def14a
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant þ
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o
Check the appropriate box:
o |
|
Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|
o |
|
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|
þ |
|
Definitive Proxy Statement |
|
o |
|
Definitive Additional Materials |
|
o |
|
Soliciting Material under Rule 14a-12 |
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
þ |
|
No fee required. |
|
o |
|
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11 |
|
1) |
|
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
2) |
|
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
3) |
|
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant
to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated
and state how it was determined): |
|
|
4) |
|
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|
|
5) |
|
Total fee paid: |
o |
|
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
o |
|
Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and
identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the
previous filing by registration statement number, or the form or schedule and the date of
its filing. |
|
1) |
|
Amount Previously Paid: |
|
|
2) |
|
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|
|
3) |
|
Filing Party: |
|
|
4) |
|
Date Filed: |
WOODWORD POSITIONED FOR THE FUTURE IN AEROSPACE & ENERGY
BALANCE PERFORMANCE GROWTH Woodward Governor Company
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS AND PROXY STATEMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
Woodward Governor Company
P.O. Box 1519
1000 E. Drake Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Tel: 970-482-5811
Fax: 970-498-3058
|
WOODWARD
GOVERNOR COMPANY
NOTICE OF 2009 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
AND PROXY STATEMENT
December 11, 2009
Dear Stockholder:
You are cordially invited to attend Woodward Governor
Companys annual meeting at 8:00 a.m., Mountain
Standard Time, on Friday, January 22, 2010, at the Hilton
Fort Collins located at 425 West Prospect Road,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Registration for the meeting will
be conducted in Salon 1 and 5. We invite you to join our
directors and members of our management team for a continental
breakfast at 7:15 a.m. The formal meeting will begin
promptly at 8:00 a.m.
Parking is available on site. A map is located on the back of
this proxy statement.
Please complete and return your proxy card by mail, or vote via
telephone or the Internet, as soon as possible regardless of
whether you plan to attend in person.
Sincerely yours,
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY
Thomas A. Gendron
Chairman, Board of Directors
3
NOTICE OF
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy
Materials for our Annual Meeting to Be Held on January 22,
2010:
This proxy statement and our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, including
consolidated financial statements, are available to you at
http://www.woodward.com.
|
|
|
Friday, January 22, 2010 8:00 a.m. MST Hilton Fort Collins 425 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, Colorado
|
|
The purpose of our Annual Meeting is to:
1. Elect three directors to serve for a term of three years each;
2. Consider and act upon a proposal to ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010; and
3. Consider a stockholder proposal to eliminate the classification of the terms of the directors, if properly presented at the annual Stockholders meeting on January 22, 2010; and
4. Transact other business that properly comes before the meeting, or any postponement or adjournment thereof.
Stockholders who owned Woodward Governor Company common stock at the close of business on the record date, November 24, 2009, are entitled to vote at the meeting, or any postponement or adjournment thereof. By Order of the Board of Directors, WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY A. Christopher Fawzy Corporate Secretary December 11, 2009
|
YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT
Even if you plan to attend the meeting in person, please
date, sign, and return your
proxy card in the enclosed envelope, or vote via telephone or
the Internet, as soon as
possible. Prompt response is helpful and your cooperation will
be appreciated.
4
Table of
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
A-1
|
5
Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
You may obtain a free copy of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended September 30, 2009, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
available at its website at www.sec.gov. Please contact the
Corporate Secretary, Woodward Governor Company, P. O. Box 1519,
1000 E. Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
or email investorrelations@woodward.com. This report is also
available at www.woodward.com.
6
About the
Annual Meeting and Voting
Woodward Governor Company (Woodward or the
Company), on behalf of its Board of Directors (the
Board), is soliciting your proxy to vote at our
annual meeting of stockholders (or at any postponement or
adjournment of the meeting). This proxy statement summarizes the
information you need to know to vote at the meeting.
We began mailing this proxy statement and the enclosed proxy
card on or about December 11, 2009, to all stockholders
entitled to vote. The Woodward Governor Company Annual Report,
which includes our financial statements, is being sent with this
proxy statement. The financial statements contained in the
Woodward Governor Company Annual Report are not deemed material
to the exercise of prudent judgment in regard to the matters to
be acted upon at the annual meeting, and, therefore, are not
incorporated by reference into this proxy statement.
Stockholders who owned Woodward common stock at the close of
business on the record date, November 24, 2009, are
entitled to vote at the meeting. As of the record date, there
were 68,359,295 shares of Woodward common stock outstanding.
Each share of Woodward common stock that you own entitles you to
one vote on each matter presented at the meeting, except for the
election of directors, in which you may cumulate your votes.
Since three directors are standing for election, you will be
entitled to three director votes for each share of stock you
own. Of this total, you may choose how many votes you wish to
cast for each director.
Woodward offers stockholders the opportunity to vote by mail, by
telephone, or via the Internet. Instructions to use these
methods are set forth on the enclosed proxy card.
If you vote by telephone or via the Internet, please have your
proxy or voting instruction card available. A telephone or
Internet vote authorizes the named proxies in the same manner as
if you marked, signed, and returned the card by mail. Voting by
telephone and via the Internet are valid proxy voting methods
under the laws of Delaware (our state of incorporation) and our
Amended and Restated Bylaws (our Bylaws).
If you properly fill in your proxy card and send it to us in
time to vote, one of the individuals named on your proxy card
(your proxy) will vote your shares as you have
directed. If you sign the proxy card but do not make specific
choices, your proxy will follow the Boards recommendations
and vote your shares:
FOR the election of the Boards nominees to
the Board;
FOR the proposal to ratify the appointment of
Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent registered public
accounting firm; and
AGAINST the stockholder proposal to eliminate the
classification of the terms of the directors, if properly
presented at the annual Stockholders meeting on
January 22, 2010.
If any other matter is presented at the meeting, your proxy will
vote in accordance with your proxys best judgment. At the
time this proxy statement went to press, we knew of no other
matters to be acted on at the meeting.
You may revoke your proxy by:
|
|
|
|
|
entering a new vote by telephone, over the Internet, or by
signing and returning another signed proxy card at a later date,
|
|
|
|
notifying our Corporate Secretary in writing before the meeting
that you have revoked your proxy, or
|
|
|
|
voting in person at the meeting.
|
If you want to give your written proxy to someone other than the
individuals named on the proxy card:
|
|
|
|
|
cross out the individuals named and insert the name of the
individual you are authorizing to vote, or
|
|
|
|
provide a written authorization to the individual you are
authorizing to vote along with your proxy card.
|
7
Summary
of Proposals Submitted for Vote
The following are only summaries of the proposals. You should
review the full discussion of each proposal in this proxy
statement before casting your vote.
Proposal 1: Election of Directors
Nominees: At the annual meeting, you will be
asked to elect three directors to the Board. Each director will
be elected to a three-year term and will hold office until the
2013 annual meeting held in or about January 2013 and until a
successor is elected and qualifies.
Vote Required: Directors are elected by a
plurality vote of shares present at the meeting in person or by
proxy, meaning that the three director nominees receiving the
most votes will be elected.
Proposal 2: Ratification of the Appointment of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm: At the annual meeting, you will be asked to
ratify the Audit Committees appointment of
Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Companys
independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010.
Vote Required: An affirmative vote by the
holders of the majority of shares present at the meeting in
person or by proxy will be required to ratify the Audit
Committees appointment of the independent registered
public accounting firm.
The Board unanimously
recommends that the stockholders vote FOR each of the proposals
listed above.
Proposal 3: Stockholder proposal Regarding Annual
Election of Directors
Eliminate the Classification of the Terms of
Directors: At the annual meeting, a stockholder
proponent will ask you to approve a stockholder resolution
requesting the Board to take the steps necessary to eliminate
the classification of the terms of the members of the Board to
require that all directors stand for election annually. The
proposal, if approved, would not be binding on the Board and
thus may not result in the requested declassification of the
Board.
Vote Required: The affirmative vote of the
holders of a majority of the shares of common stock in Woodward
present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual
Meeting will be required for the approval of this stockholder
proposal.
The Board unanimously
recommends that the stockholders vote AGAINST Proposal 3
above.
Quorum:
A quorum of stockholders is necessary to hold a valid meeting.
The presence, in person or by proxy, at the meeting of holders
of shares representing a majority of the votes of the common
stock entitled to vote constitutes a quorum. Abstentions and
broker non-votes are counted as present for establishing a
quorum. A broker non-vote occurs when a broker votes on some
matters on the proxy card but not on others because he or she is
not permitted to vote on that item absent instruction from the
beneficial owner of the shares and no instruction is given.
Abstentions with respect to matters other than the election of
directors have the same effect as votes against a matter.
Voting of Shares Held in Street Name by Your Broker
If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a
bank 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 broker or nominee who is
considered, with respect to those shares, the stockholder of
record. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct
your broker on how to vote your shares. You are also invited to
attend the annual meeting and vote your shares in person. In
order to vote your shares in person, you must provide us with a
legal proxy from your broker.
Brokerage firms have authority to vote customers shares
for which they have not received voting instructions on certain
routine matters, including the election of directors
and ratification of the auditors. If you do not provide voting
instructions, your brokerage firm may either vote your shares on
routine matters or leave your shares unvoted. We encourage you
to provide instructions to your brokerage firm. This ensures
your shares will be voted at the meeting. When a brokerage firm
votes its customers unvoted shares on routine matters,
these shares are counted for purposes of establishing a quorum
to conduct business at the meeting as described above. A
brokerage firm, however, cannot vote customers shares on
non-routine matters, such as the stockholder proposal.
Accordingly, these broker non-votes are considered not entitled
to vote on non-routine matters, rather than as a vote against
the matter.
In order for your shares to be
voted on all matters presented at the meeting, we urge all
stockholders whose shares are held in street name by a brokerage
firm to provide voting instructions to the brokerage
firm.
8
Board of
Directors
|
|
|
Structure
|
|
Our Board currently consists of ten directors and is divided
into three classes for purposes of election. One class is
elected at each annual meeting of stockholders to serve for a
three-year term. |
|
|
|
Each of the three directors standing for election at the 2009
Annual Meeting of Stockholders has been nominated by the Board
at the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee
to hold office for a three-year term expiring in 2013 or when a
successor is elected and qualifies. Other directors are not
standing for election at this meeting and will continue in
office for the remainder of their respective terms. |
|
|
|
If a nominee is unavailable for election, proxy holders will
vote for another nominee proposed by the Nominating and
Governance Committee. |
9
Board of
Directors (continued)
PROPOSAL 1
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Directors
Standing for Election at This Meeting for Terms Expiring in
2013:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John D. Cohn
Age: 55
Senior Vice President, European Business Planning and Execution, of Rockwell Automation, Inc., a global provider of industrial automation power, control, and information solutions. Other directorships: none.
Mr. Cohn has been a director of the Company since 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael H. Joyce
Age: 69
Mr. Joyce retired as President and Chief Operating Officer of Twin Disc, Inc. on July 31, 2006. Other directorships: none. Mr. Joyce retired as a director of The Oilgear Company in December 2006.
Mr. Joyce has been a director of the Company since 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Rulseh
Age: 54
Chief Operating Officer, Tulip Corporation, a private manufacturing company, which he joined in October 2009. Prior to joining Tulip Corporation, Mr. Rulseh served as Regional Vice President Americas, of Modine Manufacturing Company. Other directorships: Proliance International, Inc.
Mr. Rulseh has been a director of the Company since 2002.
|
Your
Board recommends a vote FOR the nominees presented
in Proposal 1.
10
Board of
Directors (continued)
Directors
Remaining in Office Until 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
Age: 46
General Manager of AxleTech International, a division of General Dynamics Corporation, following its acquisition of AxleTech in January 2009. Prior to the acquisition, Ms. Petrovich was the Chief Executive Officer of AxleTech. AxleTech is a supplier of off-highway and specialty vehicle drive train systems and components. Other directorships: none.
Ms. Petrovich has been a director of the Company since 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
Age: 63
PhD, CIA, CPA, Ernst & Young Professor of Accounting & Information Systems at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Rittenberg served as Chairman of The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) from 2004 to 2009. COSO is a voluntary private sector organization dedicated to improving the quality of financial reporting through business ethics, effective internal controls, and corporate governance. Other directorships: none.
