitive marketplace; |
|
|
|
|
|
Company performance relative to the
competitive marketplace; |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual share utilization and shareowner
dilution levels resulting from the compensation plans; |
|
|
|
|
|
Peer group composition; |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock ownership and retention
values; |
|
|
|
|
|
Each executives three-year
compensation history; and |
|
|
|
|
|
Tenure within the position.
|
Peer Group Compensation
Data
The Committee does not target
a specific competitive position relative to the market in determining the compensation of its executive officers. However, the
Committee believes it is important to understand the relevant market for executive talent to ensure that the Companys executive
compensation program
supports the attraction and retention of highly qualified leaders.
The Committee maintains its
awareness of market conditions through annual review of compensation data compiled by the independent compensation consultant
retained by the Committee regarding a peer group of companies (listed below) having one or more of the following attributes: business
operations
in the industries and markets in which Honeywell participates, similar revenue and market capitalization, similar breadth of
portfolio and complexity, global scope of operations and/or diversified product lines (the Peer Group).
Peer
Group |
|
|
Alcoa |
Johnson
Controls |
|
|
Boeing |
Lockheed
Martin |
|
|
Dow
Chemical |
Northrop
Grumman |
|
|
DuPont |
Raytheon |
|
|
Emerson
Electric |
Textron |
|
|
General
Dynamics |
3M |
|
|
General
Electric |
United
Technologies |
The Committee believes that
Honeywell executives are potentially attractive candidates for such companies because of the depth of experience and management skill
set required to manage a global company of Honeywells scope and complexity. The Committee periodically reviews the
appropriateness of
the Peer Group and the purposes for which it is used. In 2009, the Committee replaced General Motors with 3M which was determined
to be a more comparable industry conglomerate in terms of size, scope of operations and financial strength.
The Committee reviews data
regarding the Peer Group with respect to base salary, target and actual annual cash incentive compensation, total annual cash
compensation, long-term incentive compensation and total direct compensation for each Named Executive Officer. The Committee also
reviews
general industry survey data published by third parties as a general indicator of relevant
30
market conditions and pay practices and as a broader reference point for
specific business units where the breadth and relevance of Peer Group data may be somewhat limited. Neither the Committee nor the
Company has any input into the scope of the companies included in these general industry surveys.
To ensure that relative, as
well as absolute, performance has a direct impact on executive compensation levels, the contribution of the EPS component to the
funding of the annual ICP awards is also subject to upward or downward adjustment, up to a maximum of 25% in either direction, based
on the annual
change in Honeywells EPS relative to an expanded peer group reflecting the Conglomerates, Aerospace & Defense, Industrial
Machinery, Specialty Chemicals, Diversified Chemical and Auto Parts & Equipment subgroups of the S&P 500 Index. This
comparison was not relevant to the Committees determination of
Named Executive Officer compensation in 2009 as they did not receive ICP awards for this year.
Compensation
History
Each year the Committee
reviews each executive officers three-year compensation history with respect to each element of compensation, as well as
projected payouts under the Companys retirement and deferred compensation plans, and prior non-recurring types of awards or
grants (e.g., sign on or
make whole awards upon joining Honeywell and restricted stock unit awards for retention and/or succession planning
purposes). This enables the Committee to understand how each element of compensation interacts with the other elements and to see how
current compensation decisions may affect future
wealth accumulation and executive retention. The Committee considers historical award and/or grant levels when determining
individual annual ICP awards and option grants, as well as the value and vesting dates of unvested equity holdings in connection with
assessing the need for retention arrangements.
While the Committee also considers potential payouts and circumstances involving a change in control of the Company and/or
termination of the executive officers employment, these arrangements generally do not influence the Committees decisions
regarding current year compensation.
Succession Planning
As a result of the industry
backgrounds and experience of the Companys senior executives, and Honeywells history of operating performance and skills
development, the Committee believes that there is a significant risk that these leaders will be presented with other career
opportunities at large companies
with significant resources to offer higher compensation levels. The Committee recognizes that retention of highly qualified
management talent is critical to the Companys continued performance and to successful succession planning. As such, the Company
periodically makes grants of discretionary RSUs that
vest over an extended period of time (generally 3, 5 and 7 years) to retain executives who are perceived to be strong succession
candidates. The timing and size of discretionary RSU grants are evaluated as part of providing competitive compensation levels that
reflect a sustained, superior performance culture
and a challenging work environment. Since January 2004, all of the Companys open executive officer positions have been filled
with executives promoted from within Honeywell.
Disparity Among Named Executive
Officers
There are no policy
differences with respect to the compensation of individual Named Executive Officers even though the level of compensation may differ
based on scope of responsibilities and performance. The compensation disparity between the CEO and the other Named Executive Officers
is primarily
due to the CEO having significantly greater responsibilities for management and oversight of a diversified, global enterprise and
the corresponding market factors reflecting this difference.
Judgment and Discretion of the
Committee
The Committee considers the
factors above within the context of the then-prevailing economic environment and the Committee may adjust the terms and/or amounts of
compensation elements in an
31
effort to ensure that they reflect the Companys philosophy and
business goals. The Committee does not believe that the factoring of the various items considered by the Committee in making its
decisions regarding the size or composition of the overall compensation of each Named Executive Officer should or
can be reduced to a linear formula. The Committee considers a wide range of factors and performance measures as a basis for
applying judgment and discretion to adjust aggregate and individual awards under each element of the Companys executive
compensation program (subject to relevant tax rules and
plan rules), as it deems appropriate based on such performance. The Committee has exercised its discretion to lower aggregate
incentive compensation awards in four of the past five years.
2009 Compensation Decisions
The Committee set 2009
compensation for each Named Executive Officer in the context of the prevailing global economic recession and the leadership decisions
and actions taken by each Named Executive Officer to position the Company for long-term profitable growth and creation of shareowner
value.
In the first quarter of 2009,
the Committee took the following actions:
|
|
|
|
|
Base salary: There would be no base salary increases for 2009; |
|
|
|
|
|
ICP Targets: Set ICP targets for 2009
earnings per share, free cash flow conversion and working capital turns consistent with the Companys annual operating plan
which reflected then-current assumptions regarding macro-economic and key end-market conditions; |
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Plan: Determined to temporarily
suspend the Growth Plan for the reasons set forth above; |
|
|
|
|
|
RSU Awards: Restricted stock units would be
awarded to replace the expected annual value of Growth Plan units in order to maintain focus on investing in future growth during
difficult times, encourage retention and preserve the annual/long-term mix of the Companys executive compensation program;
and |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options: Stock options would be
awarded based on the considerations set forth below:
|
|
Ø |
|
|
|
CEO option grants: Under his employment agreement, Mr. Cote is eligible for annual equity awards based on a target value of
230% of the sum of his current base salary and annual incentive bonus target. The Committee does not set specific performance targets
or identify particular weightings when
determining the number of options to grant to Mr. Cote. In accordance with its charter, in reviewing the long-term incentive
component of CEO annual direct compensation, the Committee considered the Companys operational performance and relative total
shareowner return for the prior fiscal year,
the value of similar incentive awards to CEOs at comparable companies, and awards previously made to Mr. Cote. Based on these
considerations, in February 2009, the Committee granted Mr. Cote options to acquire 950,000 shares in recognition of his leadership
in driving sustained financial and
operational performance. |
|
Ø |
|
|
|
Other Named Executive Officer option
grants: For the other Named Executive Officers, the Committee considered historical grant levels, as well as the executive
officers performance in the prior fiscal year, his impact on overall Company performance and his potential to contribute to the
future
performance of the Company and to assume increased leadership responsibilities. In addition, under prior market-driven
retention actions, Messrs. Fradin and Gillette were each eligible to receive an annual stock option grant worth $2 million. Based on
these considerations, in February 2009, the
Committee granted each of the other Named Executive Officers the options stated below:
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Anderson: |
|
275,000 |
Mr.
Fradin: |
|
275,000 |
Mr.
Kittelberger: |
|
225,000 |
Mr.
Kramvis: |
|
175,000 |
Mr.
Gillette: |
|
275,000 (Forfeited upon his resignation in October 2009) |
32
In December 2009, the Committee took the
following action:
|
|
|
|
|
Pensionable earnings: Determined that U.S. pension plan participants (excluding the CEO), should not be unduly penalized by
difficult leadership actions in 2009 that drove significant cost controls and reductions which negatively impacted U.S. employees,
including work furloughs, no annual base salary
increases for executives and limited annual base salary increases for other employees, significant reduction in 2009 ICP awards
(no ICP awards for the CEO and his direct staff, including the Named Executive Officers) and a 50% reduction in the savings plan
matching contributions. In recognition of
management leadership and employee contributions toward preserving and sustaining shareholder value during challenging economic
conditions, the Committee determined that the impact of the cost reduction actions on individual pension plan participants should be
mitigated by adjusting pensionable
earnings for 2009 to credit employees for amounts foregone due to implemented furloughs and, for employees eligible for annual
ICP awards, include the greater of the individuals 2009 or 2008 earned annual ICP awards. At the request of Mr. Cote, the
Committee did not extend this benefit to the CEO.
Based on an assumed retirement date of December 31, 2009, the impact of this change does not exceed 6% of the accumulated
pension benefit of any Named Executive Officer at such date.
|
In the first quarter of 2010,
the Committee took the following action:
|
|
|
|
|
Determination of 2009 ICP Awards: Accepted Mr. Cotes recommendation that he and his direct staff receive no ICP awards
for 2009 in order to emphasize long-term awards, rather than ICP awards, during an economic downturn. Other executives received ICP
awards significantly below prior year
amounts. ICP awards for 2009 were significantly below levels that would otherwise have resulted from a consideration of
performance against the target ICP metrics.
|
Named Executive OfficerDirect
Compensation & Performance
Set forth below is a
discussion of compensation actions for each Named Executive Officer, which reflects how the Committee viewed compensation in 2009.
The tables differ from, and are not a substitute for, the Summary Compensation Table, which presents similar information in the
format required by the
SEC.
The tables below highlight
2009 direct compensation actions (base salary, ICP award, annual stock option grants, and restricted stock unit grants in 2009 in
lieu of grants of Growth Plan units) for each Named Executive Officer and the percentage variance in total direct compensation
compared to the prior
year.
Generally, the
Committees compensation actions for 2009 reflect a focus on leadership actions taken to mitigate the short-term impact of
global economic conditions and position the Company to deliver sustainable improved business performance over the longer cycle. In
particular, the decisions reflect Mr.
Cotes request that the Committee not authorize ICP awards for Named Executive Officers for 2009, the substitution of
restricted stock units for Growth Plan units as a result of the suspension of the Growth Plan in 2009, and a decline in the market
price of our shares which impacted the grant date fair value of
our equity awards. These decisions demonstrate that compensation is aligned with performance, with an emphasis on driving long-term
growth and productivity.
David Cote, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
1,800,000 |
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Total
Annual Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
1,800,000 |
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
Restricted
Stock Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
4,252,500 |
|
|
|
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
6,374,500 |
|
|
|
Total
Long-Term Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
10,627,000 |
|
|
|
Total
Direct Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
12,427,000 |
|
|
Down 56%
vs. 2008 |
|
(a) |
|
|
|
150,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
950,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71.
|
33
2009 Performance Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
Led the Company through a challenging economic environment by aggressively managing costs while still maintaining the
industrial base required to respond quickly when economic conditions improve |
|
|
|
|
|
Ensured focus on the linkage between net
income and strong cash generation, resulting in an increase in free cash flow to $3.3 billion despite a 23% decline in net income;
free cash flow conversion (free cash flow divided by net income) of 155% reflected strong quality of earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
Drove seed planting investments
in next generation technologies and applications in each of the Companys business segments, including the SmartPath precision
landing system, UOP Biofuels, energy efficiency products & services, wireless sensing, green jet fuel, and advanced turbochargers
for new
engine platforms |
|
|
|
|
|
Focused on expansion of Honeywells
presence in emerging regions, increasing sales, income and employees in India, China and the Middle East. Honeywell now derives
approximately half of its sales from outside the US, with approximately 14% of those sales in emerging regions
|
David Anderson, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
900,000 |
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Total Annual
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
900,000 |
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
Restricted Stock
Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
|
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
Total Long-Term
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
2,979,250 |
|
|
|
Total Direct
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
3,879,250 |
|
|
Down 49% vs 2008 |
|
(a) |
|
|
|
40,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
275,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71.
|
2009 Performance Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
Drove working capital and cost reduction initiatives which contributed to the Company exceeding goals for free cash flow
conversion and maintaining flat overall segment margin despite a 15% decline in sales in 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
Completed 3 acquisitions adding
approximately $325M in annual revenues in attractive strategic growth areas (gas metering, control products, specialty membranes).
Divested 5 non-core operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Functional Transformation initiatives which delivered approximately $240 million in savings in 2009 while still
ensuring service quality |
|
|
|
|
|
Continued to drive productivity across the
organization with focus on strong execution of repositioning projects which are anticipated to generate approximately $300 million in
incremental operating savings in 2010
|
34
Roger FradinPresident and
Chief Executive Officer-Automation and Control Solutions (ACS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
1,050,000 |
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Total Annual
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
1,050,000 |
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
Restricted Stock
Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
|
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
Total Long-Term
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
2,979,250 |
|
|
|
Total Direct
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
4,029,250 |
|
|
Down 49% vs. 2008 |
|
(a) |
|
|
|
40,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
275,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71.
|
2009 Performance Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
Expanded ACS segment margin versus 2008 through aggressive cost actions and new product launches |
|
|
|
|
|
Delivered year-over-year improvement in ACS
working capital turns and free cash flow conversion despite soft conditions in most of the key end-markets and a 10% decline in ACS
sales |
|
|
|
|
|
Launched over 400 new product introductions
across the broad ACS portfolio, with energy efficiency being a key product attribute |
|
|
|
|
|
Continued efforts to build and strengthen a
growth culture with focus on sales and marketing excellence, global expansion, product innovation, and best-in-class acquisition
integration processes; entered gas metering and controls segment through the acquisition of RMG
|
Larry KittelbergerSenior Vice
President-Technology and Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
710,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Annual
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
710,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Stock
Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
850,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,509,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Long-Term
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
2,360,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Direct
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
3,070,250 |
|
|
Down 57% from 2008(c) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
|
30,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
225,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71. |
|
(c) |
|
|
|
Decrease of 67% if 2008 discretionary grant
of restricted stock units is considered. |
2009 Performance Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
Began implementation of the Honeywell Operating System at 51 new sites; implementation has commenced at over 80% of
Companys manufacturing sites |
|
|
|
|
|
Supported the geographic expansion and
implementation of increased capabilities of the Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab headquartered in India, a center of excellence for
technology and engineering solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
Led efforts to reduce indirect material
spend; $1.0 billion in savings in 2009. Expanded sourcing of direct materials from emerging markets |
|
|
|
|
|
Maintained positive results in key
operating and customer satisfaction metrics while driving significant cost reduction through the reengineering of functional
processes
|
35
Andreas KramvisPresident and
Chief Executive Officer-Specialty Materials (SM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Annual
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Stock
Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
708,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,174,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Long-Term
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
1,883,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Direct
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
2,433,000 |
|
|
(First year as Named Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
|
25,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
175,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71.
|
2009 Performance Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
Expanded Specialty Materials segment margin by 90 basis points vs. 2008 and repositioned products for higher
value |
|
|
|
|
|
Delivered strong improvement in Specialty
Materials free cash flow, despite a 16% drop in segment profit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generated $111 million in revenue from new products launched in 2009. Reenergized the new product introduction processes
through significant improvements in commercialization and channel marketing initiatives to reduce cycle time to market |
|
|
|
|
|
Continued Specialty Materials
globalization initiatives, achieving 59% of sales outside of North America. Launched a Process Commercialization Center in India and
improved the effectiveness of the Shanghai Development Labs
|
Robert GilletteFormer
President and Chief Executive Officer-Aerospace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
Base
Salary |
|
|
$ |
|
803,654 |
|
|
|
Annual ICP
Award |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Total Annual
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
803,654 |
|
|
|
Growth
Plan |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
Restricted Stock
Units(a) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
Forfeited upon resignation in October 2009 |
Stock
Options(b) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
Forfeited upon resignation in October 2009 |
Total Long-Term
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
2,979,250 |
|
|
|
Total Direct
Compensation |
|
|
$ |
|
3,782,904 |
|
|
Down 50% vs. 2008 |
|
(a) |
|
|
|
40,000 restricted stock units at a share price of $28.35. |
|
(b) |
|
|
|
275,000 stock options with a grant date
Black-Scholes value $6.71.
|
Risk Considerations
The Committee believes that
the balanced utilization of the various elements of the Companys executive compensation program:
|
|
|
|
|
Supports the achievement of competitive revenue, earnings and cash performance in variable economic and industry conditions
without undue risk; and
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
Mitigates the potential to reward
risk-taking that may produce short-term results that appear in isolation to be favorable, but that may undermine the successful
execution of the Companys long-term business strategy and destroy shareowner value.
|
The following risk oversight
and compensation design features guard against excessive risk-taking:
|
|
|
|
|
Companys processes for developing strategic and annual operating plans, approval of capital investments, internal control
over financial reporting and other financial, operational and compliance policies and practices (see pages 1415 of this proxy
statement for a full discussion of the role of the Board of
Directors in the risk oversight process); |
|
|
|
|
|
Diversified nature of the Companys
overall portfolio of businesses with respect to industries and markets served (types, long-cycle/short cycle), products and services
sold, and geographic footprint; |
|
|
|
|
|
Review and approval of corporate, SBG and
individual executive officer objectives by the Committee to ensure that these goals are aligned with the Companys annual
operating and strategic plans, achieve the proper risk/reward balance, and do not encourage unnecessary or excessive
risk-taking; |
|
|
|
|
|
Base salaries consistent with
executives responsibilities so that they are not motivated to take excessive risks to achieve a reasonable level of financial
security; |
|
|
|
|
|
Determination of incentive awards based on
a review of a variety of indicators of performance, thus diversifying the risk associated with any single indicator of
performance; |
|
|
|
|
|
Design of long-term compensation to reward
executives for driving sustainable, profitable, growth for shareowners; |
|
|
|
|
|
Vesting periods for equity compensation
awards that encourage executives to focus on sustained stock price appreciation; |
|
|
|
|
|
The mix between fixed and variable, annual
and long-term, and cash and equity compensation are designed to encourage strategies and actions that are in the Companys
long-term best interests; |
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive plans are not overly leveraged
and cap the maximum payment; design features intended to balance pay for performance with an appropriate level of risk taking. The
Committee has discretionary authority to adjust annual ICP payments, which further reduces any business risk associated with such
plan; |
|
|
|
|
|
Adoption of clawback policies
which provide for the recoupment of incentive compensation paid in event of a significant restatement of Company financial
results; |
|
|
|
|
|
Clawback provisions in the
Companys current stock plan that allow the Company to cancel shares or recover gains realized by an executive if
non-competition provisions are violated; and |
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership thresholds in the Companys
stock ownership guidelines that require Named Executive Officers to hold shares of Honeywell Common Stock equal to 4 to 6 times their
current annual base salary, as detailed below.
|
Stock Ownership
Guidelines
The Committee believes that
executives will more effectively pursue the long-term interests of the Companys shareowners if they are also shareowners.
Accordingly, the Committee adopted minimum stock ownership guidelines in May 2003 for all executive officers.
Under these guidelines, the
CEO must hold shares of Common Stock equal in value to six times his current annual base salary. Other executive officers are
required to own shares equal in value to four times their current base salary. Shares used in determining whether these guidelines
are met include
shares held personally, share equivalents held in qualified and nonqualified retirement accounts, and restricted stock units.
Executive officers have five years to meet these guidelines. As of December 31, 2009, each of the Named Executive Officers held
shares in excess of these guidelines.
37
In addition, the stock ownership guidelines
require officers to hold for at least one year the net shares from restricted stock unit vesting (with respect to
restricted stock units granted after the adoption of the stock ownership guidelines) or the net gain shares of Common
Stock that they receive by exercising
stock options. Net shares means the number of shares obtained from restricted stock unit vesting, less the number of
shares withheld or sold to pay applicable taxes. Net gain shares means the number of shares obtained by exercising the
option, less the number of shares the officer sells to cover the exercise
price of the options and pay applicable taxes. After the one-year holding period, officers may sell net shares or net gain shares,
provided that following any sale, they continue to hold shares of Common Stock in excess of the prescribed minimum stock ownership
level.
The stock ownership guidelines
do not apply to officers at or over age 60 who have at least 10 years of service. This allows prudent investment planning for
officers nearing retirement. As of the date of this proxy statement, all of the Named Executive Officers except for Mr. Kittelberger
are subject to the stock
ownership guidelines. These guidelines are periodically reviewed by the Committee.
Recoupment
The Companys Corporate
Governance Guidelines provide for the recoupment of incentive compensation paid to senior executives in the event of a significant
restatement of financial results (a Restatement). Under the guidelines, the Board can seek recoupment if and to the
extent that (i) the amount of
incentive compensation was calculated based upon the achievement of financial results that were subsequently reduced due to a
Restatement, (ii) the senior executive engaged in misconduct, and (iii) the amount of incentive compensation that would have been
awarded to the senior executive had the financial
results been properly reported would have been lower than the amount actually awarded. The complete text of the Corporate
Governance Guidelines is posted on our website at www.honeywell.com (see Investor
Relations; Corporate Governance).
In the event that following an
executive officers termination of employment with Honeywell, he or she commences employment with or otherwise provides services
to a Honeywell competitor without the Committees prior approval, the Company reserves the right, for awards issued under the
2003 and 2006
Stock Incentive Plans, to (i) cancel all unexercised options, (ii) forfeit all unvested Growth Plan units and restricted stock
units, and (iii) recover any gains attributable to options that were exercised, and any value attributable to Growth Plan units and
restricted stock units that were paid, during the period beginning
six months before and ending two years after the executive officers termination of employment.
Tax Deductibility of Executive
Compensation
Section 162(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code restricts deductibility for federal income tax purposes of annual individual compensation in excess of $1 million to the
Named Executive Officers (excluding the Chief Financial Officer) if certain conditions are not satisfied. Honeywell intends, to the
extent
practicable, to preserve deductibility of compensation paid to its Named Executive Officers while maintaining compensation programs
that effectively attract, motivate and retain exceptional executives in a highly competitive environment.
The Company has designed its
annual and long-term cash incentive and stock option awards to permit full deductibility. The plans under which these awards are made
have been approved by the shareowners and provide for awards that are eligible for deductibility as performance-based compensation.
The
Committee may use its discretion to set actual compensation below the maximum amount calculated by application of the relevant
performance criteria. The Committee intended that all annual ICP and Growth Plan payments to the Named Executive Officers for 2009
would be deductible for federal income tax
purposes.
The Committee does not
believe, however, that it would be in the best interests of the Company or its shareowners to restrict the Committees
discretion and flexibility to craft compensation plans and arrangements that may result in non-deductible compensation expenses.
Accordingly, the Committee from
time to time has approved elements of compensation for certain Named Executive Officers that were consistent with the objectives of
the Companys executive compensation program, but that were
38
not fully deductible (which may include, among other things, time-based
restricted stock unit awards and a portion of the CEOs base salary (both of which were applicable for 2009).
Transactions in Company
Securities
No employee, including Named
Executive Officers, may engage in short sales of Honeywell securities. Also, selling or purchasing puts or calls or otherwise trading
in or writing options or other derivative instruments on Honeywells securities by employees, officers and directors is
prohibited. These same
provisions also apply to our non-employee directors.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
During fiscal year 2009, all
of the members of the Management Development and Compensation Committee were independent directors, and no member was an employee or
former employee of Honeywell. No Committee member had any relationship requiring disclosure under Certain Relationships and
Related Transactions on page 20 of this proxy statement. During fiscal year 2009, none of our executive officers served on
the compensation committee (or its equivalent) or board of directors of another entity whose executive officer served on our
Management Development and Compensation Committee.
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Management Development and
Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed Honeywells Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on this
review and discussion, the Committee recommended that the Board of Directors include the Compensation Discussion and Analysis
in this proxy statement and the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
THE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE
John R. Stafford, Chair
Gordon M.
Bethune
Clive R. Hollick
Bradley T. Sheares
39
Summary
Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
and Principal Position |
|
Year |
|
Salary($) |
|
Bonus(1)($) |
|
Stock Awards(2)($) |
|
Option Awards(3)($) |
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation(4)($) |
|
Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings(5)($) |
|
All Other Compensation(6)($) |
|
Total($) |
David M.
Cote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman of the |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,800,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,252,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,374,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
384,123 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
412,038 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
13,223,161 |
|
Board and Chief |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,825,962 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,500,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,983,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
14,000,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,097,885 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
422,666 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
30,829,513 |
|
Executive Officer |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,618,269 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,200,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,282,713 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,140,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,619,021 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
407,930 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
23,267,933 |
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
900,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,604,267 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
39,649 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,523,166 |
|
President, Chief |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
905,769 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
975,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,211,200 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,500,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
484,736 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
48,172 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,124,877 |
|
Financial Officer |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
773,846 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,100,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,785,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
458,084 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
81,985 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,198,915 |
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President & Chief |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Officer, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,050,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
669,300 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
119,694 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,818,244 |
|
Automation and |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,075,962 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,150,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,211,200 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,500,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
235,073 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
120,256 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,292,491 |
|
Control Solutions |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
775,962 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,150,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
12,015,570 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,785,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
154,939 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
115,220 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
15,996,691 |
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
710,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
850,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,509,750 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,080,791 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
130,592 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,281,633 |
|
Technology and |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
712,788 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
700,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,046,400 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,211,200 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,500,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
879,870 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
142,693 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
10,192,951 |
|
Operations |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
606,250 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
800,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,785,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
743,207 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
180,848 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,115,305 |
|
Andreas
Kramvis(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President & Chief |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
708,750 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,174,250 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
219,238 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
79,745 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,731,983 |
|
Executive Officer, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert
J. Gillette |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
803,654 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
264,784 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
87,411 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,135,099 |
|
Former President & |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,061,154 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
800,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,211,200 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,500,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
303,527 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
194,156 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,070,037 |
|
CEO, Aerospace |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
635,577 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
900,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,652,000 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,785,000 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
212,313 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
101,871 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
15,286,761 |
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
At the request of Mr. Cote, the Committee determined that the Named Executive Officers would receive no annual incentive bonus
awards for 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
Amounts reflect the aggregate grant date
fair value of restricted stock unit awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Restricted stock unit awards made in lieu
of Growth Plan units were valued at $28.35 per share, which represented the average of the high and low trading prices of a share
of Company common stock on the grant date. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
Amounts reflect the aggregate grant date
fair value of option awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the
date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Option awards were made on February 24, 2009 with a Black-Scholes
value of $6.71 per share. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions used in the valuation of option awards made in fiscal
year 2009 may be found in Note 20 of the Notes to the Financial Statements in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009. |
|
(4) |
|
|
|
Reflects the full earned amount under the
Growth Plan with respect to the 20072008 performance cycle, reported in a single year (2008) as required by applicable SEC
rules. Actual payment of this award is made in two equal installments, the first of which was made in March 2009 and the second in
March
2010, subject to the executives continued active employment on each payment date. |
|
(5) |
|
|
|
Represents (a) the aggregate change in the
present value of each Named Executive Officers accumulated benefit under the Companys pension plans from 2008 to 2009 (as
disclosed in the Pension Benefits table on page 47 of this proxy statement) and (b) interest earned on deferred compensation in 2009
that is considered above-market interest under SEC rules (as discussed beginning on page 54 of this proxy
statement), as shown in the following table:
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Change in Aggregate Pension Value ($) |
|
Above Market Interest ($) |
David M.
Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
384,123 |
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
2,448,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
156,267 |
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
429,772 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
239,528 |
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
1,913,395 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
167,396 |
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
149,483 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
69,755 |
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
|
$ |
|
246,451 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
18,333 |
|
|
(6) |
|
|
|
For 2009, other compensation consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item |
|
Mr. Cote |
|
Mr. Anderson |
|
Mr. Fradin |
|
Mr. Kittelberger |
|
Mr. Kramvis |
|
Mr. Gillette |
Excess liability
insurance(A) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,006 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,006 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,006 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,006 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,006 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
833 |
|
Executive life
insurance(B) |
|
|
$ |
|
62,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
83,838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching
Contributions(C) |
|
|
$ |
|
108,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,385 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
63,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
42,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
33,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
53,146 |
|
Personal use of
company aircraft(D) |
|
|
$ |
|
165,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
54,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
24,798 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
32,784 |
|
Security
Systems(E) |
|
|
$ |
|
13,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax reimbursement
payments(F) |
|
|
$ |
|
62,696 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,258 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,175 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,148 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,562 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
648 |
|
Miscellaneous cash
allowances(G) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
15,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|
$ |
|
412,038 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
39,649 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
119,694 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
130,592 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
79,745 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
87,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
|
|
|
Represents the annual premiums paid by the Company to purchase excess liability insurance coverage for each Named Executive
Officer. |
|
(B) |
|
|
|
Under the terms of Mr. Cotes
employment agreement, the Company is obligated to provide Mr. Cote with $10 million in life insurance coverage at the Companys
cost. The Company does so pursuant to an arrangement whereby Mr. Cote maintains the insurance on his own, subject to reimbursement by
the Company, until the death of Mr. Cote and his spouse. The annual premium cost of the life insurance coverage is $62,000. The
Company will no longer be required to continue to reimburse Mr. Cote for the premium if (i) his employment is terminated for
cause (as defined in Mr. Cotes employment
agreement), (ii) the insurance policy is allowed to lapse and is no longer in force, (iii) Mr. Cote provides more than de
minimis services to a competitor of the Company during the three year period following his termination of employment, or (iv) Mr.
Cote and the Company agree to terminate the
agreement. As of December 31, 2009, a maximum of 44 payments remained to be made, and the approximate present value of this
stream of payments was $1.1 million using a discount rate equal to 120% of the annual long-term applicable federal rate in effect in
December 2009 (5.02%).