Mr. Rittenberg has been a director of the Company since 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
Age: 67
Retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Portec, Inc., which had operations in the construction equipment, materials handling, and railroad products industries. Other directorships: Modine Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Emcor Group, Inc. Mr. Yonker retired as a director of Proliance, Inc. in 2006.
Mr. Yonker has been a director of the Company since 1993.
|
11
Board of
Directors (continued)
Directors
Remaining in Office Until 2012:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Donovan
Age: 62
Retired Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Energy Corporation. Other directorships: AMCORE Financial, Inc. and CLARCOR, Inc.
Mr. Donovan has been a director of the Company since 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas A. Gendron
Age: 48
Chairman of the Board of the Company since January 23, 2008; Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company since July 1, 2005; previously served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company from September 2002 until July 1, 2005 and as Vice President, Industrial Controls from February 1999 until September 2002. Other directorships: none.
Mr. Gendron has been a director of the Company since 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Halbrook
Age: 63
Chairman of the Board of the Company until January 23, 2008; previously served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company until July 1, 2005. Other directorships: AMCORE Financial, Inc. and HNI Corporation.
Mr. Halbrook has been a director of the Company since 1991.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronald M. Sega
Age: 56
Mr. Sega is Vice President for Energy, Environment, and Applied Research with the Colorado State University (CSU) Research Foundation. Prior to joining CSU, Mr. Sega served as Under Secretary for the U.S. Air Force. In addition, as a former NASA astronaut, Mr. Sega is a two-time shuttle veteran. Other directorships: Rentech, Inc.
Mr. Sega has been a director since April 2008.
|
12
Board of
Directors (continued)
Governance
Documents
Woodwards policies and practices reflect corporate
governance initiatives that are compliant with the listing
requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(Nasdaq), SEC rules and regulations, and the
corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act). Woodward maintains a
corporate governance page on its website at www.woodward.com
that can be accessed by clicking on Investor
Information and then on Corporate Governance.
Included on this site are the following documents adopted by our
Board: a Message from our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer;
the Woodward Constitution; our Director Guidelines;
Executive/Director Stock Ownership Guidelines; charters for our
Audit, Compensation, Executive, and Nominating and Governance
Committees; the Woodward Codes of Business Conduct and Ethics
for directors, officers, and members, including the Woodward
Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers and Other Finance
Members; the Business Conduct Oversight Committee charter; and
our Related Person Transaction Policies and Procedures.
Independent
Directors
The Board has determined that each member of the Board, other
than Mr. Gendron, is independent under the criteria
established by SEC rules and regulations and Nasdaq listing
requirements for independent board members. In addition, the
Board has determined that the members of the Audit Committee
meet the additional independence criteria required for audit
committee membership.
13
Board
Meetings and Committees
The Board met ten times in fiscal 2009; all incumbent directors
attended more than 80 percent of the aggregate of the total
meetings of the Board and all committees of the Board on which
they served. Directors are invited, but are not required, to
attend annual meetings of stockholders. All directors attended
the Companys last annual meeting of stockholders.
The Board has the following standing committees: Audit
Committee; Compensation Committee; Executive Committee; and
Nominating and Governance Committee. All actions by committees
are reported to the Board at the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nominating
|
|
Name
|
|
|
Audit
|
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
|
|
and Governance
|
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Donovan
|
|
|
|
n
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Halbrook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael H. Joyce
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Rulseh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronald M. Sega(2)
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Ms. Petrovich served as a
member of the Audit Committee for the first four months of the
fiscal year.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Mr. Sega was appointed to the
Audit Committee in January 2009.
|
|
|
*
|
Chairman
|
|
|
|
Audit
Committee
|
|
The Audit Committee oversees and monitors the Companys
accounting and financial reporting processes, including the
quality of internal controls over those processes and audits of
the Companys financial statements and internal controls
over financial reporting, and assists the Board of Directors
with overseeing the Companys processes for monitoring
compliance with laws and regulations and its codes of conduct.
The Audit Committee produces an annual report relating to the
compliance of the Companys financial statements with
applicable rules and regulations and recommends to the Board of
Directors that the audited financial statements of the Company
be included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
The Audit Committee also retains, oversees, and evaluates the
independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit
Committee operates under a charter that more fully describes the
responsibilities of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee
also reviews its charter annually and recommends to the Board of
Directors such revisions as it deems necessary. The Audit
Committee charter is available for review on the Companys
website at
http://www.woodward.com/pdf/corp/AudCommCharter.pdf. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consistent with SEC regulations and Nasdaqs independent
director and audit committee listing standards, and in
accordance with the Committee charter, all members of the Audit
Committee are independent directors. The Board of Directors has
determined that Messrs. Donovan, Joyce and Rittenberg are
Audit Committee Financial Experts, as the SEC defines that term,
and have experience resulting in financial
sophistication as defined under Nasdaq listing
requirements. |
|
|
|
The Audit Committee meets
as often as necessary to perform its duties and
responsibilities. The Audit Committee held five meetings in
fiscal 2009. |
|
Compensation
Committee
|
|
The Compensation Committee reviews and approves the compensation
of all of our executive officers. The Compensation Committee has
oversight responsibility for the Companys annual incentive
plan, the Long-Term Management Incentive Compensation Plan, the
2002 Stock Option Plan, and the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Plan. The
Compensation Committee determines and takes all action,
including granting of all incentives and/or stock options to
eligible Company employees, in accordance with the terms of the
plans. Consistent with Nasdaqs independent |
14
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
director listing requirements, and in accordance with the
Compensation Committee charter, all members of the Compensation
Committee are independent directors. The Compensation Committee
reviews performance against targets for both the annual
incentive compensation plan and the long-term incentive
compensation plan. |
|
|
|
General |
|
|
|
The principal responsibilities of the Compensation Committee are
to, among other things, discharge the responsibilities of the
Board relating to compensation of the Companys Chief
Executive Officer and other officers, produce an annual report
relating to the Companys Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (CD&A), and recommend to the Board the
inclusion of the CD&A in the Companys Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
and proxy statement. The Compensation Committees written
charter, which describes the specific duties of the Compensation
Committee, is available on the Companys corporate website
at
http://www.woodward.com/pdf/corp/CompCommCharter.pdf. |
|
|
|
The Compensation Committee meets as often as necessary to
perform its duties and responsibilities. The Compensation
Committee held five meetings in fiscal 2009. These meetings were
held to review company and executive performance in fiscal 2009,
and to receive and review information regarding compensation
trends and competitive compensation information. |
|
|
|
In making its decisions and completing its annual review of our
Executive Compensation Program, the Compensation Committee
routinely examines the following important business factors: |
|
|
|
financial reports on performance versus budget and
compared to prior year performance;
|
|
|
|
calculations and reports on levels of achievement of
corporate performance objectives;
|
|
|
|
reports on the Companys strategic initiatives
and budget for future periods;
|
|
|
|
information on the executive officers stock
ownership and option holdings;
|
|
|
|
information regarding equity compensation plan
dilution;
|
|
|
|
data regarding the total compensation of our Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and our three other
most highly compensated executive officers (our
NEOs), including base salary, cash incentives,
equity awards, and perquisites; and
|
|
|
|
information regarding compensation programs and
compensation levels at our peer comparator group identified by
our compensation consultant and described under the caption
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Compensation Philosophy and
Strategy Competitive Comparisons.
|
|
|
|
Delegation of Authority |
|
|
|
The Compensation Committee Charter provides authority to the
Compensation Committee to delegate its role and responsibilities
to subcommittees entirely made up of Compensation Committee
members. The Compensation Committee has delegated to the
Chairman of the Compensation Committee the authority to approve
any and all option exercises when the optionee will pay for the
cost of the option and/or the taxes associated with the
transaction with stock previously owned and held by the optionee
for at least six months. The Chairman of the Compensation
Committee may further delegate the responsibilities to any other
member of the Compensation Committee. |
|
|
|
The Compensation Committees Interaction with
Management |
|
|
|
In order to design compensation programs that are aligned with
appropriate Company performance goals and strategic direction,
the Compensation Committee works closely with management,
including the Chief Executive Officer, the Corporate Director,
Global HR Support |
15
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
Services, the Corporate Vice President, Human Resources, and the
Corporate Vice President and General Counsel. Specifically,
management will facilitate the alignment process by: |
|
|
|
providing compensation data to our executive
compensation consultant for comparative benchmarking;
|
|
|
|
evaluating NEO performance (with the exception of
our Chief Executive Officer);
|
|
|
|
making recommendations to the Compensation Committee
regarding annual short-term incentive plan design and
performance metrics; and
|
|
|
|
making recommendations to the Compensation Committee
regarding the compensation of the NEOs (with the exception of
the Chief Executive Officer) for base salary, annual short-term
incentive compensation targets, long-term cash incentive target
compensation, and long-term equity compensation. The Chief
Executive Officers compensation, including base salary, is
determined by the Compensation Committee, with guidance from our
compensation consultant, relative to comparative market data, as
well as measuring his performance against Compensation Committee
and Board expectations.
|
|
|
|
All decisions regarding executive compensation are ultimately
made by the Compensation Committee. |
|
|
|
The Companys Corporate Director, Global HR Support
Services, works with the Compensation Committee Chair to
establish the agenda for Compensation Committee meetings. At the
Compensation Committees request, the Chief Executive
Officer regularly attends the meetings and provides background
information regarding the Companys strategic objectives,
evaluation of the performance of the senior executive officers,
and compensation recommendations as to senior executive officers
other than himself. The Compensation Committee may also seek
input from the Corporate Vice President, Human Resources, and
the Corporate Vice President and General Counsel, as necessary
and appropriate, to carry out its duties. The Corporate Vice
President, Human Resources, provides input on: executive
compensation structure, performance assessment process and data,
potential promotions, potential re-organizations, and
compensation associated with promotions. |
|
|
|
Interaction with Compensation Consultants |
|
|
|
In making its determinations with respect to executive
compensation, the Compensation Committee has historically
engaged the services of an independent compensation consultant.
In fiscal 2009, the Compensation Committee retained the services
of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (Hewitt) to assist with
its review of the compensation package of the NEOs. |
|
|
|
The Compensation Committee retains Hewitt primarily to provide
guidance for the executive compensation decision making process.
Annually, Hewitt provides the Compensation Committee with a
Management Compensation Analysis comparing the compensation for
the NEOs to our compensation philosophy and the compensation
philosophies of our peer comparator group for base salary,
target bonus, target total cash, long-term cash and equity
incentives, and target total compensation. In carrying out its
assignment, the consultant may interact with members of
management, including but not limited to the Chief Executive
Officer, the Corporate Vice President, Human Resources, the
Corporate Vice President and General Counsel, the Corporate
Controller, and the Corporate Director, Global HR Support
Services. |
|
|
|
Hewitt additionally acts as a global compensation and benefits
consultant for the Company and provides total compensation data
for all of the Management Incentive Plan (MIP)
participants other than the NEOs. Management also utilizes
Hewitts benefits-related survey data with respect to
compensation benchmarking for non-NEOs. |
|
|
|
It is the Compensation Committees and the Companys
belief that the services provided by the consultant are
independent and free from any conflict of interest. As a result
of the interactions with the Compensation Committee and
management, Hewitt has a well developed understanding of our
business, and is well positioned to provide objective guidance
on compensation and benefit plans that are aligned with, and
reinforce, our strategies and goals. |
16
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
Executive
Committee
|
|
The Executive Committee exercises all the powers and authority
of the Board in the management of the business when the Board is
not in session, and when, in the opinion of the Chairman of the
Board, a particular matter should not be postponed until the
next scheduled Board meeting. The Executive Committee may
declare cash dividends. The Executive Committee may not
authorize certain major corporate actions such as amending the
Certificate of Incorporation, amending the Bylaws, adopting an
agreement of merger or consolidation, or recommending the sale,
lease, or exchange of substantially all of our assets. The
Executive Committee meets as often as necessary to perform its
duties and responsibilities. The Executive Committee held no
meetings in fiscal 2009. The Executive Committee charter is
available for review on the Companys website at
http://www.woodward.com/pdf/corp.ExecCommChart.pdf. |
|
Nominating and
Governance
Committee
|
|
The Nominating and Governance Committee recommends qualified
individuals to fill any vacancies on the Board, develops and
administers the Director Guidelines and the Companys
corporate governance guidelines, and establishes other
guidelines, such as stock holding requirements for officers and
directors. In accordance with SEC rules and regulations, Nasdaq
listing requirements, and the Nominating and Governance
Committees charter, all members of the Nominating and
Governance Committee are independent directors. The Nominating
and Governance Committee meets as often as necessary to perform
its duties and responsibilities. The Nominating and Governance
Committee held two meetings in fiscal 2009. The Nominating and
Governance Committee charter is available for review on the
Companys website at
http://www.woodward.com/pdf/corp/NomGovernCommCharter.pdf. |
|
Director Nomination
Process
|
|
The Nominating and Governance Committee considers candidates for
Board membership as recommended by directors, management, or
stockholders. The Nominating and Governance Committee uses the
same criteria to evaluate all candidates for Board membership,
whether recommended by directors, management, or stockholders.