For Mr. Kittelberger,
this amount represents premiums paid by the Company for term and universal life insurance policies. |
|
(C) |
|
|
|
Represents total Company contributions to
each Named Executive Officers accounts in the tax-qualified Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan and the non-tax-qualified
Supplemental Savings Plan. |
|
(D) |
|
|
|
Mr. Cote is required by Company policy to
use Company aircraft for all business and personal travel. The amount shown for each Named Executive Officer represents the aggregate
incremental cost of personal travel by the Named Executive Officer or a family member. This amount is calculated by
multiplying the total number of personal flight hours times the average direct variable operating costs (expenses for aviation
employees, business meals, aircraft maintenance, telecommunications, transportation charges, including but not limited to hangar and
landing fees, aviation fuel, and commissaries)
per flight hour for company aircraft. The incremental cost of locating aircraft to the origin of a personal trip or returning
aircraft from the completion of a personal trip is also included in this calculation. Use of company aircraft saves substantial time
and allows the CEO better access to employees and
customers around the world. Over 97% of the use of company aircraft is for business purposes.
|
41
|
(E) |
|
|
|
Represents the cost of an equipment upgrade
and the total cost paid by the Company in 2009 for monthly monitoring fees relating to a personal home security system provided to
Mr. Cote by the Company. |
|
(F) |
|
|
|
For Mr. Cote, represents reimbursement for
taxes associated with the life insurance premium reimbursement and personal aircraft usage described above. Aircraft usage by Mr.
Cotes family results in the imputation of taxable income to Mr. Cote, for which there is no associated tax reimbursement. For
the other Named Executive Officers, the amount shown represents reimbursement for taxes on income imputed to the Named
Executive Officer for spousal travel on the corporate aircraft when the presence of the officers spouse at a Board meeting
function is requested by the Company. For Mr.
Kramvis, also includes reimbursement amount related to relocation costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2010 (i) Mr. Cote will
no longer be reimbursed for taxes on his life insurance reimbursement payment or for taxes due on imputed income related to personal
aircraft usage, and (ii) officers (including Named Executive Officers) will no longer be reimbursed for the taxes due on imputed
income related to spousal travel on corporate aircraft. |
|
(G) |
|
|
|
Represents non-recurring cash allowance
payments for relocation and transportation costs associated with Mr. Kramvis transition to the role of President & CEO,
Specialty Materials.
|
|
(7) |
|
|
|
Data not reported for 2007 and 2008 as Mr. Kramvis became a Named Executive Officer in 2009. |
|
(8) |
|
|
|
Award forfeited or cancelled upon Mr.
Gillettes resignation in October 2009.
|
42
Grants of
Plan-Based AwardsFiscal Year 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Award Type(1) |
|
Grant Date |
|
All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) |
|
All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#) |
|
Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/Sh) |
|
Closing Price on Date of Grant of Option Awards ($/Sh) |
|
Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards (3) |
(a) |
|
(b) |
|
(c) |
|
(d) |
|
(e) |
|
(f) |
|
(g) |
|
(h) |
David M.
Cote |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
950,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,374,500 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,252,500 |
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,509,750 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
850,500 |
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,174,250 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
708,750 |
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
NQSO |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,845,250 |
|
|
|
RSU |
|
|
|
2/24/2009 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,134,000 |
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
Award Type:
NQSO = Nonqualified Stock Option
RSU = Restricted Stock Unit |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
Upon his resignation in October 2009, Mr.
Gillette forfeited these awards. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
Options Awards valued at $6.71 based on
Black-Scholes option valuation as of the grant date. Stock awards valued at $28.35 based on the average of the high and low trading
prices of a share of Common Stock on the grant date.
|
Description of Plan Based
Awards
All NQSO and RSU awards
granted to the Named Executive Officers in fiscal 2009 were granted under the Companys 2006 Stock Incentive Plan and are
governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the 2006 SIP and the relevant award agreements. See page 28 of this proxy
statement for a
discussion of stock options and restricted stock units.
43
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2009 Fiscal Year-End
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Option Awards |
|
Stock Awards |
|
Grant Year |
|
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable |
|
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable |
|
Option Exercise Price ($) |
|
Option Expiration Date |
|
Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) |
|
Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(1)($) |
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units, or Other Rights That Have Not
Vested (#) |
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units,
or Other Rights That Have Not Vested(1) ($) |
David M. Cote |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
950,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
|
2/23/2019 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,880,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,589 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
140,689 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
162,500 |
|
|
|
|
487,500 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
58.48 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
350,000 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125,000 |
(17) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,900,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
700,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
42.32 |
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
600,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.51 |
|
|
|
|
2/1/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
600,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.65 |
|
|
|
|
2/5/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
|
600,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
23.93 |
|
|
|
|
2/6/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
2,202,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
33.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/18/2012 |
|
|
|
|
378,200 |
(8) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
14,825,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
5,214,700 |
|
|
|
|
1,787,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531,789 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
20,846,129 |
|
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,900,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
|
2/23/2019 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,568,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
120,000 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
58.48 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
42.32 |
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
|
|
|
37,500 |
(9) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,470,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.51 |
|
|
|
|
2/1/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.65 |
|
|
|
|
2/5/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
|
262,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.13 |
|
|
|
|
7/24/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
864,500 |
|
|
|
|
482,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,457 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,075,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
|
2/23/2019 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,568,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
37,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
120,000 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
58.48 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2017 |
|
|
|
|
67,668 |
(10) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,652,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
42.32 |
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.51 |
|
|
|
|
2/1/2015 |
|
|
|
|
33,500 |
(11) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,313,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.65 |
|
|
|
|
2/5/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
23.93 |
|
|
|
|
2/6/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
32.43 |
|
|
|
|
7/28/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
|
67,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.27 |
|
|
|
|
7/15/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
34.54 |
|
|
|
|
7/9/2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
834,500 |
|
|
|
|
482,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,125 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,571,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E. Kittelberger |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
|
2/23/2019 |
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,176,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,201 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
86,279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
120,000 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
58.48 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2018 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
(12) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,568,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
615 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
24,108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
|
|
|
|
87,500 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
42.32 |
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.51 |
|
|
|
|
2/01/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.65 |
|
|
|
|
2/5/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
40.15 |
|
|
|
|
3/14/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
702,500 |
|
|
|
|
432,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,816 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,854,387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
(2) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28.35 |
|
|
|
|
2/23/2019 |
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
980,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,557 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
100,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
16,500 |
|
|
|
|
49,500 |
(5) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
56.35 |
|
|
|
|
3/31/2018 |
|
|
|
|
50,000 |
(13) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,960,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
|
10,500 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
58.48 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2018 |
|
|
|
|
2,800 |
(14) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
109,760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
840 |
(7) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
32,928 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
|
8,000 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.38 |
|
|
|
|
2/25/2017 |
|
|
|
|
3,200 |
(15) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
125,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
42.32 |
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.51 |
|
|
|
|
2/1/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.65 |
|
|
|
|
2/5/2014 |
|
|
|
|
6,800 |
(16) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
266,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
36.27 |
|
|
|
|
7/15/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
47.85 |
|
|
|
|
3/23/2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
145,500 |
|
|
|
|
243,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,197 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,574,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
Note: |
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, Mr. Gillette had no outstanding equity awards. Upon his resignation in October 2009, he forfeited all
unvested stock options and restricted stock units. Vested options were either cancelled or exercised. Shares he acquired upon
exercise are shown in the Option Exercises and
Stock Vested table below. |
|
(1) |
|
|
|
Market value determined using the closing
market price of $39.20 per share of Common Stock on December 31, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
2009 option grant vests in four annual
installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first installment vested on February 24, 2010. The remaining installments will vest on
February 24, 2011, February 24, 2012, and February 24, 2013. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
2008 option grant vests in four annual
installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first two installments vested on February 26, 2009 and February 26, 2010. The remaining
installments will vest on February 26, 2011, and February 26, 2012. |
|
(4) |
|
|
|
2007 option grant vests in four annual
installments at the rate of 25% per year. The first three installments vested on February 26, 2008, February 26, 2009 and February
26, 2010. The remaining installment will vest on February 26, 2011. |
|
(5) |
|
|
|
Option grant made to Mr. Kramvis upon his
promotion to President & CEO, Specialty Materials. The grant vests in four annual installments at the rate of 25% per year. The
first installment vested March 31, 2009. The remaining installments will vest March 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and March 31,
2012. |
|
(6) |
|
|
|
As described in the Compensation Discussion
and Analysis above, these restricted stock units were granted in 2009 as a result of suspending the Growth Plan. These restricted
stock units will vest on February 24, 2012. |
|
(7) |
|
|
|
Represents dividend equivalents on unvested
restricted stock units that were reinvested as additional unvested restricted stock units and will vest based on the same vesting
schedule of the restricted stock units to which they relate. |
|
(8) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
July 1, 2012. |
|
(9) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
July 28, 2011. |
|
(10) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
July 27, 2010. |
|
(11) |
|
|
|
16,500 restricted stock units will vest on
July 29, 2010, with the remaining restricted stock units vesting on July 29, 2012. |
|
(12) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
July 25, 2011. |
|
(13) |
|
|
|
16,500 restricted stock units will vest on
each of July 25, 2011 and July 25, 2013, with the remaining restricted stock units vesting on July 25, 2015. |
|
(14) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
February 26, 2011. |
|
(15) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units vested on
February 26, 2010. |
|
(16) |
|
|
|
These restricted stock units will vest on
June 14, 2011. |
|
(17) |
|
|
|
50% of the earned Performance Shares will
vest on March 15, 2011, and the remaining 50% will vest on February 15, 2012, provided that the relevant performance criteria are
met. Additional details are provided on page 28 of this proxy statement.
|
45
Option
Exercises and Stock VestedFiscal Year 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Option Awards |
|
Stock Awards |
|
# of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) |
|
Value Realized on Exercise ($) (1) |
|
Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) |
|
Value Realized on Vesting ($)(2) |
David M.
Cote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,000 |
(3) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,133,720 |
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,666 |
(4) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,285,081 |
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
(5) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,356,800 |
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,600 |
(6) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
230,076 |
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
174,721 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
Represents in the money value at exercise calculated as (a) times (b) where (a) equals the difference between the
market price at exercise and the exercise price, and (b) equals the total number of options exercised. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
Represents the total value at vest
calculated as (a) times (b), where (a) equals the average of the high and low share price of one share of Common Stock on the day of
vest, and (b) equals the total number of restricted units that vested. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
Payout of shares acquired on vesting has
been deferred until the year following separation of service from Honeywell. Of the 63,000 shares that were deferred, 25,500 shares
will be paid in ten equal annual installments and the remaining 37,500 shares will be paid in five equal annual
installments. |
|
(4) |
|
|
|
In connection with the restricted unit
vesting, shares were withheld sufficient to cover the applicable taxes due upon vesting with Mr. Fradin retaining a total of 38,772
net shares. |
|
(5) |
|
|
|
Payout of shares acquired on vesting has
been deferred until the year following separation of service from Honeywell. |
|
(6) |
|
|
|
In connection with the restricted unit
vesting, shares were withheld sufficient to cover the applicable taxes due upon vesting with Mr. Kramvis retaining a total of 4,433
net shares.
|
PENSION
BENEFITS
The following table provides
summary information about the pension benefits that have been earned by our Named Executive Officers under two pension plans, the
Honeywell International Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the SERP) and the Honeywell International Inc.
Retirement Earnings
Plan (the REP). The SERP and REP benefits depend on the length of each Named Executive Officers employment with
us (and companies that have been acquired by us and, with respect to Messrs. Anderson and Kittelberger, service with certain prior
employers). This information is provided in the table
below under the column entitled Number of years of credited service. The column in the table below entitled
Present value of accumulated benefit represents a financial calculation that estimates the cash value today of the full
pension benefit that has been earned by each Named Executive Officer. It is based
on various assumptions, including assumptions about how long each Named Executive Officer will live and future interest rates.
Additional details about the pension benefits for each Named Executive Officer follow the table.
46
Pension BenefitsFiscal
Year 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Plan name |
|
Number of years of credited service (#) |
|
Present value of accumulated benefits(2) ($) |
David M.
Cote |
|
REP |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
73,971 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
29,127,490 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
29,201,461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
REP |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
79,628 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
10.1 |
(1) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,002,646 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,082,274 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
REP |
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
588,555 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
755,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,344,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
REP |
|
|
|
12.7 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
224,643 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
22.8 |
(1) |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,237,891 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,462,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
REP |
|
|
|
22.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
392,944 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
22.2 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
251,071 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
644,015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
REP |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
147,251 |
|
|
|
SERP |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,417,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,564,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
The service taken into account in calculating Mr. Andersons SERP benefit includes 3.6 years of employment with his former
employer. The portion of the present value of the accumulated SERP benefit attributable to these additional years of service is
$1,353,612. |
|
|
|
|
|
The service taken into account in
calculating Mr. Kittelbergers SERP benefit includes 1.7 years of employment with his former employer. The portion of the
present value of the accumulated SERP benefit attributable to these additional years of service is $499,705. In addition, Mr.
Kittelberger is also credited
under the SERP for two years of service for each year of his employment with us after August 7, 2001, resulting in an
additional 8.4 years of credited service through December 31, 2009. The portion of the present value of the accumulated SERP benefit
attributable to these additional years of service
(including the 1.7 years of service from his former employer) is $2,397,549. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
The present value of the accumulated
retirement benefit for each Named Executive Officer is calculated using a 5.75% discount rate, the RP-2000 mortality table and a
retirement age of 60 for Mr. Cote, 62 for Messrs. Anderson and Kittelberger and 65 for Messrs. Fradin and Kramvis, the earliest ages
at
which the Named Executive Officer can retire without an early retirement benefit reduction. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
As a result of the Committees
decision to include in 2009 pensionable earnings an amount equal to the greater of annual incentive compensation earned in 2009 (paid
in 2010) or paid in 2009 (earned in 2008), the SERP present value of accumulated benefits reflected in the table above for Mr.
Anderson and
Mr. Kittelberger was increased by $161,369 and $363,438, respectively. At his request, this benefit was not extended to the
CEO, nor did it impact Mr. Fradin or Mr. Kramvis in 2009. Since Mr. Gillette voluntarily terminated his employment with the Company
effective October 2, 2009, he is not eligible for this
benefit. See the Compensation Discussion and Analysis2009 Compensation Decisions on page 33 for further
discussion.
|
47
Summary Information
|
|
|
|
|
The REP is a tax-qualified pension plan in which substantially all of our U.S. employees participate. |
|
|
|
|
|
The REP complies with tax requirements
applicable to broad-based pension plans, which impose dollar limits on the amount of benefits that can be provided. As a result, the
pensions that can be paid under the REP for higher-paid employees represent a much smaller fraction of current income than the
pensions that can be paid to less highly paid employees. We make up for this difference, in part, by providing supplemental
pensions through the SERP. |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, Messrs. Cote, Fradin and
Anderson are entitled to additional supplemental pension benefits which are described under the Contractual formula below. These
additional supplemental pension benefits are also provided by the SERP. |
|
|
|
|
|
All SERP and Contractual benefits other
than Mr. Andersons Contractual benefit will be paid as of the first of the month following 105 days after the later of the
officers separation from service (as that term is defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 409A) or his earliest retirement
date.
|
Pension Benefit Calculation
Formulas
Within the REP and the SERP a
variety of formulas are used to determine pension benefits. Different benefit formulas apply for different groups of employees for
historical reasons. Generally, as we have grown through acquisitions, we have in many cases retained the benefit formulas under
pension plans
that were maintained by the companies that we acquired, in order to provide continuity for employees. The differences in the
benefit formulas for our Named Executive Officers reflect this history. The explanation below describes the formulas that are used to
determine the amount of pension benefits for each of
our Named Executive Officers under the REP and the SERP.
|
|
|
Name of Formula |
|
Benefit Calculation |
REP |
|
Lump sum equal to (1) 6% of final average compensation (annual average compensation for the five calendar years out of the
previous 10 calendar years that produces highest average) times (2) credited service |
Allied Salaried |
|
Single life annuity equal to (1)(A) 2% of final average compensation (average of compensation for the 60 consecutive months out
of prior 120 months that produces highest average) times (B) credited service (up to 25 years), minus (2) 64% of estimated Social
Security benefits |
Signal |
|
Single life annuity equal to (1)(A) 1.5% of final average compensation (average compensation for the 60 consecutive months out
of the last 120 that produces the highest average) times (B) credited service (with no limit on service) minus (2)(A) 1.5% of
estimated Social Security
times (B) credited service up to 331/3 years |
Pittway |
|
Single life annuity equal to (1) 1.2% of eligible compensation each year, up to the average of the Social Security wage bases,
plus (2) 1.85% of eligible compensation in excess of such average |
Contractual |
|
For Mr. Cote, single life annuity at age 60 equal to 60% of the average of final three years of base salary and
bonus |
|
|
For Mr. Anderson, an annual amount equal to $125,000 payable in the form of a single life annuity if retirement occurs at or
after age 60 or in the event of involuntary termination without cause or a change in control, or $175,000 if retirement occurs at or
after age 62 |
|
|
For Mr. Fradin, single life annuity at later of age 60 or termination of employment equal to 50% of the average of final three
years of base salary and bonus |
For each formula listed in the
chart above, compensation taken into account in calculating pension benefits includes base pay, short-term incentive compensation,
payroll-based rewards and recognition and lump sum incentives. Calculations for pension formulas other than the REP formula include
the
48
annual incentive compensation in the year earned. The REP formula includes
annual incentive compensation in the year paid. The amount of compensation taken into account under the REP is limited by tax rules.