As it deems necessary, the Nominating and Governance Committee
may engage consultants or third-party search firms to assist in
identifying and evaluating potential nominees, although it did
not engage such a third party consultant in fiscal 2009. |
|
|
|
Director candidates are expected to be guided by the philosophy
and concepts of human and industrial association as expressed in
the Companys Constitution and to possess the highest
levels of personal and professional ethics, integrity, values,
and independence. Prospective directors should be committed to
representing the long-term interests of the stockholders. A
potential director must exhibit an inquisitive and objective
perspective, an ability to think strategically, an ability to
identify practical problems, and an ability to assess
alternative courses of action that contribute to the long-term
success of the business. The Nominating and Governance Committee
is committed to exercising best practices of corporate
governance and recognizes the importance of a Board that
contains diverse experience at policy-making levels in business,
public service, education, and technology, as well as other
relevant knowledge that contributes to the Companys global
activities. Director candidates must have industry expertise
and/or commit to understanding the Companys industry as a
basis to address strategic and operational issues of importance
to the Company. |
|
|
|
Every effort is made to complement and supplement skills within
the Board and strengthen identified areas of need. The
Nominating and Governance Committee considers relevant factors,
as it deems appropriate, including the current composition of
the Board and the need for expertise on various Board
committees. The Committee considers the ability of candidates to
meet independence and other requirements of the SEC or other
regulatory bodies exercising authority over the Company. In
assessing candidates, the Nominating and Governance Committee
considers criteria such as education, experience, diversity,
knowledge, and understanding of matters such as finance,
manufacturing, technology, distribution, and other areas that
are frequently encountered by a complex business. The Nominating
and Governance Committee makes inquiries of prospective Board
candidates about their ability to devote sufficient time to
carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively, and
whether they are |
17
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
committed to serve on the Board for a sufficient time to make
significant contributions to the governance of the organization.
Generally, candidates should be under the age of 70. |
|
|
|
The Nominating and Governance Committee evaluation normally
requires one or more members of the Nominating and Governance
Committee, and others as appropriate, to interview prospective
nominees in person or by telephone. Upon identification of a
qualified candidate, the Nominating and Governance Committee
will recommend a candidate for consideration by the full Board. |
|
|
|
Stockholders wishing to suggest a candidate for Board membership
should write our Corporate Secretary at P.O. Box 1519,
1000 E. Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
and include: |
|
|
|
the stockholders name and contact information;
|
|
|
|
a statement that the writer is a stockholder of
record and is proposing a candidate for consideration by the
Nominating and Governance Committee;
|
|
|
|
the name of, and contact information for, the
candidate and a statement that the candidate is willing to be
considered and serve as a director, if nominated and elected;
|
|
|
|
a statement of the candidates business and
educational experience;
|
|
|
|
information regarding the factors described above
sufficient to enable the Nominating and Governance Committee to
evaluate the candidate;
|
|
|
|
a statement of the value that the candidate would
add to the board;
|
|
|
|
a statement detailing any relationship between the
candidate and any of our customers, suppliers, or competitors;
and
|
|
|
|
detailed information about any relationship or
understanding between the proposing stockholder and the
candidate.
|
|
|
|
In connection with its evaluation, the Nominating and Governance
Committee may request additional information from the candidate
or the recommending stockholder. The Nominating and Governance
Committee has discretion to decide which individuals to
recommend for nomination as directors. In order to give the
Nominating and Governance Committee sufficient time to evaluate
a recommended candidate, the recommendation should be received
by our Corporate Secretary not later than the 120th calendar day
before the one year anniversary of the date our proxy statement
was mailed to stockholders in connection with the previous
years annual meeting of stockholders. No candidates for
director nominations were submitted to the Nominating and
Governance Committee by any stockholder in connection with the
election of directors at this annual meeting. |
|
Lead
Director
|
|
Mr. Joyce serves as Lead Director. The Lead
Director chairs separate meetings of the independent directors,
generally following each regularly scheduled Board meeting.
Topics discussed are at the discretion of the independent
directors. The Lead Director then meets with the Chief Executive
Officer to review items discussed at the meeting. |
|
Stockholder
Communications with
the Board of
Directors
|
|
Stockholders may send communications to the Board by submitting
a letter addressed to: Woodward Governor Company, Attn:
Corporate Secretary, P. O. Box 1519, 1000 E. Drake
Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. |
|
|
|
The Board has instructed the Corporate Secretary to forward such
communications to the Lead Director. The Board has also
instructed the Corporate Secretary to review such correspondence
and, at the Corporate Secretarys discretion, not to
forward correspondence which is deemed of a commercial or
frivolous nature or inappropriate for Board consideration. The
Corporate Secretary may also forward the stockholder
communication within the Company to the Chief Executive Officer
and President or to another executive officer to facilitate an
appropriate response. |
|
|
|
The Corporate Secretary will maintain a log of all
communications from stockholders and the disposition of such
communications for review by the directors at least annually. |
18
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
Related Person Transaction
Policies and
Procedures
|
|
In November 2007, the Board adopted our Related Person
Transaction Policies and Procedures (our RPT
Policy), which provides that the Audit Committee will
review and approve Interested Transactions (as described below).
Our RPT Policy delegates the authority to act with respect to
Interested Transactions that are valued below a stated threshold
to the Chair of the Audit Committee. |
|
|
|
Our RPT Policy defines an Interested Transaction
with reference to transactions described in Item 404 of
Regulation S-K
promulgated by the SEC, which generally means a transaction,
arrangement or relationship (including any indebtedness or
guarantee of indebtedness) or any series of similar
transactions, arrangements or relationships or any material
amendments or modifications thereto in which the Company
(including any of its subsidiaries) was, is, or will be a
participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in
which any Related Person had, has, or will have a direct or
indirect interest. |
|
|
|
Related Person also is defined in our RPT Policy
with respect to the definitions contained in Item 404 of
Regulation S-K.
Generally, Related Persons consist of any director
or executive officer of the Company, any nominee for director,
any holder of five percent or more of the Companys common
stock, or any immediate family member of any such persons.
Immediate family member means any child, stepchild,
parent, stepparent, spouse, sibling,
mother-in-law,
father-in-law,
son-in-law,
daughter-in-law,
brother-in-law,
or
sister-in-law
of any such person, and any person (other than a tenant or
employee) sharing the household of such person. It may also
include entities with which any of such persons have a
relationship. |
|
|
|
The approval procedures in our RPT Policy state that the Audit
Committee will take into account, among other factors it deems
appropriate, whether the Interested Transaction is on terms no
less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated
third-party under the same or similar circumstances. In
addition, our RPT Policy states that, in connection with the
approval or ratification of an Interested Transaction involving
an outside director or nominee for director, the Audit Committee
should consider whether such transaction would compromise such
directors status as: (1) an independent director
under Nasdaqs independence standards, (2) an
outside director under Section 162(m) of the
Internal Revenue Code, or a non-employee director
under
Rule 16b-3
under the Exchange Act, if such non-employee director serves on
the Compensation Committee of the Board, or (3) an
independent director under
Rule 10A-3
of the Exchange Act, if such non-employee director serves on the
Audit Committee of the Board. Our RPT Policy also identifies
certain transactions that are deemed to be pre-approved,
including transactions involving competitive bids, regulated
transactions, and employee transactions. |
|
|
|
Our RPT Policy is available for review on the Companys
website at
http://www.woodward.com/pdf/corp/RelatedPersonsTransactionPolicy.pdf. |
|
|
|
Prior to November 2007, the Companys unwritten policy with
respect to Related Person transactions was to evaluate and
monitor Related Person transactions. Any such material
transaction was required to comply with the Companys
policies, including the Companys Codes of Business Conduct
and Ethics, which addresses conflicts of interest, and any
payments by the Company to a directors primary business
affiliation or the primary business affiliation of an immediate
family member of a director or officer for goods or services, or
other contractual arrangements were required to be approved by
the Audit Committee in accordance with the Nasdaq rules and be
made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the
same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable
transactions with non-affiliated persons. |
|
|
|
In 2002, we purchased a company named Leonhard Reglerbau
Dr. Ing. Adolf Leonhard GmbH from Gerhard Lauffer in an
arms-length transaction. At the time, Mr. Lauffer was
unaffiliated with the Company. In connection with this
acquisition, the parties negotiated lease agreements for
property located in Stuttgart, Germany used by the acquired
company but owned by an entity owned and controlled by
Mr. Lauffer (the Lauffer Affiliate). Upon
completion of this acquisition, Mr. Lauffer became an
employee of the Company and is currently its President,
Electrical Power Systems. The terms of the lease agreements were
agreed upon by us at a time |
19
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
when Mr. Lauffer was not a Related Person of the Company
and, therefore, our RPT policy was not applicable in connection
with this transaction. In November 2007, the rental rates were
renegotiated in accordance with the terms of the original lease
agreements to reflect current market prices for similar
properties in the vicinity. Following this renegotiation, the
modified rental rates were approved by the Audit Committee in
accordance with our RPT Policy. These modified rental rates
resulted in payments to Mr. Lauffer in Euros of an amount
equivalent to approximately USD $892,420 in fiscal 2009 under
the lease agreements. One of the lease agreements expires in
2011 and the other expires in 2013; however, each lease
agreement is automatically extended for additional five-year
terms if not terminated by either party one year before the end
of the then-current term. The rental rate under the lease
agreements was to be reevaluated every three years but no such
revaluation had occurred until November 2007. Because the rental
rates were not reviewed in 2005 as provided in the lease
agreements, the Company had agreed to reevaluate the rates to
reflect any additional market changes in March 2008, the
six-year anniversary of this acquisition, and to thereafter
reevaluate the rates every three years in accordance with the
initial intent of the lease agreements. No amendments were made
to the rates during fiscal 2008. Since the rental rates
currently remain unchanged from 2008 levels, we anticipate
similar levels of payment to Mr. Lauffer in Euros in fiscal
2010 as occurred in fiscal 2009. All subsequent reevaluations
and proposals for revised rental rates will be subject to
approval in accordance with our RPT Policy. |
|
Compensation Committee
Interlocks and Insider
Participation
|
|
Ms. Petrovich, Messrs. Rulseh, Cohn and Yonker served
as members of the Compensation Committee during fiscal 2009. The
Compensation Committee members have no interlocking
relationships required to be disclosed under SEC rules and
regulations. |
|
Director
Compensation
|
|
We do not pay directors who are also Woodward employees
additional compensation for their service as directors. In
addition to reasonable expenses for attending meetings of the
Board, non-employee directors received the following
compensation in fiscal 2009: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monthly Retainer
|
|
|
$
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each Board meeting attended
|
|
|
$
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telephonic Board meetings
|
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each Committee meeting attended Chairman
|
|
|
$
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each Committee meeting attended all others
|
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telephonic Committee Meetings Chairman
|
|
|
$
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telephonic Committee Meetings all others
|
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lead Director each independent director meeting
|
|
|
$
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit Committee Chairman additional monthly retainer
|
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table shows the compensation paid to the
non-employee members of the Board during the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid in Cash
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
Total
|
Director
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
|
($)
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
$
|
61,576
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
91,406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Donovan
|
|
|
$
|
70,000
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
99,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Halbrook
|
|
|
$
|
48,500
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
78,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael H. Joyce
|
|
|
$
|
70,500
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
100,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
|
|
|
$
|
56,000
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
85,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
|
|
|
$
|
59,000
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
88,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Rulseh
|
|
|
$
|
61,500
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
91,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronald M. Sega
|
|
|
$
|
57,500
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
87,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
$
|
59,500
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,830
|
|
|
|
$
|
89,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
(1) |
On November 24, 2008, each non-employee director was
awarded options to purchase 3,800 shares of Woodward common
stock at $18.67 per share, the closing price of Woodward common
stock on that date as quoted on The Nasdaq Global Select Market,
under our 2006 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the 2006
Plan). These options vest at the rate of 25% per year.
Stock options granted to directors prior to fiscal 2007 vested
100% after one year. The amounts in this column reflect the
dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting
purposes for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, in
accordance with authoritative accounting guidance for
Share-Based Payments of option awards under the 2006 Plan and
the 2002 Stock Option Plan (the 2002 Plan) and thus
include amounts from awards granted in and prior to 2009.
Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are
described in footnote 17 to the Companys audited financial
statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009
included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the SEC on November 20, 2009. The full grant
date fair value of each option awarded in 2008, based on the
assumptions discussed under the Summary Compensation Table
below, without regard to when the award was recognized for
financial reporting purposes, is equal to $7.85.
|
Option awards outstanding as of
September 30, 2009 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
Director
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
Options Vested
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
19,625
|
|
|
|
|
27,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Donovan
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
1,425
|
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Halbrook
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
915,625
|
|
|
|
|
923,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael H. Joyce
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
18,625
|
|
|
|
|
26,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
39,625
|
|
|
|
|
47,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
27,625
|
|
|
|
|
35,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Rulseh
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
18,625
|
|
|
|
|
26,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronald M. Sega
|
|
|
|
3,800
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
3,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
27,625
|
|
|
|
|
35,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Ownership of Management
|
|
|
Directors and Named Executive
Officers
|
|
The following table shows how much Woodward common stock was
beneficially owned, as of November 14, 2009, by each
director, each named executive officer of the Company, and all
directors and named executive officers as a group: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Non-Employee Directors
|
|
|
of Shares(1)
|
|
|
Percent(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
|
39,500
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Paul Donovan(2)
|
|
|
|
3,800
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
John A. Halbrook
|
|
|
|
2,146,085
|
|
|
|
|
3.03
|
%
|
Michael H. Joyce
|
|
|
|
34,052
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
|
|
|
|
58,940
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
|
|
|
|
42,487
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
James R. Rulseh
|
|
|
|
38,612
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Ronald M. Sega
|
|
|
|
950
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
|
66,216
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
1,027,592
|
|
|
|
|
1.45
|
%
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
124,888
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Dennis M. Benning
|
|
|
|
72,140
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Martin V. Glass
|
|
|
|
237,679
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
146,500
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All directors and named executive officers as a group
(14 persons)
|
|
|
|
4,039,441
|
|
|
|
|
5.70
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
The number of shares outstanding
for purposes of calculating the percentages shown includes
shares (does not include fractional shares) allocated to
participant accounts of named executive officers under the
Woodward Governor Company Retirement Savings Plan. In addition,
the number of shares outstanding for purposes of calculating the
percentages shown includes a number of shares of our common
stock which may
|
21
Board Meetings and
Committees (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
be acquired by each person
referenced through the exercise of options within 60 days
of November 14, 2009 in accordance with the rules of the
SEC. The below table summarizes shares that may be exercised
within 60 days of November 14, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
In addition to the
3,800 shares reflected above, Mr. Donovan previously
gifted 9,012 shares to his wife, who shares
Mr. Donovans household. Mr. Donovan disclaims
beneficial ownership of the shares held by his wife, who
currently owns 9,028 shares of Woodward common stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Employee Directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Paul Donovan
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
John A. Halbrook
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Michael H. Joyce
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Larry E. Rittenberg
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
James R. Rulseh
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Ronald M. Sega
|
|
|
|
950
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named Executive Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
111,500
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
17,625
|
|
Dennis M. Benning
|
|
|
|
28,125
|
|
Martin V. Glass
|
|
|
|
28,125
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
28,125
|
|
The Plan directs the Trustee to vote the shares allocated to
participant accounts under the Woodward Stock Plan portion of
the Plan as directed by such participants and to vote all
allocated shares for which no timely instructions are received
in the same proportion as the allocated shares for which
instructions are received.
22
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Based upon a review of our records, all reports required to be
filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) were filed on a
timely basis, with the exception of a late Form 4 filed by
Woodward on behalf of Mr. Gendron on June 29, 2009,
and a late Form 4 filed on behalf of Mr. Halbrook on
January 16, 2009.
Persons
Owning More Than Five Percent of Woodward Stock
The following table shows how much Woodward common stock was
owned by each person known to us to own more than five percent
of our common stock as of November 20, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership of Common Stock
|
Principal Holders
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Percent
|
Royce & Associates, LLC
1414 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
|
|
|
|
6,955,664
|
(1)(4)
|
|
|
|
10.26
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barclays Global Investors, NA
45 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
|
|
|
|
3,400,482
|
(2)(4)
|
|
|
|
5.02
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodward Governor Company
Profit Sharing Trust
P. O. Box 1519
1000 E. Drake Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
|
|
|
|
7,507,093
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
11.07
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Royce & Associates, LLC has stated in the most recent
Form 13G filing with the SEC that it has sole investment
power and sole voting power for the entire holding.
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
Shares owned by Barclays Global Investor, NA and various
affiliates in the U.S., Canada, England, Germany, Japan, and
Australia. Barclays has stated in its most recent Form 13G
filing with the SEC that it holds sole investment power for the
entire holding and voting power for approximately 83% of the
holding.
|
|
|
(3)
|
Shares owned by the Woodward Governor Company Profit Sharing
Trust are held in its Retirement Savings Plan (the
Plan). Vanguard Fiduciary Trust serves as Trustee of
the Profit Sharing Trust. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. serves as
custodian of the Plan and holds the actual shares in a custodial
account. All shares held in the Profit Sharing Trust are
allocated to participant accounts. The Plan directs the Trustee
to vote the shares allocated to participant accounts under the
Woodward Stock Plan portion of the Plan as directed by such
participants and to vote all allocated shares for which no
timely instructions are received in the same proportion as the
allocated shares for which instructions are received.
|
|
|
(4)
|
Stated number of shares owned based on filings with the SEC as
of November 20, 2009 and reflects holdings as of
September 30, 2009.
|
23
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
2009
Overview
Our Executive Compensation Program has been designed to
(1) provide a competitive total compensation program which
enables us to attract, retain, and motivate a high-performance
executive management team, and (2) link the total
compensation program payouts to Company and individual
performance. We believe that proper administration of this
program should result in the development of a management team
that improves our fundamental financial performance and provides
value to the long-term interests of the Company and its
stockholders.
Our Executive Compensation Program is based on the overall
financial performance of the Company and is structured as a
total compensation package comprised of the following elements:
|
|
|
base salary;
|
|
|
annual short-term incentives, and
|
|
|
long-term incentive compensation, which includes cash and equity
components.
|
In addition, the compensation program for NEOs includes health
and welfare benefits, a deferred compensation program, defined
contribution plans, change of control arrangements, and other
ancillary benefits.
The Compensation Committee, comprised entirely of independent
directors, has oversight responsibilities for the compensation
program administration, and all compensation decisions with
respect to the NEOs are subject to Compensation Committee review
and approval. In making these decisions, the Compensation
Committee uses a market-based compensation model wherein the
responsibility and accountability of the NEOs are compared to
similar positions at companies in our peer comparator group. In
addition, Hewitt, an executive compensation consulting firm
engaged by the Compensation Committee, provides guidance
throughout the entire process, including guidance regarding the
selection of our peer comparator group and the level of base
salary, annual short-term incentive compensation, and long-term
incentive compensation.
Compensation
Philosophy and Strategy
Our compensation philosophy is to establish total compensation
packages such that, when our fundamental financial performance
is at target levels, total compensation (base salary, annual
short-term cash incentives, and long-term incentives) for each
NEO is competitive with the 50th percentile market value
total compensation for executives in comparable positions at
companies in our peer comparator group.
We place a strong emphasis on variable compensation. Variable
compensation plans (annual short-term incentives and long-term
incentives) are designed so that the payout opportunity is
directly linked to the achievement of pre-determined financial
performance metrics, with upside opportunity for exceeding the
pre-determined goals. We also use long-term incentives,
including equity-based compensation, to align NEO and
stockholder interests.
With each component of our Executive Compensation Program, we
strive to align the interests of the NEOs with the interests of
our stockholders in different ways, by focusing on both
short-term and long-term performance goals, by promoting
ownership of the Company, and by linking individual performance
to our fundamental financial performance.
Competitive
Comparisons
Our compensation programs are benchmarked to be competitive with
our peer comparator group. Generally, companies in our peer
comparator group are selected by the Compensation Committee, in
consultation with Hewitt and management. These selections are
made from the Hewitt Total Compensation Measurement database
companies on the basis of competition for business or talent,
global structure, level of operational complexity, similar
revenue size, market capitalization, and manufacturing profile.
The Compensation Committee analyzes compensation decisions based
on our peer comparator group as a whole and uses
50th percentile compensation data as a benchmark in
determining our target compensation levels. In making these
decisions and determinations, the Compensation Committee, in
consultation with Hewitt and management, matches the NEOs with
similarly positioned executives at companies in the peer
comparator peer group. These matches facilitate pay comparisons
based on functional matches, job duties, responsibilities, level
of impact, and organizational level. The Compensation Committee
uses the statistical methodology of regression analysis to bring
comparator peer group revenues, and our corresponding target
compensation levels, in alignment with our revenue. We use
revenue for this analysis because we believe that revenue can be
a proxy for the scope and complexity of the NEO position that is
being compared.
Our peer comparator group identified below was used in fiscal
2009 to benchmark target compensation opportunities across each
component of compensation, including base salary, annual
short-term incentive compensation, and long-term incentive
compensation and, when considered in the aggregate, the total
compensation for each NEO. Changes to our peer group compared to
the previous year include the removal of Honeywell International
Inc., ITT Corporation, Milacron, Inc., and Parker Hannifin
Corporation, and the addition
24
Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (continued)
of Actuant Corporation, Rockwell Collins, and Roper Industries
Inc. The Compensation Committee made these changes to the peer
group in order to better reflect our company size and
competitive talent market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparator Peer Group
|
Actuant Corporate
Ameron International Corporation
Ametek, Inc.
AMSTED Industries Inc.
BAE Systems, Inc.
Brady Corporation
Crane Co.
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
Donaldson Company, Inc.
|
|
|
ESCO Technologies Inc.
Flowserve Corporation
FMC Technologies, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Graco Inc.
Hubbell Inc.
IDEX Corp.
Joy Global Inc.
Kaman Corporation
|
|
|
MOOG Inc.
Rockwell Automation
Rockwell Collins
Roper Industries
Sauer-Danfoss Inc.
Thomas & Betts Corporation
Valmont Industries, Inc.
Waters Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For purposes of developing the performance metrics for
determining the payout under the cash component of the long-term
incentive plan (the LTIP), the Compensation
Committee has approved a relative measure methodology wherein we
compare our performance to an external index. During 2009 our
index affiliation changed from the S&P Small Cap 600 to the
S&P Mid Cap 400, and so the Committee also approved this
change in the basis of our performance comparison for
performance cycles starting after 2009. We believe that, for the
cash component of the LTIP, this measure is more appropriate as
a benchmark of our performance against a larger and broader
population of companies, which is representative of investment
options available to the market. We believe that outperforming
the benchmark should result in an increase in stockholder value.
Allocation
Between Current and Long-Term Compensation
We use a mix of pay comparison analysis when reviewing our total
compensation. This analysis reviews how pay is delivered at our
Company relative to companies in our peer comparator group, in
particular, the relationship between fixed and variable pay, and
short-term and long-term compensation. The following table sets
forth our pay mix in fiscal 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay Mix
|
Base Salary
|
|
|
Annual Short-Term
Incentive
|
|
|
Long-Term Incentive
|
30%
|
|
|
|
22%
|
|
|
|
|
48%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We look to market practice in our peer comparator group as a
guide for pay mix in order to minimize any recruiting
disadvantages that may result from a pay structure that differs
materially from outside opportunities. Accordingly, our pay mix
in fiscal 2009 was relatively consistent with the companies in
our peer comparator group. We believe it is important to provide
a smaller portion of total compensation in a more stable form,
such as base salary, and a more meaningful portion of total
compensation tied to incentives which can fluctuate, up or down,
based on our fundamental financial performance.