The amount of compensation taken into account under the SERP and under the Contractual
formula is not limited by tax rules, except SERP compensation under the Pittway formula is limited to $300,000. Compensation taken
into account in calculating pension benefits under the SERP for 2009 (other than for the CEO) includes the greater of annual
incentive compensation earned in 2009 (paid in 2010)
or paid in 2009 (earned in 2008).
The benefit formulas set forth
above describe the pension benefits in terms of a lump sum cash payment (for the REP formula) or a single life annuity (for the other
formulas). Participants are entitled to receive their benefits in other payment forms, including, for example joint and survivor
annuities, period
certain annuities and level income payments. However, the value of each available payment form is the same. Based on prior
elections, Messrs. Cote, Fradin, Gillette and Kramvis will receive their SERP benefits and any Contractual benefits in the form of a
lump sum, and Messrs. Anderson and Kittelberger will
receive their SERP benefits and Contractual benefits in an annuity.
The Allied Salaried formula
also provides for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participants age and years
of service equal or exceed 60 and the participant has attained age 50 with at least five years of service or if the
participants age and years of service equal or
exceed 80 regardless of the participants age. If the participant retires early, the participants benefit at normal
retirement age is reduced by 1/4
of 1% for each month payments begin before age 62 (3% per year).
In addition, the Social Security benefit reduction portion of the formula is reduced by 1/180 for each
month benefits are paid between ages 60 and 65, and 1/360 for each month benefits are paid before the participants 60th
birthday.
The Pittway formula provides
for early retirement benefits. A participant is eligible for early retirement if the participant has attained age 55 with at least 10
years of service. If the participant retires early, the participants benefit at normal retirement age is reduced by 1/180 for
each of the first 60 months and
1/360 for each of the next 60 months by which the commencement of the payment of the retirement income precedes the
participants normal retirement date.
As stated above, the pension
formula used to determine the amount of pension benefits under each of the plans for our Named Executive Officers differs for
historical reasons. In addition, additional contractual pension benefits have been provided to certain Named Executive Officers as
deemed necessary
and appropriate at the time of their recruitment to the Company or to retain the executive. The table below describes which
formulas are applicable to each of our Named Executive Officers.
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer |
|
Description of Total Pension Benefits |
Mr. Cote |
|
|
|
Mr. Cotes total pension benefits are equal to his Contractual formula
benefits. The amount payable pursuant to the Contractual formula is
reduced by amounts calculated under the REP formula and payable
under the REP and the SERP plans. Mr. Cotes Contractual formula
benefits are also reduced by amounts he will receive from the retirement plans of his former employer, General Electric
Company. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Cotes Contractual formula benefits are reduced by 4% per year
for each year payment commences before Mr. Cotes 60th birthday
and are forfeitable if he is terminated by the Company for cause. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Cote is currently eligible for early retirement benefits payable under
his Contractual formula. Due to subsidized early retirement, the value
of his benefit on December 31, 2009 exceeds the benefit shown in the
table by $2,358,671. |
|
|
|
|
If Mr. Cote dies before he receives payment of his Contractual formula
benefits, his surviving spouse will receive the lump sum equivalent of
an annual benefit of 75% of the Contractual formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer |
|
Description of Total Pension Benefits |
|
|
|
|
At or after age 60, Mr. Cote is entitled to a monthly pension benefit
from his former employer, General Electric Company, in an amount of
$5,649. |
Mr. Anderson |
|
|
|
Mr. Andersons total pension benefits are equal to the sum of his Allied
Salaried formula benefits and his Contractual formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Andersons Allied Salaried formula benefits are determined by
including his years of employment with a former employer, ITT Industries (3.6 years). Mr. Anderson is currently eligible for
early retirement
benefits payable under the Allied Salaried formula. Due to subsidized
early retirement, the value of his benefit payable on December 31,
2009 exceeds the benefit shown in the table above by $475,998. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Andersons Contractual formula benefits are payable only if he
retires from the Company on or after attaining age 60, he is terminated
by the Company for reasons other than cause or there is a change in
control of the Company. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Andersons pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his
SERP benefits are determined under the REP formula. These amounts
are part of, not in addition to, his Allied Salaried formula benefits. |
Mr. Fradin |
|
|
|
Mr. Fradins total pension benefits are equal to the sum of his Pittway
formula benefits, his REP formula benefits and his Contractual formula
benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Fradins 26.5 years of service before July 1, 2003 will be used for
his Pittway formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Fradins years of service after June 30, 2003 will be used for his
REP formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Fradin is currently eligible for early retirement benefits payable
under the Pittway formula. Due to subsidized early retirement, the
value of his benefit on December 31, 2009 exceeds the benefit shown
in the table above by $29,189. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Fradins Contractual formula benefits are reduced by 4% per year
for each year payment commences before his 60th birthday, and are
forfeitable if he voluntarily leaves the Company before age 60 or is terminated by the Company for cause before age 60. If Mr.
Fradins Contractual benefits were
included as part of his SERP benefits in the table, the present value of accumulated
SERP benefit would increase to $8,235,641. |
|
|
|
|
If Mr. Fradin dies before he has received a lump sum of his Contractual formula benefits, his surviving spouse will receive an
annual benefit of 50% of the Contractual formula benefits. |
Mr. Kittelberger |
|
|
|
Mr. Kittelbergers total pension benefits are equal to his Allied Salaried
formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kittelbergers Allied Salaried formula benefits are determined by
including his years of service with a former employer, Lucent (1.7
years), and counting each year of credited service with the Company
after August 7, 2001 as two years (currently 8.4 years). |
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officer |
|
Description of Total Pension Benefits |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kittelberger is currently eligible for early retirement benefits under
the Allied Salaried formula. Due to subsidized early retirement, the
value of his pension benefits payable on December 31, 2009 exceeds
the benefits shown in the table above by $310,173. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kittelbergers pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his
SERP benefits are determined under the REP formula. These amounts
are part of, not in addition to, his Allied Salaried formula benefits. |
Mr. Kramvis |
|
|
|
Mr. Kramviss total pension benefits are equal to the sum of his Pittway formula benefits and his REP formula
benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kramvis 17.2 years of service before January 1, 2005 will be used
for his Pittway formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kramvis 5.0 years of service after December 31, 2004 will be
used for his REP formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kramvis is currently eligible for early retirement benefits under the
Pittway formula. Due to subsidized early retirement, the value of his
pension benefits payable on December 31, 2009 exceeds the benefits
shown in the table above by $15,873. |
Mr. Gillette |
|
|
|
Mr. Gillettes total pension benefits are equal to his Allied Salaried formula benefits. |
|
|
|
|
A portion of Mr. Gillettes pension benefits under the REP and a portion of his SERP benefits are determined under the
Signal formula
(based on 10.1 years of service ending on his termination date of
October 2, 2009). These amounts are part of, not in addition to, his
Allied Salaried formula benefits. |
51
Nonqualified Deferred CompensationFiscal Year 2009
Since 2005, the Company has
taken steps to limit deferred compensation amounts owed to executives by reducing the overall interest rate earned on new deferrals
and accelerating the payout of deferred amounts, thereby limiting the period over which interest is earned. These include changing
the interest
rate accruing on new deferrals under the Honeywell Supplemental Savings Plan (the SS Plan) and the Honeywell Salary and
Incentive Award Deferral Plan for Selected Employees (the DIC Plan) from a fixed above-market rate to a rate that changes
annually based on the Companys 15-year cost of
borrowing; and requiring payment of new SS Plan or DIC deferrals to begin shortly after termination of employment in a lump sum
unless the participant leaves the Company after reaching retirement (age 55 with 10 years of service). In addition, cash dividend
equivalents on vested deferred restricted stock units
cannot be deferred and dividend equivalents on unvested restricted stock units are reinvested in additional restricted stock units
and not paid or distributed unless and until the underlying restricted stock units vest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Plan |
|
Executive contributions in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Registrant contributions in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Aggregate earnings in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Aggregate withdrawals/ distributions ($) |
|
Aggregate balance at last FYE(3)($) |
David M.
Cote |
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
127,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
94,850 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
195,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,793,025 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,046,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,151,195 |
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted Stock Units(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,113,591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
13,475,948 |
|
|
|
Unvested Dividend Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Plan(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
127,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,094,850 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,355,976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
33,420,168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David J. Anderson
|
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
91,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28,758 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
63,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
696,600 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
361,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,796,666 |
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted Stock Units(1) |
|
|
$ |
|
2,133,720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,038,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,618,920 |
|
|
|
Unvested Dividend Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Plan (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
2,225,220 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,778,758 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,462,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
13,862,186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
330,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
49,431 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
132,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,676,285 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
483,118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,156,490 |
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Units(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
464,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,735,724 |
|
|
|
Unvested Dividend Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
278,794 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
617,372 |
|
|
|
Growth Plan (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
330,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,799,431 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,359,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
14,935,871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
217,800 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
29,031 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
137,604 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,252 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,536,042 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
630,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
362,819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,850,336 |
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted Stock Units(1) |
|
|
$ |
|
1,356,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
224,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,581,200 |
|
|
|
Unvested Dividend Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Plan (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
2,204,600 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,779,031 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
724,823 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
25,252 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
9,717,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Plan |
|
Executive contributions in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Registrant contributions in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Aggregate earnings in last FY(3) ($) |
|
Aggregate withdrawals/ distributions ($) |
|
Aggregate balance at last FYE(3)($) |
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
27,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
19,850 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
63,741 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
705,260 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
154,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,779,799 |
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted Stock Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested Dividend Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,639 |
|
|
|
Growth Plan (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
27,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
308,810 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
223,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,785,658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
SS Plan |
|
|
$ |
|
49,215 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
40,708 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
101,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
888,764 |
|
|
|
DIC Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Restricted Stock Units(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested DEQs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth Plan (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
|
49,215 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
40,708 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
101,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
888,764 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All deferred compensation amounts, regardless
of the plan, are unfunded and unsecured obligations of the Company and are subject to the same risks as any of the Companys
general obligations.
|
(1) |
|
|
|
The value of executive contributions in the last fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the number of deferred restricted
stock units that vested in 2009 by the average of the high and low prices of a share of Common Stock on the vesting date. This column
reflects the following: for Mr. Anderson, 25,500 units
vesting on July 25, 2009 with an average share price of $33.69 and 37,500 units vesting on July 28, 2009 with an average share
price of $33.99, and for Mr. Kittelberger, 40,000 units vesting on July 29, 2009 with an average share price of $33.92. The value of
the aggregate balance at the last fiscal year is
calculated by multiplying the total number of vested, deferred restricted stock units on December 31, 2009 by the average of
the high and low prices of a share of Common Stock on December 31, 2009 ($39.53), and then adding the cash value of deferred dividend
equivalents and interest. This column
reflects the following: 336,300 units and $182,009 in cash for Mr. Cote, 187,500 units and $207,045 in cash for Mr. Anderson,
109,563 units and $404,699 in cash for Mr. Fradin and 40,000 units for Mr. Kittelberger. Mr. Gillette never elected to defer
restricted stock units. |
|
(2) |
|
|
|
The Growth Plan amounts represent 50% of
the Growth Plan award included in the Summary Compensation Table for the calendar year ending December 31, 2008. This portion of the
Growth Plan amount will be paid in cash no later than March 15, 2010. Generally, to receive a Growth Plan payment, the
Named Executive Officer must be actively employed on the payment date. As a result of his resignation, Mr. Gillette forfeited
his Growth Plan payment of $1,750,000. |
|
(3) |
|
|
|
The following table details the extent to
which amounts reported in the contributions and earnings columns are reported in the Summary Compensation Table and amounts reported
in the aggregate balance column were reported for previous years. For the SS Plan, the Earnings column includes interest
credits and changes in the value of the Company common stock fund. The value of the Company common stock fund increases or
decreases in accordance with the Companys stock price and the reinvestment of dividends. For the Deferred Restricted Stock
Units, the Earnings column includes dividend
equivalent credits and any increase (or decrease) in the Companys stock price.
|
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Executive Contributions in SCT |
|
Registrant Contributions in SCT |
|
Earnings in SCT |
|
Portion of Aggregate Balance Included in Prior SCTs |
David M.
Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
127,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
94,850 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
384,123 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
26,424,403 |
|
David J.
Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
91,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28,758 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
156,267 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
9,153,279 |
|
Roger
Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
330,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
49,431 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
239,528 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,364,302 |
|
Larry E.
Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
217,800 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
29,031 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
167,396 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,494,560 |
|
Andreas
Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
27,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
19,850 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
69,755 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0 |
|
Robert J.
Gillette |
|
|
$ |
|
49,215 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
40,708 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
18,333 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
316,327 |
|
Honeywell Supplemental Savings
Plan
The SS Plan allows executives
of the Company, including the Named Executive Officers, to defer the portion of their annual base salary that cannot be contributed
to the Companys tax-qualified 401(k) plan due to the annual deferral and compensation limits imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code and/or up
to an additional 25% of base annual salary for the plan year. After one year of service, and to the extent amounts have not already
been matched on a similar basis under the Companys qualified 401(k) plan, the Company matches deferrals to the SS Plan at the
rate of 50% on the first 8% of eligible pay deferred
for the first five years of match participation, and 100% on the first 8% of eligible pay deferred thereafter. In July 2009, the
Company implemented a temporary 50% reduction in the matching contributions to the tax-qualified 401(k) plan and the SS Plan; this
match reduction continued as of December 31, 2009.
Matching contributions are always vested. Participant deferrals for the 2005 plan year and later are credited with a rate of
interest, compounded daily, based on the Companys 15-year cost of borrowing. The rate is subject to change annually, and for
2009, this rate was 7.2%. For 2010, this rate has been set at
4.8%. Participant deferrals for the 2004 plan year and earlier are credited with a rate of interest, compounded daily, that was set
by the Committee before the beginning of each plan year and is fixed until the deferral is distributed. The Committee would set the
rate at an above-market rate to retain executives.