Allocation
Between Cash and Non-Cash Compensation
Total compensation for NEOs in fiscal 2009 was allocated 63% to
cash (base salary, annual short-term incentive and long-term
incentive) elements and 37% to non-cash (stock options)
elements. This allocation was the outcome of our analysis rather
than a starting point, as we do not have a targeted allocation
ratio between cash and non-cash elements for total compensation.
Our fiscal 2009 allocation was influenced by two important
factors:
|
|
|
our efforts to minimize the extent to which the interests of
existing stockholders are diluted by equity used as
compensation; and
|
|
|
our desire to align the majority of our variable compensation
with our fundamental financial performance (on which management
has a great deal of direct influence) rather than to changes in
stock price (on which management has relatively less direct
influence).
|
Elements
of Compensation
Base
Salary
Base salary is a standard compensation component we must pay to
remain competitive in our industry. The Compensation Committee
generally sets base salary and annual adjustments at levels
considered appropriate for comparable NEO positions at companies
in our peer comparator group. Base salaries are reviewed by the
Compensation Committee on an annual basis in the fourth quarter
of the fiscal year preceding the effectiveness of the change.
Specifically, base salaries are reviewed and approved in
September for an October effective date.
25
Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (continued)
Using the statistical methodology of regression analysis
described under the caption
Compensation
Philosophy and Strategy Competitive
Comparisons, we target base salaries for the NEOs
at the
50th percentile
of our peer comparator group base salaries.
Quantitative data in our peer comparator group is used to
determine the
50th percentile,
but we may also use qualitative performance data and factors to
adjust an NEOs base salary as a result of an individual
NEOs performance, experience, responsibilities,
management, leadership skills, and rate of increase from
existing base. These qualitative factors are used to determine
the appropriate placement in the salary range and the
relationship between an NEOs base pay and the
50th percentile.
Base salary is found in the Summary Compensation Table in the
Salary column.
Annual
Short-Term Incentive Compensation
Annual short-term incentive compensation is provided through the
Management Incentive Plan (MIP). The MIP measures
our internal annual financial performance against pre-determined
metrics. The MIP is designed to be competitive with compensation
offerings in our peer comparator group and to align compensation
with financial performance drivers that are intended to benefit
stockholders. The MIP is approved each year during the
Compensation Committees September meeting, with the
pre-determined metrics generally approved at its November
meeting. In fiscal 2009, no short-term annual incentive
compensation payout was made.
The target and actual payouts for each NEO under the MIP are
detailed in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEO
|
|
|
2009 Target as a % of Base
salary
|
|
|
2009 Actual Payout
|
Gendron
|
|
|
|
100%
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
Weber
|
|
|
|
60%
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
Benning
|
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
Glass
|
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
Lauffer
|
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term
Management Incentive Compensation
The long-term incentive compensation plan (LTIP) is
a key component of the total compensation package. The Woodward
Governor Company 2006 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the 2006
Plan), which was approved by stockholders in January 2006,
permits the grant of Nonqualified Stock Options, Incentive Stock
Options, Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock, Restricted
Stock Units, Performance Shares, Performance Units, Covered
Employee Annual Incentive Awards, Cash-Based Awards, and Other
Stock-Based Awards. To date, the Committee has authorized grants
to NEOs of only nonqualified stock option equity awards and a
multi-year cash based performance award.
The 2006 Plan has two components: (1) stock options and
(2) cash. These components are paid to offer competitive
benefits to our executives and to align their interests with
increasing stockholder value. The aggregate values of these
components are aligned with the total value of the options (as
determined using the Black-Scholes-Merton methodology) plus the
target cash payout to provide the total long-term incentive
compensation. The Compensation Committees determination of
total long-term compensation under the 2006 Plan uses the
statistical method of regression analysis described under the
caption
Compensation
Philosophy and Strategy Competitive
Comparisons, and targets the
50th percentile
of our peer comparator group for each NEO. Total long-term
compensation may be adjusted by the Compensation Committee as a
result of an individual NEOs performance, experience,
responsibilities, management, and leadership skills.
With respect to stock option awards, the option price of the
shares is determined at the date of the grant, which has been
set forth in accordance with our written policy to be on the
next business day following the close of our trading blackout
period relating to the release of our annual financial results,
and will not be less than the closing price as quoted on The
NASDAQ Global Select Market on that day. In September 2008, the
Compensation Committee changed this process such that the
options will be granted on October 1 to coincide with each
fiscal year, commencing with the grants made at the beginning of
fiscal 2010.
With respect to the cash opportunity, the Compensation Committee
generally establishes three-year performance periods, and the
2010-2012
performance period cycle was established in September 2009. The
Committee establishes the three-year performance cycle long-term
cash based awards in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year
preceding the first year of the performance cycle. The
performance metrics for the multi-year plans were determined by
the Compensation Committee to be:
|
|
|
Return on Capital (50% weight)
|
|
|
Growth in Earnings per Share (50% weight).
|
26
Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (continued)
The performance metrics were selected and weighted equally based
on important business measures for emphasis for the performance
period and are typical of the peer comparator group.
For the purposes of measuring performance, return on
capital is defined as net income, adjusted for accounting
changes and after-tax interest expense, divided by the sum of
total debt, stockholders equity, and minority interest.
Earnings per share (EPS) for this purpose is
measured as net income, adjusted for accounting changes, divided
by fully diluted common shares outstanding. EPS during the
performance cycle is compared to a baseline EPS to calculate the
growth in EPS during such cycle. There are currently three
relevant cycles:
2007-2009
(basis is EPS for 2006 of $0.99)
2008-2010
(basis is EPS for year ended 2007 of $1.39),
2009-2011
(basis is EPS for year ended 2008 of $1.75).
Company performance is measured relative to the performance of
the companies in the comparison group using the S&P Small
Cap 600 index, of which we were a member at the time these
performance cycles started. As discussed previously, the
Committee approved a change in our comparison group for future
performance cycles to the S&P Mid Cap 400, in conjunction
with our placement in that index.
Payout in relation to our ranking within the S&P Small Cap
600 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
Performance
|
|
|
Payout
|
At
50th percentile
|
|
|
50% of target
|
At
60th percentile
|
|
|
100% of target
|
At
75th percentile
|
|
|
200% of target
|
|
|
|
|
The above payout formula applies to each measure weighted
equally. If performance is below the
50th percentile,
no award will be earned or paid as it relates to that measure.
Award amounts are interpolated for performance results between
the above percentiles. The maximum award that can be earned for
performance at or above the
75th percentile
is 200% of target as it relates to that measure.
The Compensation Committee established a reward target for each
NEO, articulated as a percentage of base salary. These targets
are based on market data for our peer comparator group for
long-term incentive compensation. Targets and
2007-2009
actual payout for the cash component of LTIP are detailed in the
following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Target LTIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Award as a % of
|
|
|
2007-2009 Actual
|
NEO
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Payout
|
Gendron
|
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
|
$
|
575,000
|
|
Weber
|
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
|
$
|
249,634
|
|
Benning
|
|
|
|
35%
|
|
|
|
$
|
145,229
|
|
Glass
|
|
|
|
35%
|
|
|
|
$
|
130,000
|
|
Lauffer
|
|
|
|
35%
|
|
|
|
$
|
125,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payouts for the
2007-2009
cycle were based on the following performance levels:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metric
|
|
|
Performance
|
|
|
Payout
|
Return on Capital
|
|
|
88th Percentile
|
|
|
200%
|
Growth in Earnings per Share
|
|
|
82nd Percentile
|
|
|
200%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These performance levels resulted in awards at 200% of target
for each NEO for the
2007-2009
cycle. The amounts paid under the cash portion of the long-term
incentive plan ending in fiscal 2009 can be found above and in
the Summary Compensation Table under Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation.
Other
Compensation Programs
The NEOs participate in the same health, welfare, and retirement
benefits as does all of our employee membership. This includes a
group health insurance program; life insurance, inclusive of
employee life, additional
buy-up
employee life, optional spouse life, and optional child life;
Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance; Long-Term
Disability; Woodward Retirement Savings Plan, inclusive of
employee contributions and Company contributions (100% match on
the first 3% of employee contributions, 50% on the next 3% of
employee contributions, maxing at 4.5%); Woodward Stock Plan
(Company contribution of 5% of base wages); Retirement Income
Plan
27
Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (continued)
(Company contribution of 1.5% of eligible wages, and 0.1% for
each year of additional service). The Retirement Income Plan was
closed to new participants as of September 30, 2003, with
prior participants grandfathered.
All plans are subject to applicable limitations set by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Supplemental matches
and contributions to the Executive Benefit Plan
(EBP) described below are made for the Retirement
Savings Plan, the Woodward Stock Plan, and the grandfathered
Retirement Income Plan.
Our NEOs are also eligible to participate in a deferred
compensation plan, the EBP. This plan is also available to other
key members of management. Participants are able to defer up to
50% of base salary, and up to 100% of any incentive payments.
Mr. Benning has a relocation benefit whereby we have agreed
to relocate Mr. Benning and his wife anywhere within the
U.S. within one year of his retirement. In addition,
Woodward provides Mr. Benning a car and reimburses for the
cost of gas associated with business use of a car, and for
living accommodations and pays for costs associated with
household property management services for Mr. Benning
while serving as President, Airframe Systems. In addition,
Woodward reimburses certain personal travel expenses of
Mr. Benning and his wife.
These benefits are paid to remain competitive in the
marketplace. Amounts relating to certain of these benefits may
be found in the All Other Compensation column of the Summary
Compensation Table.
Post-Employment
Compensation and Employment Contracts
Change in control agreements exist for Messrs. Gendron and
Weber. We believe these are necessary to ensure actions and
behaviors that are aligned with, and in the best interests of,
our stockholders in the event of a change of control transaction
and to retain these executives through a change of control
transaction to ensure a smooth transition.
Severance benefits are intended to ease the consequences of an
unexpected termination of employment. These benefits are also
designed to prevent our senior executives from seeking
employment with our competitors after termination or soliciting
our employees or customers during the restricted period. The
change of control benefits are designed to preserve
productivity, avoid disruption, and prevent attrition during a
period when we are involved in a change of control transaction.
The change of control severance program also motivates
executives to pursue transactions that are in our
stockholders best interests notwithstanding the potential
negative impact of the transaction on their future employment.
While cognizant of their terms, the Committee does not view the
change of control and severance arrangements as an element of
current compensation, and such arrangements do not necessarily
affect the Committees annual compensation decisions.
For a further description of the change in control agreements,
see the information under the caption
Executive
Compensation Potential Payments Upon Termination or
Change in Control Change of Control Agreements
Post-Employment Provisions.
Based upon extensive discussions and with guidance from its
independent compensation consultant, Hewitt, it is the
Compensation Committees and the Companys belief that
change-in-control
agreements facilitate alignment of company, stockholder and
executive best interests, enable executives to remain focused on
running the business, and protect the value of the company by
retaining key talent. Accordingly, the Company has recently
offered new
change-in-control
agreements to all of its corporate officers, including the NEOs,
and expects to finalize such agreements shortly.
Messrs. Gendron, Weber, Benning, and Glass are not employed
under general employment contracts and are employees at will.
Mr. Lauffer is employed under an employment contract, as
required by German labor laws. It is a five-year contract
expiring originally in 2007, which automatically extends without
further action by either party for successive additional
five-year periods. Liability is limited in accordance with the
five-year contract laws.
Discretion
Our compensation plans allow for the application of discretion
in determining performance metrics and awards thereunder in the
event of extraordinary circumstances. For fiscal 2009, no such
discretion or adjustments were applied.
Impact of
Accounting and Tax Issues on Executive Compensation
In setting individual executives compensation levels, we
do not explicitly consider accounting and tax issues. We do,
however, analyze the overall expense arising from aggregate
executive compensation levels and awards and the components of
our pay programs.
As one of the factors in our evaluation of compensation matters,
we also consider the anticipated tax treatment to the Company
and to the executive officers of various payments and benefits.