Above-market interest credited on SS Plan deferrals and reflected in the Summary Compensation Table on page 40 above represent the
difference between market interest rates determined pursuant to SEC rules and the interest credited under the SS Plan. Matching
contributions are treated as invested in
Common Stock. Dividends are treated as reinvested in additional shares of Common Stock.
Amounts deferred for the 2005
plan year and later will be distributed in a lump sum in January of the year following the termination of the participants
active employment. For the 2006 plan year and later, a participant may elect to receive up to 10 installments in lieu of the lump sum
payment, which election
will take effect only if the participant terminates employment after reaching age 55 with 10 years of service.
Except in hardship
circumstances, amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and earlier will be distributed either in January of any following year or in
January of the year following termination of employment, as elected by the participant. The participant can elect to receive
distributions in a lump sum or up to
15 annual installments.
Participant deferrals to the
SS Plan are distributed in cash only. Matching contributions are distributed in shares of Common Stock.
Amounts deferred for the 2005
plan year and later cannot be withdrawn before the distribution date for any reason. Amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and
earlier may be withdrawn before the distribution date if a hardship exists or the participant requests an immediate withdrawal
subject to a penalty of
6%.
Honeywell Salary and Incentive Award
Deferral Plan for Selected Employees
The Honeywell DIC Plan allows
executives of the Company, including the Named Executive Officers, to defer all or a portion of their annual discretionary cash
incentive compensation.
Beginning in 2005, deferrals
are credited with a rate of interest, based on the Companys 15-year borrowing rate which is set annually at the beginning of
the year (7.2% for 2009, 4.8% for 2010). Amounts deferred for the 2004 plan year and earlier are credited with a rate of interest,
compounded
54
daily, that was set by the Committee before the beginning of each plan
year and is fixed until the deferral is distributed. The Committee would set the total rate at an above-market rate to retain
executives. Above-market interest credited on DIC Plan deferrals and reflected in the Summary Compensation Table on
page 40 above represent the difference between market interest rates determined pursuant to SEC rules and the interest credited
under the DIC Plan.
Amounts deferred for the 2006
plan year and later will be distributed in a lump sum in January of the year following the termination of the participants
active employment. A participant may elect to receive up to 10 installments in lieu of the lump sum payment, which election will take
effect only if the
participant terminates employment after reaching age 55 with 10 years of service.
Except in hardship
circumstances, amounts deferred for the 2005 plan year and earlier will be distributed either in January of any year three years
after the compensation was earned or in January of the year following termination of the participants employment, as elected by
the participant. The participant
could elect to receive non-hardship distributions in a lump sum or up to 15 annual installments.
Amounts deferred for the 2002
plan year and later cannot be withdrawn before the distribution date for any reason. Amounts deferred for the 2001 plan year and
earlier may be withdrawn before the distribution date if a hardship exists or the participant requests an immediate withdrawal
subject to a penalty
that ranges from 0 to 6% and that is based on the 10-year Treasury bond rate at the beginning of the calendar quarter.
Deferral of Restricted Stock
Units
Executives, including the
Named Executive Officers, may defer the receipt of up to 100% of their restricted stock units upon vesting based on an election made
at the time of grant. The executive may defer payment to (a) a specific year that is four or more years from the vesting year, or (b)
to the year
following the executives termination of active employment. The executive may also choose to receive payment in a lump sum or
up to 15 annual installments and can also elect to accelerate the form and timing of payment following a change in control to a lump
sum paid no later than 90 days following the
change in control. For grants made before July 2004, an executive could also defer dividend equivalents in cash and such amounts
are credited with interest at a 10% rate, compounded daily, until payment. The practice of deferring dividend equivalents in cash
ended in July 2004. Above-market interest related to
the deferred dividend equivalents and reflected in the Summary Compensation Table on page 40 above represents the difference
between market interest rates determined pursuant to SEC rules and the 10% interest credited by the Company on the pre-July 2004
grants, the terms of which can not be amended.
Unvested Dividend Equivalents
For restricted stock unit
grants made in and after December 2007, cash dividend equivalents on unvested restricted stock units (determined at the same rate as
a regular share of Company common stock) are converted to additional unvested restricted stock units as of the dividend payment date
and will be
paid out only as the underlying restricted stock units vest. These additional restricted stock units are subject to the same
restrictions that apply to the restricted stock to which they relate.
For restricted stock unit
grants made between December 2006 and December 2007, dividend equivalents on unvested restricted stock units are credited with
interest at the Companys 15-year borrowing rate which was set at the beginning of the year (7.2% for 2009, 4.8% for 2010) and
will be paid out only
as the underlying restricted stock units vest. The practice of crediting dividend equivalents with interest ended in December
2007.
The terms of the SERP Plan,
the SS Plan, the DIC Plan, the deferred restricted stock units and the unvested dividend equivalents are subject to the requirements
of, and regulations and guidance published pursuant to, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
55
POTENTIAL
PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
Overview
This section describes the
benefits payable to our Named Executive Officers in two circumstances:
|
|
|
|
|
Termination of Employment |
|
|
|
|
|
Change in control
|
These benefits are determined
primarily under a plan that we refer to as our Senior Severance Plan. In addition to the Senior Severance Plan, other of
our benefits plans, such as our annual incentive compensation plan, also have provisions that impact these benefits. For Mr. Cote,
these benefits are also
affected by provisions of his employment agreement, which has a rolling three year term.
These benefits ensure that our
executives are motivated primarily by the needs of the businesses for which they are responsible, rather than circumstances that are
outside the ordinary course of businessi.e., circumstances that might lead to the termination of an executives employment
or that might lead to
a change in control of the Company. Generally, this is achieved by assuring our Named Executive Officers that they will receive a
level of continued compensation if their employment is adversely affected in these circumstances, subject to certain conditions. We
believe that these benefits help ensure that
affected executives act in the best interests of our shareowners, even if such actions are otherwise contrary to their personal
interests. This is critical because these are circumstances in which the actions of our Named Executive Officers may have a material
impact upon our shareowners. Accordingly, we set the
level and terms of these benefits in a way that we believe is necessary to obtain the desired result. The level of benefit and
rights to benefits are determined by the type of termination event, as described below. We believe that these benefits are generally
in line with current market practices and are particularly
important as, other than our CEO, we do not maintain employment agreements with our Named Executive Officers.
Benefits provided under the
Senior Severance Plan are conditioned on the executive executing a full release of claims and certain non-competition and
non-solicitation covenants in favor of the Company. The right to continued severance benefits under the plan ceases in the event of a
violation of such
covenants. The Company would seek to recover severance benefits already paid to any executive who violates such restrictive
covenants.
In the case of a change of
control of our Company, cash severance benefits are payable only in the event that both parts of the double trigger are
satisfied. That is, (i) there must be a change in control of our Company, and (ii)(A) the Named Executive Officer must be
involuntarily terminated other than for
cause, or (ii)(B) the Named Executive Officer must initiate the termination of their own employment for good
reason.
In 2009, the Companys
severance plans were amended to eliminate the excise tax gross-up provisions applicable to any excise taxes that may become due upon
a change-in-control for any executive not already eligible for such treatment prior to January 1, 2010. Executives already covered by
the excise
tax gross-up provisions of the Companys severance plans will retain their eligibility for such benefits.
Summary of Benefits
The following table summarizes
the employment termination and change in control benefits payable to our Named Executive Officers. No termination benefits are
payable to Named Executive Officers who voluntarily quit (other than voluntary resignations for good reason) or whose employment is
terminated
by us for cause. Mr. Gillette did not receive any termination payments or benefits resulting from his resignation.
The information in the table
below is based on the assumption, in each case, that termination of employment occurred on December 31, 2009. Pension and
non-qualified deferred compensation benefits, which are described elsewhere in this proxy, are not included in the table below, even
though they may
become payable at the times specified in the table, in accordance with the applicable proxy
56
disclosure requirements. The effect of a termination of employment or
change in control on outstanding stock options, restricted stock units and performance shares is described in the section below
entitled Impact on Equity-Based Awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments
and Benefits |
|
Name |
|
Termination by the Company Without Cause |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
Change in ControlNo Termination of Employment |
|
Change in Control Termination of Employment by Company Without Cause, by NEO for Good Reason
or Due to Disability |
Cash Severance (Base
Salary + Bonus) |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
14,850,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
14,850,000 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
5,400,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,400,000 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
3,150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,200,000 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
4,260,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,260,000 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
1,650,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,200,000 |
|
ICP (Year of
Termination) |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
1,329,300 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,150,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,150,000 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
900,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,107,692 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,050,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,050,000 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
710,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
873,846 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
550,000 |
|
Growth
Plan |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
288,960 |
|
Benefits and
Perquisites |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
49,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
49,392 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
48,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
256,508 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
18,054 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
24,072 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
37,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
201,646 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
18,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
24,096 |
|
All Other
Payments/Benefits |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,508,653 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
898,143 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
12,556,387 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,670,378 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
13,173,759 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
617,372 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
13,450,979 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,026,469 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
22,785 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,639 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,639 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
11,639 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
233,171 |
|
Excise
Tax Gross-Up |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
6,757,351 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
David M. Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
16,228,692 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
10,150,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,000,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
10,150,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
28,558,045 |
|
|
|
David J. Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
5,448,816 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,650,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
9,412,343 |
|
|
|
Roger Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
15,724,441 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
7,420,378 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
14,923,759 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,417,372 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
27,232,402 |
|
|
|
Larry Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
4,297,800 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
1,750,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,460,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
8,111,961 |
|
|
|
Andreas Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
1,690,857 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
300,599 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
300,599 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
850,599 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,296,227 |
|
57
Explanation of Benefits
The following describes the
benefits that are quantified in the table above. In regard to each portion of the benefit, the benefits that are paid in the context
of a change in control are, except as noted, the same as the benefits paid other than as a result of a change in control.
Severance BenefitsCash
Payment
Severance benefits are payable
upon involuntary termination of employment by us without cause and, following a change in control, upon termination of employment by
a Named Executive Officer without cause or for good reason. For Mr. Kittelberger, these benefits are payable if his employment is
terminated for good reason, without regard to the occurrence of a change in control. The amount and terms of the payments are as
follows:
|
|
Other
than upon a Change in Control |
|
|
|
Upon
a Change in Control |
|
|
Three
years of base salary and bonus for Messrs. Cote, Anderson and Kittelberger
and 18 months of base salary and bonus for Messrs. Fradin and Kramvis. |
|
|
|
For
Messrs. Fradin and Kramvis, severance period is increased from 18 months
to two years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid in cash.
Paid in accordance
with our normal payroll practices. |
|
|
|
Amounts
are paid in a lump sum within 60 days following the later of the date
of termination or the change in control date. |
|
|
Bonus is equal to target percentage of base salary.
|
|
|
|
Bonus
is based on the average of the target percentages for the three years
before the year in which these benefits are determined, if greater
than target percentage for that year. |
|
|
Payment
conditioned upon a general release in favor of the Company, a non-compete
agreement (two years for Mr. Cote and the duration of the severance
period for other Named Executive Officers), non- disclosure and non-solicitation
covenants (two years for customers and two years for employees) and
the refraining from certain other misconduct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Bonus for
the Year of TerminationCash Payment
An annual bonus is payable to
Named Executive Officers for the year in which a change in control occurs. In addition, an annual bonus is payable to Mr. Cote if his
employment is terminated by the company without cause, by Mr. Cote for good reason, or upon his death. The amount and timing of the
payments are as follows:
|
|
Other
than upon a Change in Control |
|
|
|
Upon
a Change in Control |
|
|
Equal
to target times funding performance for corporate employees for the
year in which these benefits are determined, prorated through date
of termination (Mr. Cote only). |
|
|
|
Equal
to target for the year in which these benefits are determined, prorated
for full months of employment through the change in control date. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid
in cash at the time bonuses are typically paid to executives for the
year of termination (Mr. Cote only). |
|
|
|
If
the performance year ended prior to the change in control, then the
amount would be based on the performance for the year, if greater. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid
within 90 days of the change in control. |
58
Growth PlanCash
Payment
Growth plan awards are paid
out in the event of death, disability and change in control, as follows:
|
|
Other
than upon a Change in Control |
|
|
|
Upon
a Change in Control |
|
|
The
second installment of the 20072008 Growth Plan would be paid
out based on actual plan performance. The amount in the summary of
benefits table above reflects payouts based on actual plan performance. |
|
|
|
The
second installment of the 20072008 Growth Plan would be paid
out based on actual plan performance. The amount in the summary of
benefits table above reflects payouts based on actual plan performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits
are paid in the event of death or disability. |
|
|
|
Payment
would be made in a lump sum within 90 days of the change in control. |
Certain
Perquisites
Certain perquisites are
payable upon termination of employment without cause and, following a change in control, upon voluntary termination of employment by
a Named Executive Officer for good reason. For Mr. Kittelberger, these benefits are payable if his employment is terminated for good
reason,
without regard to the occurrence of a change in control. The amount and terms of these payments are as follows:
|
|
Other
than upon a Change in Control |
|
|
|
Upon
a Change in Control |
|
|
Life
insurance coverage is continued at the Companys cost for the
severance period. |
|
|
|
Funds
sufficient to pay all projected annual reimbursements needed to satisfy
the life insurance reimbursement agreement for Mr. Cote are set aside
in a trust for Mr. Cotes benefit. |
|
|
Medical
and dental benefits are continued during the severance period at active
employee contribution rates. |
|
|
|
|
59
All Other
Payments/Benefits
Unvested dividend equivalents
are vested and paid upon a change in control, death or disability. In addition, certain pension enhancements are provided upon change
in control, death, disability, involuntary termination of employment by us without cause and, following a change in control, upon
voluntary
termination of employment by a Named Executive Officer for good reason. For Mr. Kittelberger, certain enhancements are provided if
his employment is terminated for good reason, without regard to the occurrence of a change in control. These enhancements are as
follows:
|
|
Other
than upon a Change in Control |
|
|
|
Upon
a Change in Control |
|
|
Service
credit for pension purposes during the first 12 months of the severance
period; however, for Mr. Cote and Mr. Kittelberger, there is no incremental
value attributable to this credit because the benefit formula does
not include service as a component thereof (Mr. Cote), and because
of a required deferral in the commencement of the payment of the pension
(Mr. Kittelberger). |
|
|
|
Messrs.
Anderson and Kittelberger receive credit for an additional three years
of age and service credit for pension purposes.
Mr. Fradin
would be entitled to his contractual pension benefit.
Mr. Andersons
pension will be augmented by an additional annual amount of $50,000, commencing
August 1, 2011. |
|
|
In
the event Mr. Anderson is terminated other than for cause, his pension
will be augmented by an additional annual amount of $50,000, commencing
August 1, 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
the event of Mr. Cotes death, Mr. Cotes surviving spouse
is entitled to a survivor annuity, commencing on the date Mr. Cote
would have attained the age of 60, in an amount equal to 75% of Mr.
Cotes SERP benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
the event of Mr. Fradins death, Mr. Fradins surviving spouse
is entitled to a survivor annuity, commencing on the date Mr. Fradin
would have attained the age of 60, in an amount equal to 50% of Mr.
Fradins special SERP benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Reimbursement
U.S. tax laws may impose an
excise tax on employees who receive benefits in connection with a change in control in certain circumstances and subject to certain
conditions. Participants in the Companys severance plan as of December 31, 2009 are eligible to receive a tax gross-up with
respect to any such
excise tax. Effective January 1, 2010, new participants in the Companys severance plan are not eligible to receive this
benefit. For purposes of calculating the excise tax gross-up amounts set forth in the table above, non-competition
commitments by employees were assigned a value equal to the lesser of (i)
50% of one year of 2009 targeted compensation applied to a 2-year non-compete period, or (ii) the cash severance amount, consistent
with the Companys expectation about how tax would be calculated in the event of an actual change in control transaction.
Targeted compensation includes salary, target ICP
opportunity, and the value of actual long-term incentive compensation granted. For 2009, if the value of such commitments were not
taken into account in the excise tax calculation, the tax gross-up amounts would have been: David Cote: $14,670,802; David Anderson:
$3,323,713; Roger Fradin: $9,670,686;
Larry Kittelberger: $1,895,359; and Andreas Kramvis: $0.
Impact on Equity-Based Awards
This section describes the
impact of a termination of employment or a change in control on outstanding stock options, restricted stock units and performance
awards held by our Named
60
Executive Officers. Additional information about these awards is set forth
in the Outstanding Equity Awards Table on page 44 of this proxy statement.
Summary of Outstanding Award
Values
The following table sets forth
the value of outstanding unvested stock option, restricted stock units and performance share awards held by our Named Executive
Officers as of December 31, 2009, based on the closing price of a share of Common Stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on
that
date ($39.20).
These awards are scheduled to
vest and to expire on various dates in the future, subject to continued employment. As described below, the vesting of these awards
will be accelerated in certain termination of employment circumstances and upon a change in control. In addition, stock options will
remain
outstanding for different periods depending on the circumstances. The value to a Named Executive Officer of these provisions
depends on the vesting period and remaining terms of the awards. For example, the value to a Named Executive Officer of accelerating
the vesting of an option by one month is very
different from the value of accelerating the vesting of an option by three years. The table below does not distinguish between
acceleration of vesting in these two different circumstances, or assign a value to the other provisions. Rather, it only indicates
the aggregate amount of the awards to which these
provisions would apply at December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In-the-Money Value of Unvested Stock Options |
|
Unvested Value of Restricted Stock Units |
|
Unvested Value of Performance Shares at Target |
Mr.
Cote |
|
|
$ |
|
10,307,500 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
20,846,129 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
4,900,000 |
|
Mr.
Anderson |
|
|
$ |
|
2,983,750 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,075,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Fradin |
|
|
$ |
|
2,983,750 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
5,571,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Kittelberger |
|
|
$ |
|
2,441,250 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2,854,387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.
Kramvis |
|
|
$ |
|
1,898,750 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
3,574,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Gillette forfeited all
unvested awards as of his resignation.
Impact on Outstanding
Awards
The treatment of stock
options, restricted stock units and performance shares following termination of employment depends on the plan under which the awards
were granted, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
1993 Stock Plan for Employees of Honeywell International Inc. and its Affiliates. Following termination of employment,
participants (or their beneficiaries) have the following periods in which to exercise vested options: (i) the full remaining term if
termination is on account of death, disability, or an involuntary
termination after qualifying for early or normal retirement under a qualified defined benefit pension plan; (ii) three years in
the case of any other involuntary termination without cause; and (iii) 90 days if termination is voluntary without good reason. If an
employee dies, becomes disabled or terminates after
becoming eligible for normal retirement benefits under a qualified defined benefit plan, unvested options become vested. In
other circumstances, unvested options immediately lapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
2003 Stock Incentive Plan of Honeywell
International Inc. and its Affiliates. Following termination of employment, participants (or their beneficiaries) have the following
periods in which to exercise vested options: (i) three years in the event of death, disability or a voluntary or involuntary
termination (other
than for cause) after qualifying for early retirement (age 55 and 10 years of service) or full
retirement (age 60 and 10 years of service); (ii) one year in the case of any other involuntary termination without cause; and
(iii) 30 days in the case of a voluntary termination without good reason. If an employee
dies, becomes disabled or retires after meeting the requirements of full retirement, unvested options become vested. Restricted
stock units become vested upon full retirement, death, disability or a change in control. In other circumstances, unvested options
and restricted stock units immediately lapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Stock Incentive Plan of Honeywell
International Inc. and its Affiliates. The rules under this plan are the same as under the 2003 Stock Incentive Plan described above,
except that for |
61
|
|
|
|
stock options granted after 2006 full retirement will not result in vesting acceleration, with the effect that unvested options
immediately lapse following full retirement. Similarly, instead of full vesting, restricted stock units awarded after 2006 vest
pro-rata based on the number of complete years of service
between the grant date and the retirement date. |
|
|
|
|
|
Under each of the foregoing plans, unvested
stock options and restricted stock units vest upon a change in control. Performance shares vest at target upon a change in control.
Restricted stock units and performance shares that vest upon a change in control shall be paid out within 90 days (subject to any
existing deferral elections). |
|
|
|
|
|
For Mr. Cote, stock options and restricted
stock units continue to remain outstanding and vest as scheduled if his employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause
or by him for good reason. In addition, Mr. Cotes unvested options and restricted stock units vest immediately if he dies or
becomes disabled. For Mr. Kittelberger, stock options and restricted stock units continue to vest as scheduled following a
termination of his employment for good reason. Mr. Fradin received a special grant of 203,000 restricted stock units in 2007.
Pursuant to Mr. Fradins grant agreement, if his
employment is terminated by the Company other than for cause or by virtue of his death or disability, such restricted stock
units shall vest immediately and shall be paid out as soon as practicable (subject to any existing deferral election). In the event
of a change in control, such restricted stock units shall
vest immediately and shall be paid out within 90 days of the change in control (subject to any existing deferral election). In
such case, the amount to be paid out shall be determined by multiplying the number of restricted stock units by the greater of the
highest price paid by the acquiring entity, or the
highest trading price for the 90-day period ending on the change in control date.
|
Defined Terms Used in This
Section
As used in our plans, the
following terms are assigned the meanings summarized below.
|
|
|
Term |
|
Summary of Definition |
Change in control |
|
(a) the acquisition of 30% or more of Common Stock; (b) the purchase of all or part of Common Stock pursuant to a tender offer
or exchange offer; (c) a merger where Honeywell does not survive as an independent, publicly-owned corporation; (d) a sale of
substantially all of Honeywells
assets; or (e) a substantial change in Honeywells Board over a two year period. |
|
Termination for
cause (for Mr. Cote) |
|
(a) in carrying out his duties, Mr. Cote engages in conduct that constitutes willful gross neglect or gross misconduct
resulting in material economic harm to Honeywell; or (b) Mr. Cote is convicted of a felony. |
|
Termination for
gross cause (for
Mr.Kittelberger) |
|
(a) fraud, misappropriation of Honeywell property, or intentional misconduct that is damaging to us or our businesses; or (b)
the commission of a crime. |
|
Termination for
gross cause (for
other named
executive officers) |
|
(a) clear and convincing evidence of a significant violation of the Companys Code of Business Conduct; (b) the
misappropriation, embezzlement or willful destruction of Company property of significant value; (c)(i) the willful failure to
perform, (ii) gross negligence in the performance of, or
(iii) intentional misconduct in the performance of, significant duties that results in material harm to the business of the
Company; (d) the conviction (treating a nolo contendere plea as a conviction) of a felony (whether or not any right to appeal has
been or may be exercised); or (e) clear
and convincing evidence of the willful falsification of any financial records of the Company that are used in compiling the
Companys financial statements or related disclosures, with the intent of violating Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or,
if applicable, International Financial
Reporting Standards. |
62
|
|
|
Term |
|
Summary of Definition |
|
Termination for good
reason (for Mr. Cote) |
|
(a) the Board assigns Mr. Cote duties that are inconsistent with the duties associated with his position as Chairman of the
Board and CEO of the Company; (b) the failure of Mr. Cote to be retained as Honeywells Chairman of the Board and CEO; (c) any
significant diminution of Mr. Cotes
position, authority, duties or responsibilities; (d) the failure of the Company to have any successor entity expressly assume
Honeywells obligations under Mr. Cotes employment agreement; (e) the occurrence of acts or conduct by the Company, the
Board or our officers, representatives
or stockholders that prevent Mr. Cote from, or substantively hinder him in, performing his duties or responsibilities under his
employment agreement; (d) any material breach of Mr. Cotes employment agreement by the Company that goes unremedied; (e) the
provision of notice by the
Company to Mr. Cote that his employment agreement will not be extended; or (f) any other action that would be considered
Good Reason under the Senior Severance Plan. |
|
Termination for good
reason (for other
named executive
officers) |
|
(a) a material diminution in the Named Executive Officers authority, duties or responsibilities; (b) a material decrease
in base compensation; (c) a material reduction in the aggregate benefits available to the Named Executive Officer where such
reduction does not apply to all similarly-
situated employees; (d) any geographic relocation of the Named Executive Officers position to a location that is more
than 50 miles from his or her previous work location; (e) any action that constitutes a constructive discharge; or (f) the failure of
a successor to assume these obligations
under the Senior Severance Plan. |
|
|
|
For Mr. Kittelberger, good reason shall also include (a) any significant reduction in incentive compensation target or certain
other types of benefits; (b) any change in Mr. Kittelbergers direct reporting relationship to Honeywells CEO; or (c) the
removal of Mr. Kittelberger from the
Honeywell Leadership Council other than for cause. |
63
AUDIT
COMMITTEE REPORT
The Audit Committee consists
of the six directors named below. Each member of the Audit Committee is an independent director as defined by applicable SEC rules
and NYSE listing standards. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Davis is the audit committee financial
expert as
defined by applicable SEC rules and that Mr. Davis, Ms. Deily and Mr. Paz satisfy the accounting or related financial
management expertise criteria established by the NYSE. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the
Board of Directors, which is available free of charge on our
website under the heading Investor Relations (see Corporate GovernanceBoard Committees),
or by writing to Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, New Jersey 07962, c/o Vice President and Corporate
Secretary.
Management is responsible for
the Companys internal controls and preparing the Companys consolidated financial statements. The Companys
independent accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), are responsible for performing an independent audit of the
consolidated financial statements in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and issuing a report thereon. The
Committee is responsible for overseeing the conduct of these activities and, subject to shareowner ratification, appointing the
Companys independent accountants. As stated
above and in the Committees charter, the Committees responsibility is one of oversight. The Committee does not provide
any expert or special assurance as to Honeywells financial statements concerning compliance with laws, regulations or generally
accepted accounting principles. In performing its oversight
function, the Committee relies, without independent verification, on the information provided to it and on representations made by
management and the independent accountants.
The Audit Committee reviewed
and discussed the Companys consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 with management and the
independent accountants. Management represented to the Audit Committee that the Companys consolidated financial statements were
prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Audit Committee discussed with the independent accountants matters
required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standard No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees, as amended, and as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board. The Committee also reviewed, and discussed with management and PwC, managements report and PwCs report
and attestation on internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The Companys independent
accountants provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountants communications with the audit committee concerning
independence, and the
Committee discussed with the independent accountants their independence. The Audit Committee concluded that PwCs provision of
non-audit services, as described in the following section of this proxy statement, to the Company and its affiliates is compatible
with PwCs independence.
Based on the Audit
Committees discussion with management and the independent accountants and the Audit Committees review of the
representations of management and the report of the independent accountants, the Committee recommended that the Board of Directors
include the audited consolidated
financial statements in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the SEC.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
D. Scott Davis (Chair)
Kevin Burke
Linnet
Deily
George Paz
John R. Stafford
Michael W. Wright
64
Proposal
No. 2: APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
The Audit Committee, which
consists entirely of independent directors, is recommending approval of its appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent
accountants for Honeywell to audit its consolidated financial statements for 2010 and to perform audit-related services, including
review of our
quarterly interim financial information and periodic reports and registration statements filed with the SEC and consultation in
connection with various accounting and financial reporting matters. If the shareowners do not approve, the Audit Committee will
reconsider the appointment.
PwC provided audit and other
services during 2009 and 2008 as set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions of $) |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
Audit Fees |
|
|
$ |
|
24.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
26.4 |
|
|
Annual audit of the Companys consolidated financial statements, including Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 work, statutory
audits of foreign subsidiaries, attest services, consents, issuance of comfort letters and review of documents filed with the
SEC. |
Audit-Related Fees |
|
|
$ |
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
2.6 |
|
|
Audit-related services primarily associated with the Companys merger and acquisition activity, audits of stand-alone
financial statements of subsidiaries and employee benefit plan audits. |
Tax Fees |
|
|
$ |
|
6.7 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
6.3 |
|
|
Tax compliance services were $5.9 in 2009 and $5.0 in 2008, relating primarily to federal and international income tax
compliance, value-added taxes and sales and use tax compliance. Tax consultation and planning services were $0.8 in 2009 and $1.3 in
2008, relating
primarily to reorganizations. |
All Other Fees |
|
|
$ |
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
0.0 |
|
|
These fees represent accounting research software and other services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fees |
|
|
$ |
|
34.0 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
35.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with its
charter, the Audit Committee reviews non-audit services proposed to be provided by PwC to determine whether they would be compatible
with maintaining PwCs independence. The Audit Committee has established policies and procedures for the engagement of PwC to
provide non-
audit services. The Audit Committee reviews and approves an annual budget for specific categories of non-audit services (that are
detailed as to the particular services) which PwC is to be permitted to provide (those categories do not include any of the
prohibited services set forth under the auditor independence
provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). This review includes an evaluation of the possible impact of the provision of such
services by PwC on the firms independence in performing its audit and audit-related services. On a quarterly basis, the Audit
Committee reviews the non-audit services performed by,
and amount of fees paid to, PwC, by category in comparison to the pre-approved budget. The engagement of PwC to provide non-audit
services that do not fall within a specific category of pre-approved services, or that would result in the total fees payable to PwC
in any category exceeding the approved
budgeted amount, requires the prior approval of the Audit Committee. Between regularly scheduled meetings of the Audit Committee,
the Chair of the Committee may represent the entire Committee for purposes of the review and approval of any such engagement, and the
Chair is required to report on all such
interim reviews at the Committees next regularly scheduled meeting.
Honeywell has been advised by
PwC that it will have a representative present at the Annual Meeting who will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The
representative will also have the opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so.
The Board of Directors
recommends that the shareowners vote FOR the approval of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent
accountants.
65
Proposal
No. 3: AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION-RIGHT TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF
SHAREOWNERS
Honeywells Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation currently provides that special meetings of shareowners may be called by the CEO, a majority of
the Board of Directors or the holders of 25% or more of the outstanding shares of Honeywell Common Stock. After consideration of a
shareowner
proposal presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting which sought a lower minimum ownership threshold for shareowners to be able to call
special meetings, as well as the current and emerging practices of other large companies, the Board of Directors has determined that
the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation should be amended to allow holders of 20% or more of the outstanding shares of Honeywell Common Stock (excluding
derivatives) to call a special meeting of shareowners and has unanimously adopted resolutions approving such amendment, declaring
their advisability and recommending
approval of this amendment to our shareowners.
While the proposed reduction
in the minimum ownership threshold is not as great as that sought in last years shareowner proposal (to 10%), the Board
believes that the 20% threshold strikes an appropriate balance between enhancing shareowner rights while not providing a mechanism
for individual
shareowners to pursue special interests that are not in the best interests of the Company and its shareowners in general. The
proposed threshold is also consistent with the proposition that special meetings should be limited to extraordinary matters and/or
significant strategic concerns that require attention prior
to the next annual meeting. The exclusion of derivative securities from the determination of satisfaction of the prescribed
ownership threshold will ensure that the shareowners seeking to call a special meeting have a true economic interest in the
Company.