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the Code), places a limit of $1,000,000 on
the amount of compensation that we may deduct in any one year
with respect to our CEO and each of the next four most highly
compensated executive officers. Certain performance-based
compensation approved by stockholders is not subject to the
deduction limit. The 2006 Omnibus Plan has been approved by
stockholder vote. As a result, stock option and cash-
28
Compensation Discussion and
Analysis (continued)
based performance awards under this plan may qualify for
performance-based deductions and may not be subject to the
deductibility limit imposed by Section 162(m) of the Code.
However, to maintain flexibility in compensating our key
executives, it is not a stated policy that all compensation must
be deductible. The Company and the Compensation Committee will
consider various alternatives to preserving the deductibility of
compensation payments and benefits to the extent reasonably
practicable and to the extent consistent with our other
compensation goals.
Stock
Ownership Guidelines
The Board has established stock ownership guidelines for
executives and non-employee directors to align their interests
and objectives with our stockholders. Non-employee directors are
committed to minimum ownership of our common stock of a value
equal to five times the annual retainer paid at the date of
election to the Board. Woodward executives are committed to
minimum ownership of our common stock of a value equal to
between two and four times their annual base salary at the date
of appointment. Accumulation of such number of stock is expected
within 60 months of the date of such persons
appointment or election.
Pledges
Under our written policies, no employees of the Company are
permitted to margin our stock or engage in short sales or buying
or selling of puts and calls against our stock. In addition, no
employees of the Company are permitted to pledge our stock,
except in limited circumstances and with prior approval from the
Chief Financial Officer or General Counsel.
29
Compensation
Committee Report on Compensation Discussion and
Analysis
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of
the Companys previous or future filings under the
Securities Act of 1933, or the Exchange Act, that might
incorporate this Proxy Statement, in whole or in part, the
following Woodward Governor Company Compensation Committee
Report on Compensation Discussion and Analysis shall not be
deemed to be soliciting material or
filed with the SEC or incorporated by reference into
any such previous or future filings.
The Compensation Committee is charged with certain
responsibilities relating to compensation of the Companys
executive officers. The Compensation Committee evaluates and
approves all compensation of executive officers, including base
salaries, annual and LTIP, and perquisite programs of the
Company. Compensation Committee determinations are presented to
the Board.
The Committee also fulfills its duties with respect to the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis and Compensation Committee
Report portions of the proxy statement, as described in the
Compensation Committees charter.
The Compensation Discussion and Analysis has been prepared by
management of the Company. The Company is responsible for the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis and for the disclosure
controls relating to executive compensation. The Compensation
Discussion and Analysis is not a report or disclosure of the
Compensation Committee.
The Compensation Committee met with management of the Company
and the Compensation Committees outside consultant to
review and discuss the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion
and Analysis included in this proxy statement and the 2009
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
with the management of the Company. Based on such review and
discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board
that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in
this proxy statement and the Companys 2009 Annual Report
on
Form 10-K,
and the Board approved that recommendation.
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation Committee:
|
|
James R. Rulseh, Chairman
|
|
|
|
|
John D. Cohn
|
|
|
|
|
Michael T. Yonker
|
|
|
|
|
Mary L. Petrovich
|
|
|
30
Executive
Compensation
Summary
Compensation Table
The following tables set forth compensation information for the
NEOs for services rendered in all capacities to the Company and
its subsidiaries in fiscal 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards(2)
|
|
|
Compensation (1)(3)
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Total
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Salary(1)($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)(4)
|
|
|
($)
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
698,077
|
|
|
|
|
874,996
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
81,539
|
|
|
|
|
2,229,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
647,115
|
|
|
|
|
751,112
|
|
|
|
|
893,343
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
93,668
|
|
|
|
|
2,885,238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
358,754
|
|
|
|
|
281,539
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
110,878
|
|
|
|
|
1,000,805
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
249,634
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
327,001
|
|
|
|
|
212,412
|
|
|
|
|
270,856
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
124,224
|
|
|
|
|
1,174,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,032
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer(5)
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
324,232
|
|
|
|
|
218,094
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
10,782
|
|
|
|
|
698,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145,229
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President, Electrical Power Systems
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
338,346
|
|
|
|
|
198,449
|
|
|
|
|
256,898
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
13,281
|
|
|
|
|
953,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146,211
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Benning
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
328,759
|
|
|
|
|
109,900
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
156,284
|
|
|
|
|
724,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President, Airframe Systems
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
295,195
|
|
|
|
|
162,682
|
|
|
|
|
224,134
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
59,977
|
|
|
|
|
862,050
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,062
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Glass
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
324,519
|
|
|
|
|
218,094
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
44,307
|
|
|
|
|
711,928
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125,008
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President, Turbine Systems
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
299,041
|
|
|
|
|
205,378
|
|
|
|
|
227,055
|
(MIP)
|
|
|
|
42,461
|
|
|
|
|
889,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115,544
|
(LTIP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The Stock Awards column and the Change in Pension Value and
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings column have been
omitted from this table because they are not applicable.
|
|
|
(1)
|
All cash compensation received by each NEO for fiscal 2009 is
found in either the Salary or Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation columns of this Table. Fiscal 2009 salaries became
effective in October 2008. In September 2009, the Compensation
Committee determined that no salary increases would be made for
any Company officers, including NEOs, for fiscal 2010.
|
|
(2)
|
The amounts in this column reflect the dollar amount recognized
for financial statement reporting purposes for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2009, under our 2006 Plan and its
predecessors and thus include amounts from awards granted in and
prior to fiscal 2009. Assumptions used in the calculation of
these amounts are described in Note 17 to the
Companys audited financial statements for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2009 included in the Companys
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the SEC on November 20, 2009.
|
|
(3)
|
The first line item in this column represents payouts for fiscal
2009 performance under the MIP. The second line item in this
column represents payouts under the cash component of the
long-term management incentive compensation plan established
under the 2006 Plan. See
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis and
Narrative
Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table for a discussion of how
amounts were determined.
|
|
(4)
|
The amounts reported include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching contributions to the Woodward Retirement Savings Plan
that all participating employees receive. The Retirement Savings
Plan consists of a 401(k) component, a Woodward common stock
component and a Retirement Incentive Plan. The Retirement
Incentive Plan was closed to new entrants hired after 2003.
|
|
|
|
Credit to the EBP for contributions to which the executive would
have been entitled if the benefit had been calculated without
regard to the limit under the Internal Revenue Code on total
contributions, benefit eligible compensation,
and/or
salary deferrals.
|
|
|
|
Gross up income that is grossed up so we pay the
taxes on the benefit.
|
|
|
|
Perquisites company car (Messrs. Lauffer and
Benning).
|
|
|
|
Relocation housing and relocation benefits provided
to Mr. Benning in connection with his acceptance of
appointment as Group Vice President (now President) of Airframe
Systems.
|
|
|
(5) |
Certain amounts paid to Mr. Lauffer as reflected in this
and the following tables were paid in Euros and such amounts
have been converted to dollars based on the average exchange
rate during the 2009 fiscal year of $1 to 0.74048 Euros.
|
31
Executive
Compensation (continued)
The amounts of All Other Compensation reflected in this column
for each NEO are quantified as required below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas A.
|
|
|
|
Robert F.
|
|
|
|
Gerhard
|
|
|
|
Dennis
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
Description
|
|
|
Gendron
|
|
|
|
Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
Lauffer
|
|
|
|
Benning
|
|
|
|
Glass
|
|
Retirement Savings Plan match
|
|
|
$
|
28,275
|
|
|
|
$
|
22,525
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,759
|
|
|
|
$
|
31,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Benefit Plan credit
|
|
|
|
51,554
|
|
|
|
|
84,863
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
9,142
|
|
|
|
|
10,038
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perquisites
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
10,782
|
|
|
|
|
13,364
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relocation benefits
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
100,335
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
1,710
|
|
|
|
|
3,490
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
3,684
|
|
|
|
|
2,774
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
81,539
|
|
|
|
|
110,878
|
|
|
|
|
10,782
|
|
|
|
|
156,284
|
|
|
|
|
44,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal 2009
The following table provides additional information with respect
to stock-based awards granted in fiscal 2009, the value of which
was provided in the Option Awards column of the Summary
Compensation Table, and the potential range of payouts
associated with the MIP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards:
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Base Price
|
|
|
of Stock and
|
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Awards(1)
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
of Option
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Threshold
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Awards
|
|
|
Awards
|
Name
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
|
($/Sh)
|
|
|
($)(2)
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Long-Term) 175,000
|
|
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MIP) 280,000
|
|
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
|
1,400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
486,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Long-Term) 72,000
|
|
|
|
|
144,000
|
|
|
|
|
288,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MIP) 86,400
|
|
|
|
|
216,000
|
|
|
|
|
432,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
113,825
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Long-Term) 61,204
|
|
|
|
|
122,408
|
|
|
|
|
244,816
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MIP) 76,942
|
|
|
|
|
192,355
|
|
|
|
|
384,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
109,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Benning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Long-Term) 57,762
|
|
|
|
|
115,525
|
|
|
|
|
231,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MIP) 72,615
|
|
|
|
|
181,539
|
|
|
|
|
363,077
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
109,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Glass
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Long-Term) 56,963
|
|
|
|
|
113,925
|
|
|
|
|
227,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MIP) 66,000
|
|
|
|
|
179,025
|
|
|
|
|
358,050
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
109,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: |
Long-term references the cash component of our
Long-term Incentive Compensation Plan.
|
|
|
(1) |
The Management Incentive Plan payment amounts are earned based
on the achievement of the established financial performance
objectives of the Plan on a sliding scale of 40% to 200% of the
target amount established. These amounts are based on the
individuals position and a percentage of the
individuals fiscal 2009 salary. See
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis and
Narrative
Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table for information regarding
the description of performance-based conditions.
|
|
|
(2) |
The amounts in this column reflect the full grant date fair
value of the option awards reported in this Table under All
Other Options Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options
column awarded in fiscal 2009 without regard to when the award
was recognized for financial reporting purposes. Assumptions
used in the calculation of these amounts are described in
Note 17 to the Companys audited financial statements
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 included in
the Companys Annual Report and
Form 10-K
filed with the SEC on November 20, 2009. For such purposes,
the options are valued at $ $7.85 per share.
|
Narrative
Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table
Stock option awards under the 2006 Plan consist of non-qualified
options issued for a
10-year
term. Options granted to officers and directors vest over four
years at the rate of 25% per year, and options granted to
directors prior to fiscal 2008 vested in one year. The exercise
or base price represents the Woodward closing price as reported
on The Nasdaq on the date of the award. If employment is
terminated, the options granted will be cancelled unless
exercised within three months following the date of termination
or the term of the option whichever is earlier. If the
termination is due to retirement, all outstanding options vest
and must be exercised within three years from the date of
retirement or the term of the option, whichever is earlier. For
the foregoing purposes, our directors are eligible for
retirement upon attaining age 55, and the NEOs are eligible
for retirement upon attaining age 55 with at least ten
years of service with us or age 65 with no minimum years of
service. Dividends are not paid on unexercised stock option
awards.
32
Executive
Compensation (continued)
The MIP is presented in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table because it
is performance based. The actual amounts of the awards under the
MIP and the cash portion of the LTIP listed in the Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation column were paid in November 2009.
The awards under both plans as set forth in the Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table are based on Threshold/Target/Maximum
percentages applied to base wages as of the beginning of the
fiscal year. If employment is terminated, the employee must have
had full-time employee status at the end of the fiscal year, in
the case of the MIP, or at the end of the last fiscal year of
the multi-year period, in the case of the LTIP, to receive a
payout under both plans. If the termination is due to
retirement, the payout under both plans will be prorated. In
either event, the payout under both plans will be based on
actual goal performance. Please see COMPENSATION
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS for additional information
relating to these provisions, including performance criteria
relating to these plans.
33
Executive
Compensation (continued)
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End (September 30,
2009)
The following table provides information regarding the
outstanding equity awards held by each of the NEOs as of
September 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Expiration
|
|
Name
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
|
|
Price ($)
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
58,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.97
|
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.17
|
|
|
|
|
10/01/2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.95
|
|
|
|
|
10/07/2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
144,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.74
|
|
|
|
|
11/21/2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.91
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
|
13.50
|
|
|
|
|
11/23/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,000
|
|
|
|
|
87,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.49
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
|
67,500
|
|
|
|
|
32.73
|
|
|
|
|
11/16/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
62,500
|
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
|
14.14
|
|
|
|
|
8/23/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.49
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
|
|
|
19,500
|
|
|
|
|
32.73
|
|
|
|
|
11/16/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.91
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,625
|
|
|
|
|
10,875
|
|
|
|
|
13.50
|
|
|
|
|
11/23/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
18.49
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
|
|
|
19,500
|
|
|
|
|
32.73
|
|
|
|
|
11/16/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Benning
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.91
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,875
|
|
|
|
|
10,875
|
|
|
|
|
13.50
|
|
|
|
|
11/23/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,250
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
18.49
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
|
|
|
19,500
|
|
|
|
|
32.73
|
|
|
|
|
11/16/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Glass
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.97
|
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.17
|
|
|
|
|
10/01/2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.95
|
|
|
|
|
10/07/2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.74
|
|
|
|
|
11/21/2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.91
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,625
|
|
|
|
|
10,875
|
|
|
|
|
13.50
|
|
|
|
|
11/23/2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
18.49
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
|
|
|
19,500
|
|
|
|
|
32.73
|
|
|
|
|
11/16/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
18.67
|
|
|
|
|
11/24/2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
Executive
Compensation (continued)
Option
Exercises and Stock Vested Table
The following table provides the amounts received upon the
exercise of options or similar instruments or the vesting of
stock or similar instruments during the most recent fiscal year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired on
|
|
|
Value Realized
|
Name
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
on Exercise ($)
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
|
638,016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Benning
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Glass
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
255,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The Company has no outstanding stock awards issued to any
NEOs and therefore no stock awards vested in fiscal 2009.
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation Table
The following table discloses contributions, earnings and
balances under the EBP, the Companys nonqualified deferred
compensation plan, for each NEO:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
|
Company
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
in Fiscal
|
|
|
in Fiscal
|
|
|
in Fiscal
|
|
|
Withdrawals/
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
2009
|
Name
|
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)(2)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
Thomas A. Gendron
|
|
|
|
2,067,698
|
|
|
|
|
487,916
|
|
|
|
|
51,554
|
|
|
|
|
(499,203
|
)
|
|
|
|
(245,226
|
)
|
|
|
|
1,862,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert F. Weber, Jr.
|
|
|
|
427,852
|
|
|
|
|
70,663
|
|
|
|
|
84,863
|
|
|
|
|
(8,932
|
)
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
574,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Lauffer
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Benning
|
|
|
|
437,750
|
|
|
|
|
117,644
|
|
|
|
|
9,142
|
|
|
|
|
(44,791
|
)
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
519,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Glass
|
|
|
|
258,690
|
|
|
|
|
169,980
|
|
|
|
|
10,038
|
|
|
|
|
1,176
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
439,884
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
For additional information regarding beginning balances, see our
Proxy Statement for the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
filed with the SEC on December 13, 2008.
|
|
(2)
|
These amounts are included in amounts reported in the All Other
Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table.
|
|
|
(3) |
Mr. Weber became the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of the Company effective August 22, 2005. At that time, it
was agreed that Mr. Weber would receive an annual bonus in
the form of a Company contribution into the EBP (nonqualified
deferred compensation plan) of $75,000 on December 31, 2005
and would continue to receive this amount each year through
December 31, 2009 in order to compensate Mr. Weber for
benefits lost when leaving his prior employer.
|
Narrative
Disclosure of Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table
The EBP is a non-qualified, unfunded deferred compensation plan
that is designed to allow for supplemental retirement savings
above the limits imposed by the IRS. All of the NEOs other than
Mr. Lauffer have participated in the EBP. If deferrals are
above the Internal Revenue Code limits on eligible compensation,
then the account is credited by the Company with a percentage
match contribution equivalent to that available
under our Woodward Retirement Savings Plan. All contributions
are made on a tax-deferred basis. Eligible members are selected
to participate based on criteria that includes job grade, salary
level and significant accountability to produce or contribute to
key business results. Amounts deferred into the EBP are indexed
to the same investment alternatives available to all eligible
employees under the Retirement Savings Plan. With approval from
the Board, investment into Woodward common stock is permitted.
Eligible employees may defer up to 50% of base salary for a plan
year and up to 100% of short-term cash incentive compensation
under the MIP. All elections must be made in advance of the plan
year. At the time of the deferral election, the employee must
designate the time and form of distribution. Distributions may
be elected upon retirement or termination of employment.
Distributions may also be
35
Executive
Compensation (continued)
elected for future dates during employment; however, any future
date selected must be at least five plan years after the plan
year in which the deferral is credited to the account.
Distributions may be modified if executed a year before the
originally scheduled distribution date. Distributions from the
plan are made in cash; however, any payment made that is
attributable to the portion of the participants account
deemed invested in Company stock is made in whole shares of
Company stock with fractional shares paid in cash. Amounts
included in the EBP are 100% vested at all times.
Potential
Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
This section explains the payments and benefits to which the
NEOs would be entitled in various terminations of employment
scenarios. These are hypothetical situations only, as we
currently employ all of the NEOs. For purposes of this
explanation and these scenarios, we have assumed that
termination of employment and
change-in-control
occurred on September 30, 2009, the last day of our 2009
fiscal year.
The intent of this section is to isolate those payments and
benefits for which the amount, vesting, or time of payment is
altered by the termination of employment in the described
circumstances. This section does not cover all amounts the NEOs
would receive following termination. Specifically they are
entitled to COBRA, life insurance conversion, and payouts from
their Retirement Savings Plan; however, all employees are
entitled to these benefits.
The age and years of service of the NEOs as of
September 30, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
of
Service
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Lauffer
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Benning
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Glass
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voluntary
Termination
The post-termination benefits that apply in a voluntary
termination situation are:
|
|
|
the right to receive bonus payouts under the MIP and LTIP
compensation programs (the NEO must be a full-time employee on
the last day of the fiscal year to receive any bonus payout);
|
|
|
a lump-sum distribution of the deferred compensation balance
under the EBP; and
|
|
|
the right to exercise stock options that are vested on the last
day of employment. Stock option vesting does not accelerate,
unless the NEO is retirement eligible, or is 55 years of
age with at least ten years of service or age 65 with no
minimum service requirement.
|
Based on the ages and years of service of the NEOs on
September 30, 2009, the payouts upon voluntary termination
would be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voluntary Termination
|
|
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
|
|
Mr. Lauffer
|
|
|
Mr. Benning
|
|
|
Mr. Glass
|
MIP Bonus
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP Bonus(1)
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
249,634
|
|
|
|
|
145,229
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
|
125,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBP Lump Sum Distribution
|
|
|
|
1,862,739
|
|
|
|
|
574,446
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
439,884
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As this calculation assumes termination at fiscal year end, the
entire amount would be earned but termination prior to year end
results in no amount being earned or paid.
|
|
|
(2) |
Eligible for retirement so payout would follow designation at
the time of the election.
|
Involuntary
Termination
The post-termination benefits that apply in an involuntary
termination situation (other than a change of control
termination, which is applicable to Messrs. Gendron and
Weber, as described below) are:
|
|
|
the right to receive bonus payouts under the MIP and LTIP
compensation program;
|
|
|
a lump-sum distribution of the deferred compensation balance
under the EBP; and
|
36
Executive
Compensation (continued)
|
|
|
the right to exercise stock options that are vested on the last
day of employment. Stock option vesting does not accelerate,
unless the NEO is retirement eligible, i.e., upon
attaining 55 years of age with at least ten years of
service or age 65 with no minimum service requirement.
|
Based on the ages and years of service of the NEOs on
September 30, 2009, the payouts upon involuntary
termination would be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Involuntary
Termination
|
|
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
|
|
Mr. Lauffer
|
|
|
Mr. Benning
|
|
|
Mr. Glass
|
MIP Bonus
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP Bonus(1)
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
249,634
|
|
|
|
|
145,229
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
|
125,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBP Lump Sum Distribution
|
|
|
|
1,862,739
|
|
|
|
|
574,446
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
439,884
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As this calculation assumes termination at fiscal year end, the
entire amount would be earned but termination prior to year end
results in no amount being earned or paid.
|
|
|
(2) |
Eligible for retirement, so payout would follow designation at
the time of the election.
|
If the NEO was involuntarily terminated for deliberate and
serious disloyal or dishonest conduct he would not be eligible
for the benefits described above and his stock options would be
cancelled.
Death
If a NEO dies while employed the post-termination benefit
consists of:
|
|
|
bonus payouts to beneficiaries;
|
|
|
a lump-sum distribution of the deferred compensation balance
under the EBP; and
|
|
|
accelerated vesting of non-qualified stock option awards that
the beneficiary must exercise within one year.
|
Based on the ages and years of service of the NEOs on
September 30, 2009, the payouts in the event of death would
be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death
|
|
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
|
|
Mr. Lauffer
|
|
|
Mr. Benning
|
|
|
Mr. Glass
|
MIP Bonus
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP Bonus(1)
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
249,634
|
|
|
|
|
145,229
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
|
125,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBP Lump Sum Distribution
|
|
|
|
1,862,739
|
|
|
|
|
574,446
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
439,884
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As this calculation assumes termination at fiscal year end, the
entire amount would be earned. If a NEO dies mid-year the payout
will be prorated based on the month of death and payable within
the normal timetable.
|
Disability
If a NEO becomes totally and permanently disabled while
employed, the post-termination benefits consist of:
|
|
|
monthly payment under the Woodward Governor Long-Term Disability
plan available to all employees;
|
|
|
the right to receive bonus payouts under the MIP and LTIP
compensation program; and
|
|
|
accelerated vesting of non-qualified stock option awards that
must be exercised within one year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability
|
|
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
|
|
Mr. Lauffer
|
|
|
Mr. Benning
|
|
|
Mr. Glass
|
MIP Bonus
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP Bonus(1)
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
249,634
|
|
|
|
|
145,229
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
|
125,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBP Lump Sum Distribution(2)
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As this calculation assumes termination at fiscal year end, the
entire amount would be earned and would not be subject to
proration. If a NEO becomes disabled mid-year the payout will be
prorated based on the month of disability and payable within the
normal timetable.
|
|
|
(2) |
Payments from the EBP may, but do not have to be taken as a lump
sum in the event of disability. They may be paid out in the
manner that was designated at the time the deferral was elected,
based on the aggregate amounts shown.
|
37
Executive
Compensation (continued)
Change of
Control Agreements Post-Employment Provisions
We have transitional compensation agreements with our Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
Messrs. Gendron and Weber, that become operative only upon
a Change in Control or other specified event. For purposes of
these agreements, a Change in Control occurs if:
|
|
|
any person, entity, or group (with certain exceptions) becomes
the beneficial owner of 15% or more of the outstanding shares of
Woodward common stock; or
|
|
|
there is a change in a majority of the Board during any two-year
period other than by election or nomination by a vote of
two-thirds of the Board members as of the beginning of the
period; or Woodwards stockholders approve a merger,
consolidation, sale of assets, or share exchange resulting in
Woodwards stockholders owning less than 51% of the
combined voting power of the surviving corporation following the
transaction; or
|
|
|
our stockholders approve a liquidation or dissolution.
|
Following a Change in Control, we would continue to employ the
executive for a minimum period of two years in substantially the
same position, for substantially the same compensation and
benefits. If the executives employment is terminated by
Woodward (other than for cause or due to death or disability),
or the executive terminates with good reason (as defined in the
agreement), the executive would receive an amount (payable in a
lump sum) equal to 300% of each of (1) the executives
annual base salary, (2) highest annual bonus in the last
three years, (3) highest long-term incentive compensation
bonus in the last three years, and (4) the sum of the
Retirement Savings Plan and EBP annual contributions made or
credited for the benefit of the executive. In addition, all
unvested stock options awards are accelerated and become
immediately exercisable. Member benefits would be continued at
Woodwards expense for a period of three years after the
date of termination. Outplacement services would be provided at
Woodwards expense as well as tax preparation services for
the executives taxable year in which the termination
occurred.
The following table describes the payments and benefits that are
triggered by the occurrence of a Change in Control and the
termination of employment following a Change in Control.