The Board also believes that
the ownership threshold should be evaluated in light of the Companys overall corporate governance and the practices of other
comparable companies. The accountability of directors to the Companys shareowners has been enhanced through the
declassification of the Board
(resulting in annual election of all directors) and the adoption of majority voting in the election of directors. The Company has
also eliminated the supermajority voting provisions contained in its Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws, amended its By-laws to
provide for shareowner approval of poison pills, and
provided for the recoupment of incentive compensation in the event of a significant restatement. Over half of the S&P 500
companies do not permit shareowners to call special meetings and approximately 70% of the ones that do have prescribed minimum
ownership thresholds of 25% or more.
The affirmative vote of
shareowners holding at least a majority of the shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding as of the record date is required for
approval of this proposal. All abstentions, broker non-votes and failures to return a proxy card will have the same effect as a vote
against this proposal.
The proposed amendment to
Honeywells Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (Amendment) is set forth in the Appendix to this proxy statement.
If this proposal is approved by the requisite vote of shareowners, the Amendment will be filed with the State of Delaware.
The Board of Directors has
adopted a corresponding amendment to the By-laws of the Company which would become effective upon shareowner approval of this
proposal.
The Board of Directors
unanimously recommends a vote FOR this proposal.
66
Proposal
No. 4: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
As described in the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement, the Companys executive compensation program promotes a
performance-based culture and aligns the interests of shareowners and executives through variable, at-risk compensation tied to an
appropriate balance
of near-term and long-term objectives. The program is also designed to attract and retain highly-talented executives who are
critical to the successful implementation of the Companys strategic plan.
Incentive compensation (cash
and equity) generally represents 7590% of each executive officers target compensation opportunity. The program emphasizes
long-term incentive compensation elements that are designed to appropriately reward executives for actions taken to invest in
long-term growth and
productivity throughout the business cycle.
In light of the difficult
global economic and industry conditions that persisted throughout 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
manager-level and above employees did not receive merit increases in base salary; |
|
|
|
|
|
executive officers did not receive any
incentive cash bonus awards for 2009; and |
|
|
|
|
|
executive officers experienced significant
year-over-year declines in total compensation.
|
The Management Development and
Compensation Committee regularly reviews best practices in corporate governance and executive compensation and in recent years has
revised Honeywells policies and practices to:
|
|
|
|
|
eliminate tax reimbursement payments (known as tax gross-ups) on both perquisites received by officers and excise
taxes that may become due upon a change in control for new participants in the Companys severance plan (in each case, effective
January 1, 2010); |
|
|
|
|
|
lengthen the vesting periods for equity
grants; |
|
|
|
|
|
require officers to maintain
specific stock ownership levels; |
|
|
|
|
|
require automatic reinvestment of dividend equivalents on restricted stock units into additional restricted stock units, which are only paid out upon vesting; |
|
|
|
|
|
eliminate the annual cash flexible
perquisite allowance for executive officers; |
|
|
|
|
|
reduce the interest rate on deferred
compensation by tying it to the Companys cost of capital; |
|
|
|
|
|
permit the recapture of incentive compensation in the event of a significant restatement; |
|
|
|
|
|
permit the cancellation and recovery of
equity awards from employees who leave the Company to join a competitor; and |
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit the Committees independent
compensation consultant from performing any services for the Company.
|
For the reasons discussed
above, the Board recommends that shareowners vote in favor of the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the
shareowners approve the overall executive pay-for-performance compensation policies and procedures of the Company, as described in
the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the tabular and narrative disclosure regarding Named Executive Officer compensation
contained in
this proxy statement.
Because the vote is advisory,
it will not be binding upon the Board. The Management Development and Compensation Committee will take into account the outcome of
the vote when considering future executive compensation arrangements.
The Board of Directors
recommends a vote FOR this proposal.
67
SHAREOWNER PROPOSALS
Shareowners have given
Honeywell notice of their intention to introduce the following proposals for consideration and action by the shareowners at the
Annual Meeting. The respective proponents have provided the proposed resolutions and accompanying statements and Honeywell is not
responsible for any
inaccuracies contained therein. For the reasons stated below, the Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST each of these
proposals.
Proposal
No. 5: SHAREHOLDER ACTION BY WRITTEN CONSENT
This proposal has been
submitted by John Chevedden, 2215 Nelson Ave., No. 205 Redondo Beach, Calif. 90278 (the beneficial owner of 100 shares of Common
Stock).
RESOLVED, Shareholders hereby
request that our board of directors undertake such steps as may be necessary to permit the shareholders to act by the written consent
of a majority of our shares outstanding.
Taking action by written
consent in lieu of a meeting is a mechanism shareholders can use to raise important matters outside the normal annual meeting
cycle.
Limitations on
shareholders rights to act by written consent are considered takeover defenses because they may impede the ability of a bidder
to succeed in completing a profitable transaction or obtaining control of the board that could result in a higher stock price.
Although it is not necessarily anticipated
that a bidder will materialize, that very possibility represents a powerful incentive for improved management of our
company.
A 2001 study by Harvard
professor Paul Gompers provides support for the concept that shareholder dis-empowering governance features, including restrictions
on shareholders ability to act by written consent, are significantly correlated to a reduction in shareholder value.
Please encourage our board to
respond positively to this proposal to enable shareholder action by written consentYes on 5.
Board of Directors
RecommendationThe Board of Directors recommends that the shareowners vote AGAINST this proposal for the following
reasons:
The Board believes that
adoption of this proposal regarding shareowner action by written consent is unnecessary in light of the ability of shareowners to
call special meetings and that adoption of the proposal would not be in the best interests of shareowners.
Shareowners have the right to
call special meetings of shareowners if certain ownership and disclosure requirements are met. These requirements guard against the
exertion of undue influence by individual shareowners in pursuit of special interests that may be inconsistent with the long-term
best interests
of the Company and shareowners in general. The Board believes that this approach strikes the right balance between the rights of
shareowners to have a voice in driving the Companys governance, on the one hand, and protecting against abusive actions that
may be detrimental to shareowner interests, on the
other.
The prohibition against
shareowner action by written consent is also designed to encourage a party making an unsolicited bid for Honeywell to negotiate with
the Board to reach terms that are fair and in the best interests of all Honeywell shareowners. The Board weighs diligently and
thoroughly the merits of
takeover offers and is in the best position to evaluate the adequacy and fairness of such offers, to negotiate on behalf of all
shareowners and to protect shareowners from abusive tactics during a takeover process. The Board believes that the prohibition
against shareowner action by written consent is a critical
tool in that setting that helps protect and increase shareowner value.
The Board believes that the
need for adoption of this proposal should be evaluated in the context of the Companys overall corporate governance. The
accountability of directors to the Companys shareowners has been enhanced through the declassification of the Board (resulting
in the annual election of the
directors) and the adoption of majority voting in the election of directors. The Company has also eliminated the supermajority
voting provisions contained in its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws, amended its By-laws to provide for
shareowner approval of
68
poison pills, and
amended its Corporate Governance Guidelines to provide for the recoupment
of incentive compensation in the event of a significant restatement. In addition,
in 2008, the Company amended its Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
By-laws to allow for holders of at least 25% of the outstanding stock of
the Company to call a special meeting of shareowners. The Company is introducing
a proposal on page 66 of this proxy statement to amend its Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation to further reduce the ownership threshold for
shareowners to call special meetings.
Given the actions that
Honeywell has taken over the last several years and is currently taking to protect shareowner value, increase shareowner rights and
ensure director accountability, the Board believes that adoption of this proposal would not add significant value to the
Companys growth or performance
or to shareowners interests and instead would have the detrimental effect of providing the means for short-term or individual
shareowners to act in their own self interest by advocating proposals that neither enhance shareowner value nor advance the interests
of shareowners as a whole.
For the reasons stated
above, your Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.
Proposal
No. 6: INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN
This proposal has been
submitted by Laborers National Pension Fund, P.O. Box 803415, Dallas, Texas 75380-3415 (the beneficial owner of 8,700 shares of
Common Stock)
RESOLVED: That stockholders of
Honeywell International, Inc., (Honeywell or the Company) ask the board of directors to adopt a policy that
the boards chairman be an independent director who has not previously served as an executive officer of Honeywell. The policy
should be implemented so as not
to violate any contractual obligation. The policy should also specify (a) how to select a new independent chairman if a current
chairman ceases to be independent during the time between annual meetings of shareholders; and, (b) that compliance with the policy
is excused if no independent director is available
and willing to serve as chairman.
Supporting Statement
It is the responsibility of
the Board of Directors to protect shareholders long-term interests by providing independent oversight of management, including
the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), in directing the corporations business and affairs. Currently at our Company, Mr. David Cote
holds both the positions of
Chairman of the Board and CEO. We believe that this current scheme may not adequately protect shareholders.
Shareholders of Honeywell
require an independent leader to ensure that management acts strictly in the best interests of the Company. By setting agendas,
priorities and procedures, the position of Chairman is critical in shaping the work of the Board of Directors. Accordingly, we
believe that having an
independent director serve as chairman can help ensure the objective functioning of an effective Board.
As a long-term shareholder of
our Company, we believe that ensuring that the Chairman of the Board of our Company is independent, will enhance Board leadership at
Honeywell, and protect shareholders from future management actions that can harm shareholders. Other corporate governance experts
agree. As a Commission of The Conference Board stated in a 2003 report, The ultimate responsibility for good corporate
governance rests with the board of directors. Only a strong, diligent and independent board of directors that understands the key
issues, provides wise counsel and asks management the
tough questions is capable of ensuring that the interests of shareowners as well as other constituencies are being properly
served.
We believe that the recent
wave of corporate scandals demonstrates that no matter how many independent directors there are on the Board, that Board is less able
to provide independent oversight of the officers if the Chairman of that Board is also the CEO of the Company.
We, therefore, urge
shareholders to vote FOR this proposal.
69
Board of Directors
RecommendationThe Board of Directors recommends that the shareowners vote AGAINST this proposal for the following
reasons:
The Board believes that it is
desirable to have the flexibility to decide whether the roles of Chairman of the Board and CEO should be combined or separate in
light of the Companys circumstances from time to time. This is a matter that the Board addresses as part of CEO succession
planning, which the
Board believes is the most logical time to consider the question. This principle is embodied in Honeywells Corporate
Governance Guidelines, which provide as follows:
Selection of Chairman
and CEO. The Company has no fixed rule as to whether these offices should be vested in the same person or two different people,
or whether the Chairman should be an employee of the Company or should be elected from among the non-employee directors. The Board
believes that
this issue is part of the succession planning process and that it is in the best interests of the Company to make such a
determination when it elects a new CEO.
We agree with the proponent
that a strong, diligent and independent board of directors understands the key issues, provides wise counsel and asks management the
tough questions for the benefit of the interests of the shareowners. Accordingly, the Board and the Corporate Governance and
Responsibility
Committee have assembled a board consisting of accomplished individuals with relevant experience who constructively challenge
management through their active participation in Board and Committee meetings. Ten of the 11 current directors are independent as
defined by the NYSE listing standards. In
addition, all of the Boards committees consist entirely of independent, non-employee directors.
As discussed earlier in this
proxy statement in the section entitled Board Leadership Structure, at the present time, the Board believes that it is in
the best interest of Honeywell and its shareowners to be led by Mr. Cote as both Chairman of the Board and CEO. Mr. Cote possesses
detailed and in-depth
knowledge of the issues, opportunities and challenges facing the Company and its businesses and is thus best positioned to develop
agendas that ensure that the Boards time and attention are focused on the most critical matters.
In addition to feedback
provided during the course of Board meetings, the independent directors have regular executive sessions. Directors serve as the
chairperson, or presiding director, for these executive sessions on a rotating basis (meeting-by-meeting) in accordance with years of
service on the Board.
The Company believes that this approach effectively encourages full engagement of all directors in executive sessions, while
avoiding unnecessary hierarchy. Following an executive session of independent directors, the presiding director acts as a liaison
between the independent directors and the Chairman
regarding any specific feedback or issues, provides the Chairman with input regarding agenda items for Board and Committee
meetings, and coordinates with the Chairman regarding information to be provided to the independent directors in performing their
duties. The Board believes that this approach
appropriately and effectively complements the combined CEO/Chairman structure.
As stated above, although the
Company believes that the combination of the Chairman and CEO roles is appropriate in the current circumstances, Honeywells
Corporate Governance Guidelines do not establish this approach as a policy, but as a matter that is part of succession planning for
the Chief
Executive Officer position. The Board believes that the absence of a fixed rule provides it with the flexibility to determine that
the most effective Board leadership structure is in place given then-current circumstances. Shareholders previously rejected prior
shareowner proposals on this topic in 2003 and 2005.
For the reasons stated
above, your Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.
Proposal
No. 7: HUMAN RIGHTSDEVELOP & ADOPT POLICIES
This proposal has been
submitted by The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church (co-sponsored with The Church Pension Fund), 815
Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017-4503 (the beneficial owner of 31,850 shares of Common Stock)
WHEREAS, Honeywell, as a
global corporation, faces increasingly complex problems as the international social and cultural context within which it operates
changes.
70
Companies are faced with ethical and legal
challenges arising from diverse cultures and political and economic contexts. Today, management must address issues that include
human rights, workers rights to organize and bargain collectively, non-discrimination in the workplace, protection of the
environment, and sustainable community development. Honeywell itself does business in numerous countries, some of which have
significant human rights challenges.
We believe global companies
must implement comprehensive codes of conduct, such as those found in Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility:
Bench Marks for Measuring Business Performance, developed by an international group of religious investors (April, 2003,
www.bench-marks.org) Companies must formulate policies that reduce risks to their
reputations in the global marketplace.
In August 2003, the United
Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights took historic action by adopting Norms on the
Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights
(www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/NormsApril2003.html). We believe significant commercial advantages may accrue to our company by
adopting a comprehensive human rights policy based on the UN Norms, serving to enhance corporate reputation, improve employee
recruitment and retention, improve
community and stakeholder relations and reduce risk of adverse publicity, consumer boycotts, divestment campaigns and
lawsuits.
RESOLVED, the shareholders
request the Board of Directors to review and amend, where applicable, Honeywells Code of Business Conduct to include human
rights as a guide for its international and U.S. operations. We request a summary of this review by October 2010 and suggest it be
posted on the
companys website.
Supporting
Statement: Honeywells current policy, the Code of Business Conduct, contains no references to existing international human rights codes,
and does not address the broad range of human rights issues that global companies increasingly face. We believe that our
companys policies should reflect
a more comprehensive understanding of human rights, and these policies should be periodically reviewed and updated. The
companys current Code of Business Conduct was approved in January 2003, and the issue of corporations and human rights has
progressed significantly since then.
We recommend the review
include policies designed to protect human rightscivil, political, social, environmental, cultural and economicbased on
internationally recognized human rights standards. We particularly urge attention to harassment or discrimination against women and
other forms of violence in the
workplace, as well as the rights of minorities. We believe the review also should take note of the International Labor
Organizations Core Labor Standards, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, United Nations resolutions, and reports of UN special rapporteurs on countries
where Honeywell does business. This review and report will assure shareholders that our companys policies and practices reflect
and conform to human rights conventions and
guidelines and international law.
Board of Directors
RecommendationThe Board of Directors recommends that the shareowners vote AGAINST this proposal for the following
reasons:
Honeywell takes seriously its
commitment to corporate social responsibility, specifically human rights practices, anti-discrimination protection in the workplace
and support of the community, locally as well as globally. Honeywells Code of Business Conduct, which is available on the
Companys website,
applies across Honeywell in all businesses and in all countries and outlines Honeywells pledge to recognize the dignity of
each individual, respect each employee, provide compensation and benefits that are competitive, promote self-development through
training that broadens work-related skills, and value
diversity of perspectives and ideas.
Honeywells Code of
Business Conduct, which has been translated into twenty languages, in conjunction with Honeywells established corporate
policies, establish practices and standards that address a broad range of human rights and workplace issues that global companies
increasingly face. For example,
the Code of Business Conduct includes the following policies and guidelines:
|
|
|
|
|
If there is a conflict between local laws, customs or practices on the one hand and the Code on the other, the employee must
follow the stricter requirement.
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
Common standards for the Companys worldwide operations are designed to promote a healthy environment, an all-inclusive
work culture, full participation and diversity. Honeywell aims to provide challenging, meaningful and rewarding opportunities for
personal and professional growth to all employees
without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, age, pregnancy, religion, veteran
status, national origin or any other legally protected status. |
|
|
|
|
|
All forms of harassment related to gender,
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, age, pregnancy, religion, veteran status, national origin or any
other legally protected status are prohibited. In addition, Honeywell has a strict sexual harassment policy banning such conduct and a
complaint procedure available to employees to report any such incidences. |
|
|
|
|
|
Honeywell will not employ child labor, even
if local law allows the employment of people younger than sixteen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Honeywell does not interfere in the
personal lives of its employees unless their conduct impairs their work performance or adversely affects the work environment or
reputation of the Company. (Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 12) |
|
|
|
|
|
Honeywell employees are free to make
individual personal contributions to candidates of their choice. (Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art.
21) |
|
|
|
|
|
Honeywell complies with all applicable
health, safety and environmental laws and regulations in countries and communities in which it operates, and, where those standards
are considered inadequate, Honeywell follows its own, more rigorous standards.
|
In addition, Honeywell is
committed to health, safety, and the environment, and to creating Sustainable Opportunity everywhere it operates. Honeywells
Sustainable Opportunity policy is based on the principle that by integrating health, safety and environmental considerations into all
aspects of its business,
Honeywell protects its people and the environment, achieves sustainable growth and accelerated productivity, drives compliance with
all applicable regulations and develops the technologies that expand the sustainable capacity of our world. Further detail on
Honeywells Sustainable Opportunity Policy is
available on the Companys website.
The Company demonstrates its
commitment to corporate giving and community involvement through its Honeywell Hometown Solutions programs, focused on four important
societal needs that align with Honeywells culture, products and people: Science and Math Education, Family Safety and Security,
Housing and Shelter, and Humanitarian Relief. These programs have delivered results in communities around the world, including
teaching children potentially life-saving lessons to help prevent abduction and common childhood accidents, repairing homes and
community centers for low-income, elderly and
disabled individuals, launching academic programs designed to inspire students to pursue careers in Science and Technology, and
helping Honeywell employees and communities recover from natural disasters such as the Haitian and Sichuan Earthquakes, the Asian
Tsunami and Gulf Coast hurricanes.
In light of the established
policies and ongoing programs and initiatives described above, which are specifically relevant to the Company, the Board does not
believe that implementation of this proposal is necessary as the concerns raised by the proponent are being addressed in a meaningful
way by the
Companys current Code of Business Conduct and corporate policies.
For the reasons stated
above, your Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.
[NOTE: We have filed a no-action request
with the SEC seeking to exclude a shareowner proposal on restricting CEO service on compensation committees. If the SEC denies this
request, we will prepare a response recommending against adoption of this proposal.]
72
OTHER
INFORMATION
Shareowner Proposals for 2011 Annual
Meeting
|
|
|
|
|
In order for a shareowner proposal to be considered for inclusion in Honeywells proxy statement for the 2011 Annual
Meeting pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the SEC, the proposal must be received at the Companys offices no later than the close of
business on November 12, 2010. Proposals submitted
thereafter will be opposed as not timely filed. |
|
|
|
|
|
If a shareowner intends to present a
proposal for consideration at the 2011 Annual Meeting outside the processes of SEC Rule 14a-8, Honeywell must receive notice of such
proposal not earlier than December 28, 2010 and not later than January 27, 2011. Otherwise the proposal will be considered
untimely under Honeywells By-laws. The notice must contain a brief description of the proposal, the reasons for
conducting such business, the name and address of the shareowner and the number of shares of Honeywells common stock the
shareowner beneficially owns, and any material interest of the
shareowner in such business, all as provided in Honeywells By-laws. If this information is not supplied as provided in
Honeywells By-laws, the proposal will not be considered at the 2011 Annual Meeting. In addition, Honeywells proxies will
have discretionary voting authority on any vote with respect to
such proposal, if presented at the meeting, without including information regarding the proposal in its proxy
materials.
|
Any shareowner who wishes to
submit a shareowner proposal should send it to the Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morris
Township, New Jersey 07962.
Director Nominations
Honeywells By-laws
provide that any shareowner of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting who intends to make a nomination for director, must
notify the Corporate Secretary of Honeywell in writing not more than 120 days and not less than 90 days prior to the first
anniversary of the preceding years
annual meeting. The notice must meet other requirements contained in the By-laws, a copy of which can be obtained from the
Corporate Secretary of Honeywell at the address set forth above.
Expenses of Solicitation
Honeywell pays the cost of
preparing, assembling and mailing this proxy-soliciting material. In addition to the use of the mail, proxies may be solicited by
Honeywell officers and employees by telephone or other means of communication. Honeywell pays all costs of solicitation, including
certain expenses of
brokers and nominees who mail proxy material to their customers or principals. In addition, Georgeson & Company Inc. has been
retained to assist in the solicitation of proxies for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareowners at a fee of approximately $13,000 plus
associated costs and expenses.
By Order of the Board of
Directors,
Thomas F. Larkins
Vice President
and Corporate Secretary
March 11, 2010
73
APPENDIX
Proposed Amendment to Honeywells
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to Reduce the Ownership Threshold For Shareowners to Call a Special
Meeting
The text of the proposed amendment is marked
to reflect the proposed changes.
The sixth paragraph of Article
EIGHTH of Honeywells Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to read as follows:
Except as otherwise required by law and subject
to the rights of the holders of the Preferred Stock pursuant to the provisions of this Certificate of Incorporation, special meetings
of stockholders may be called only by (i) the Chief Executive Officer, (ii) the Board of Directors pursuant to a resolution approved
by a
majority of the then authorized number of Directors of the corporation (as determined in accordance with the By-laws), or (iii) the
written request of the holders having an aggregate net long
position of not less than twenty-five percent of the outstanding shares of the Corporations
common stockCommon Stock as of the date of such request (Special
Meeting Request), filed with the Secretary of the Corporation and otherwise in accordance with the By-laws. Net long position shall be determined with respect to each requesting holder in
accordance with the definition thereof set forth in Rule 14e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provided that (x) for
purposes of such definition, in determining such holders short position, the reference in such
Rule to the date the tender offer is first publicly announced or otherwise made known by the bidder to the holders of the
security to be acquired shall be the date of the relevant Special Meeting Request and the reference to the highest tender
offer price or stated amount of the consideration offered for the
subject security shall refer to the closing sales price of the Corporations common stock on the New York Stock Exchange
on such date (or, if such date is not a trading day, the next succeeding trading day) and (y) the net long position of such holder
shall be reduced by the number of shares as to which such
holder does not, or will not, have the right to vote or direct the vote at the Special Meeting or as to which such holder has
entered into any derivative or other agreement, arrangement or understanding that hedges or transfers, in whole or in part, directly
or indirectly, any of the economic consequences of
ownership of such shares. Whether the requesting holders have complied with the requirements of this Article and related provisions
of the By-laws shall be determined in good faith by the Board, which determination shall be conclusive and binding on the Corporation
and the stockholders.
A-1
DIRECTIONS TO HONEYWELLS
HEADQUARTERS
101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, N.J.
From Rte. 80 (East or West) and Rte. 287 South:
Take Rte. 80 to Rte. 287 South to Exit 37 (Rte.
24 EastSpringfield). Follow Rte. 24 East to Exit 2A (Rte. 510 WestMorristown), which exits onto Columbia Road. At second
traffic light, make left into Honeywell.
From Rte. 287 North:
Take Rte. 287 North to Exit 37 (Rte. 24
EastSpringfield). Follow Rte. 24 East to Exit 2A (Rte. 510 WestMorristown), which exits onto Columbia Road. At second
traffic light, make left into Honeywell.
From Newark International Airport:
Take Rte. 78 West to Rte. 24 West
(SpringfieldMorristown). Follow Rte. 24 West to Exit 2A (Rte. 510 WestMorristown), which exits onto Columbia Road. At
second traffic light, make left into Honeywell.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
MORRIS TOWNSHIP, NJ 07962
|
VOTE BY
INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com
|
Use the Internet to transmit
your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information. Have
your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the
instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting
instruction form. Please see the reverse side of this card for specific
voting cutoff information.
|
|
ELECTRONIC
DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS
|
If you would like to reduce the
costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials,
you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and
annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic
delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet
and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials
electronically in future years.
|
|
VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903
|
Use any touch-tone telephone to
transmit your voting instructions. Have your proxy card in hand when you call
and then follow the instructions. Please see the reverse side of this card
for specific voting cutoff information.
|
|
VOTE BY MAIL
|
Mark, sign and date your proxy
card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it
to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood,
NY 11717.
|
|
|
|
|
TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN
BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:
|
|
|
|
M18748-P87892-Z51470-Z51471
|
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
|
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
|
THIS PROXY CARD IS
VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.
|
DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Election of
Directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board of
Directors recommends a vote
|
FOR
|
|
|
|
|
Nominees (A) through
(J).
|
ê
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.
|
Gordon M. Bethune
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
Kevin Burke
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
|
Jaime Chico Pardo
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
|
David M. Cote
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.
|
D. Scott Davis
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
|
Linnet F. Deily
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.
|
Clive R. Hollick
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.
|
George Paz
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
|
Bradley T. Sheares
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.
|
Michael W. Wright
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For address changes and/or comments,
please check this box and write them on the back where indicated.
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please indicate if you plan to
attend this meeting
|
o
|
|
o
|
|
|
|
|
Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN
BOX]
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board of
Directors recommends a vote |
FOR |
|
|
|
|
|
Proposals (2)
through (4). |
ê |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For |
|
Against |
|
Abstain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Approval of Independent Accountants |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation - Right to Call a Special Meeting of Shareowners |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board of
Directors recommends a vote |
|
AGAINST |
|
|
|
Proposals (5) through (7). |
|
|
ê |
|
|
|
|
For |
|
Against |
|
Abstain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
Shareholder Action By Written Consent |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
Independent Chairman |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. |
Human Rights -- Develop and Adopt Policies |
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
Signature (Joint Owners)
|
Date
|
DIRECTIONS TO HONEYWELLS
HEADQUARTERS
101 Columbia Road, Morris Township, N.J.
|
From Rte. 80 (East or West) and Rte.
287 South: Take Rte. 80 to Rte. 287 South to Exit 37 (Rte. 24 East
Springfield). Follow Rte. 24 East to Exit 2A (Rte. 510 West Morristown),
which exits onto Columbia Road. At second traffic light, make left into
Honeywell.
|
|
From Rte. 287 North: Take Rte.
287 North to
Exit 37 (Rte. 24 East Springfield). Follow Rte. 24 East to Exit 2A (Rte. 510
West Morristown), which exits onto Columbia Road. At second traffic light,
make left into Honeywell.
|
|
From Newark International
Airport: Take
Rte. 78 West to Rte. 24 West (Springfield Morristown). Follow Rte. 24 West
to Exit 2A (Rte. 510 West Morristown), which exits onto Columbia Road. At
second traffic light, make left into Honeywell.
|
Important Notice Regarding Availability of
Proxy Materials: The 2010 Notice and Proxy Statement and 2009 Annual
Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.
|
|
M18748-P87892-Z51470-Z51471 |
PROXY
HONEYWELL
This Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the
Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc.
Annual Meeting of Shareowners - April 26, 2010
The undersigned hereby
appoints David
M. Cote, Katherine L. Adams and Thomas F. Larkins as proxies (each with the power to act
alone and with full power of substitution) to vote, as designated herein, all shares the
undersigned is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell
International Inc. to be held on April 26, 2010, and at any and all adjournments thereof.
The proxies are authorized to vote in their discretion upon such other business as may
properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.
Your vote on the election of
Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be
specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Gordon M. Bethune, Kevin
Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, David M. Cote, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Clive R.
Hollick, George Paz, Bradley T. Sheares, Michael W. Wright.
IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED
AND
RETURNED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS SPECIFIED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS
SPECIFIED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR,
FOR PROPOSALS 2 THROUGH 4 AND AGAINST PROPOSALS 5 THROUGH
7. PLEASE NOTE: PHONE AND INTERNET VOTING CUTOFF IS 11:59 PM EST ON APRIL 25,
2010.
This instruction and proxy
card is
also solicited by the Board of Directors of Honeywell International Inc. (the
Company) for use at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners on April 26, 2010 by
persons who participate in the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan. PHONE AND INTERNET
VOTING CUTOFF FOR SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPANTS IS 5:00 PM EST ON APRIL 22, 2010.
By signing this instruction
and proxy
card, or by voting by phone or Internet, the undersigned hereby directs State Street Bank
and Trust Company, Trustee under the Plan, to vote, as designated herein, all shares of
common stock with respect to which the undersigned is entitled to direct the Trustee as to
voting under the plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareowners of Honeywell International Inc.
to be held on April 26, 2010, and at any and all adjournments thereof. The Trustee is also
authorized to vote such shares in connection with the transaction of such other business
as may properly come before the Meeting and any and all adjournments thereof.
Your vote on the election of
Directors and the other proposals described in the accompanying Proxy Statement may be
specified on the reverse side. The nominees for Director are: Gordon M. Bethune, Kevin
Burke, Jaime Chico Pardo, David M. Cote, D. Scott Davis, Linnet F. Deily, Clive R.
Hollick, George Paz, Bradley T. Sheares, Michael W. Wright.
IF PROPERLY SIGNED, DATED
AND
RETURNED, THE SHARES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACCOUNT WILL BE VOTED BY THE TRUSTEE AS SPECIFIED
ON THE REVERSE SIDE OR, IF NO CHOICE IS SPECIFIED, SUCH SHARES WILL BE VOTED FOR THE
ELECTION OF ALL NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR, FOR PROPOSALS 2 THROUGH 4 AND
AGAINST PROPOSALS 5 THROUGH 7. THE TRUSTEE WILL VOTE SHARES AS TO
WHICH NO DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED IN THE SAME RATIO AS SHARES WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLAN, UNLESS
CONTRARY TO ERISA.
Note: Please sign exactly as your
name or names appear(s) on this Proxy. When shares are held jointly, each holder should
sign. When signing as executor, administrator, attorney, trustee or guardian, please give
full title as such. If the signer is a corporation, please sign full corporate name by
duly authorized officer, giving full title as such. If signer is a partnership, please
sign in partnership name by authorized person.
Please
date and sign your Proxy on the reverse side and return it promptly.
|
|
|
|
|
Address Changes/Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(If you noted any
Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse
side.)