Although Messrs. Gendron and Weber would have three months
from such a termination to exercise their options, for purposes
of this table, we have assumed the exercise of stock options on
September 30, 2009, the last day of fiscal 2009, at the
closing price on that day of $24.26 per share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Control
|
|
|
Mr. Gendron
|
|
|
Mr. Weber
|
300% of base salary
|
|
|
$
|
2,100,000
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300% of highest bonus paid in past 3 years MIP
|
|
|
|
2,680,029
|
|
|
|
|
812,568
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300% of highest bonus paid in past 3 years LTIP
|
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
720,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro rata Bonus
|
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
|
216,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options
|
|
|
|
1,171,370
|
|
|
|
|
167,606
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300% of Retirement Savings Plan and EBP registrant contributions
in most recent plan year
|
|
|
|
239,487
|
|
|
|
|
322,164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits: Health, Life, and Disability for three years
|
|
|
|
41,664
|
|
|
|
|
41,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outplacement Services
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Preparation
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Payments
|
|
|
|
3,138,659
|
|
|
|
|
1,360,051
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the benefits and amounts payable to the executives are
subject to federal excise tax, the Chief Executive Officer or
Chief Financial Officer, as applicable, will also be entitled to
receive the additional excise tax payment reflected in the above
table so that such officer will receive (on a net basis) the
same amount he would have received absent the applicability of
the excise tax.
38
Equity
Compensation Plan Information (as of September 30,
2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
be Issued upon
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Future Issuance under
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Equity Compensation Plans
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
(excluding securities reflected
|
Plan Category
|
|
|
Warrants, and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants, and Rights
|
|
|
in the first column)
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
2,984,705
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.73
|
|
|
|
|
5,873,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
2,984,705
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.73
|
|
|
|
|
5,873,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit
Committee Report to Stockholders
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of
the Companys previous or future filings under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange that might incorporate
this Proxy Statement in whole or in part, the information set
forth above under Board Meetings and
Committees Audit Committee, relating to the
charter of the Audit Committee and the independence of the Audit
Committee members, and the following report shall not be deemed
to be soliciting material or filed with
the SEC or incorporated by reference into any such previous or
future filings.
Audit
Committee Report
The Audit Committee oversees the Companys financial
reporting process and compliance with the Sarbanes/Oxley Act on
behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary
responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting
process, including the systems of internal controls.
Based on the review and discussions referred to in this report,
we recommended to the Board of Directors that the consolidated
balance sheets of the Company at September 30, 2009 and
2008, and the related statements of consolidated earnings,
shareholders equity, and cash flows of the Company for the
three years ended September 30, 2009, be included in the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the SEC for the year ended September 30, 2009.
Our recommendation was based on our review and discussion of the
audited financial statements with management, and our
discussions with Deloitte & Touche LLP, the
independent registered public accounting firm that audited the
financial statements.
In addition, our recommendation was based on our discussion with
Deloitte & Touche LLP of the matters required to be
discussed under Statement of Auditing Standards No. 61, as
amended. We also discussed with Deloitte & Touche LLP
their independence, received from them the written disclosures
and the letter required by Independence Standards Board Standard
No. 1, and considered whether the provision of services
other than audit services (the fees for which are disclosed in
the table that follows) is compatible with maintaining their
independence. We have based our recommendation on the foregoing
discussions, disclosures and considerations.
|
|
|
Audit Committee:
|
|
Paul Donovan, Chairman
Larry E. Rittenberg
Michael H. Joyce
Ronald M. Sega
|
Audit
Committees Policy on Pre-Approval of Services Provided
by
Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firms
The Audit Committee is responsible for appointing, setting
compensation for, and overseeing the work of the independent
registered public accounting firm. As a result, the Audit
Committee has established a policy regarding pre-approval of all
services provided by the independent registered public
accounting firm. Under the established policy, all audit and tax
services and related fees require the specific approval of the
Audit Committee. For audit-related services and all other
services, the Audit Committee has determined specific services
and dollar thresholds under which such services would be
considered pre-approved. To the extent that management requests
services other than these pre-approved services, or beyond the
dollar thresholds, the Audit Committee must specifically approve
the services. Furthermore, under the established policy, the
independent registered public accounting firm is prohibited from
performing the non-audit services identified by the SEC and the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) as
prohibited. The policy also requires management to periodically
prepare reports for the Audit Committee on the Companys
use of the independent registered public accounting firm.
39
Audit Committee Report to
Stockholders (continued)
The following table represents fees for professional audit
services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP for the
audit of the Companys consolidated financial statements as
of and for the years ended September 30, 2009 and
September 30, 2008, and fees billed for other services
rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP during that period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended September
30,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Audit Fees
|
|
|
$
|
1,519,502
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,184,802
|
|
Audit-Related Fees(1)
|
|
|
|
498,478
|
|
|
|
|
45,869
|
|
Tax Fees
|
|
|
|
441,270
|
|
|
|
|
308,703
|
|
All Other Fees
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
$
|
2,459,380
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,539,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Audit-Related Fees consist of assurance and related services
that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of
the financial statements. This category includes fees for
pension and benefit plan audits, consultations concerning
accounting and financial reporting standards, assistance with
statutory financial reporting, consultation on general internal
control matters or Sarbanes-Oxley Act assistance, due diligence
related to mergers and acquisitions, and other auditing
procedures and issuance of special purpose reports.
|
On November 13, 2008, the Audit Committee recommended and
approved the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as
the Companys independent registered public accounting
firm. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 and
through November 19, 2009, there were no consultations with
Deloitte & Touche LLP on any matters described in
item 304(a)(2)(i) and item 304(a)(2)(ii) of
regulation S-K.
|
|
PROPOSAL 2
|
RATIFICATION
OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM
|
The Audit Committee has selected the accounting firm of
Deloitte & Touche LLP to serve as the Companys
independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2010. The decision of the Audit
Committee to appoint Deloitte & Touche LLP was based
on careful consideration of the firms qualifications as an
independent registered public accounting firm.
Deloitte & Touche LLP was originally selected by the
Audit Committee as the Companys independent registered
public accounting firm effective December 6, 2007.
Although the Audit Committee is directly responsible for the
appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the work
of any independent registered public accounting firm engaged for
the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or
performing other audit, review or attest services for the
Company, the Audit Committee and the Board are requesting, as a
matter of policy, that stockholders ratify the appointment of
Deloitte& Touche LLP as the Companys independent
registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010. The Audit Committee is not required to
take any action as a result of the outcome of the vote on this
proposal. However, if the stockholders do not ratify the
appointment, the Audit Committee may investigate the reasons for
the stockholders rejection and may consider whether to
retain Deloitte & Touche LLP or to appoint another
independent registered public accounting firm. Furthermore, even
if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee in its
discretion may direct the appointment of a different independent
registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if
it determines that such a change would be in the best interests
of the Company and its stockholders.
A proposal to ratify the appointment of Deloitte &
Touche LLP for the current year will be presented at the Annual
Meeting. A representative from Deloitte & Touche LLP
is expected to attend the annual meeting and will have the
opportunity to make a statement, if he or she desires to do so,
and be available to answer appropriate questions.
Your
Board recommends a vote FOR the ratification of the
appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm
presented in Proposal 2.
40
|
|
PROPOSAL 3
|
STOCKHOLDER
PROPOSAL REGARDING ANNUAL ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
|
Gerald R. Armstrong, 910 Sixteenth Street, No. 412, Denver,
Colorado, 80202, beneficial owner of 107.933 shares, has
given notice that he intends to present for action at the Annual
Meeting the following resolution:
Stockholders
Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION
That the shareholders of WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY request its
Board of Directors to take the steps necessary to eliminate
classification of terms of the Board of Directors to require
that all Directors stand for election annually. The Board
declassification shall be completed in a manner that does not
affect the unexpired terms of the previously-elected Directors.
Stockholders
Supporting Statement
STATEMENT
The proponent believes the election of directors is the
strongest way that shareholders influence the directors of any
corporation. Currently, our board of directors is divided into
three classes with each class serving three-year terms. Because
of this structure, shareholders may only vote for one-third of
the directors each year. This is not in the best interest of
shareholders because it reduces accountability.
Xcel Energy Inc., Devon Energy Corporation, ConocoPhillips,
ONEOK, Inc., Centerpoint Energy, Super-Valu Stores, Inc. XTO
Energy, Inc. have adopted this practice upon the presentation of
this proposal by the proponent and in 2009, the proponents
proposal has been approved by shareholders of Avista Corp.,
Comerica Incorporated, Chesapeake Energy Corp., First Financial
Bancorp., Cincinnati Financial Corp., and Ecolab, Inc. where it
received a 72.7% favorable vote. The proponent is a professional
investor who has studied this issue carefully.
The performance of our management and our Board of Directors is
now being more strongly tested due to economic conditions and
the accountability for performance must be given to the
shareholders whose capital has been entrusted in the form of
share investments.
A study by researchers at Harvard Business School and the
University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School titled
Corporate Governance and Equity Prices (Quarterly
Journal of Economics, February, 2003), looked at the
relationship between corporate governance practices (including
classified boards) and firm performance. The study found a
significant positive link between governance practices favoring
shareholders (such as annual directors election) and firm value.
While management may argue that directors need and deserve
continuity, management should become aware that continuity and
tenure may be best assured when their performance as directors
is exemplary and is deemed beneficial to the best interests of
the corporation and its shareholders.
The proponent regards as unfounded the concern expressed by some
that annual election of all directors could leave companies
without experienced directors in the event that all incumbents
are voted out by shareholders. In the unlikely event that
shareholders do vote to replace all directors, such a decision
would express dissatisfaction with the incumbent directors and
reflect a need for change.
If you agree that shareholders may benefit from greater
accountability afforded by annual election of all directors,
please vote FOR this proposal.
Woodward
Board of Directors Statement in Opposition
Your
Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote
AGAINST Othis proposal
The Board of Directors does not believe that this proposal is in
the best interest of Woodwards stockholders. The Board
believes that it is important that this proposal not be
implemented, and therefore recommends a vote against the
proposal.
Woodwards certificate of incorporation provides that our
Board is divided into three classes with approximately one-third
of the directors standing for election each year for three-year
terms. The classified board structure has been in place since
1984. Woodwards certificate of incorporation, as approved
by the stockholders, ultimately would require the affirmative
vote of the holders of two-thirds of Woodwards outstanding
common stock to change the existing classified board provision,
even if the Board supported the proposal, which it does not.
A classified board provides enhanced continuity and stability in
the Boards business strategies and policies. With a
classified board, at least two-thirds of the directors will have
had prior experience and familiarity with the business and
affairs of Woodward. Directors with meaningful tenure are able
to provide valuable insight into the rationale and historical
context for past decisions and strategies. A classified board
structure enables the directors to build on past experience,
plan for a reasonable period into the future and focus on
long-term strategy and performance.
41
Woodward Board of
Directors Statement in
Opposition (continued)
Moreover, a classified board helps protect stockholder value in
the face of a coercive takeover attempt. Absent a classified
board, a potential acquirer could gain control of Woodward by
replacing a majority of the Board with its own slate of nominees
at a single annual meeting by a simple majority of the votes
cast, and without paying any premium to Woodwards
stockholders. By contrast, a classified board and other
protections encourage hostile stockholders seeking to acquire
control of Woodward to initiate arms-length discussions
with management and the Board, who may be in a position to
negotiate a higher price or more favorable terms for
stockholders or to seek to prevent a takeover that the Board
believes is not in the best interest of stockholders. The fact
that the entire Board cannot be removed in a single proxy
contest allows directors to weigh from a position of strength
alternative methods of maximizing stockholder value, including
evaluating competing expressions of interest. A classified board
does not prevent unsolicited takeover attempts, but it assists
an incumbent board in negotiating terms to maximize the value of
the transaction to all of Woodwards stockholders.
The proponent of the stockholder proposal references a 2003
study finding a significant positive link between governance
practices (such as annual election of all directors as
contrasted to classified boards) and firm value. However, a more
recent report (Bates, Becher and Lemmon, Board Classification
and Managerial Entrenchment: Evidence from the Market for
Corporate Control (April 2007)) reaches a different view,
stating:
In closing, we note that the research to date has done little to
empirically evaluate the potential shareholder benefits
associated with classified board provisions or establish the
causal nature of the relation between board classification and
firm value. In this light we suggest a more circumspect policy
approach be adopted by some governance practitioners and
academics whose recent calls for the abolition of this common
governance provision seem unwarranted and potentially damaging
for shareholders.
This report also states:
Overall, the evidence is inconsistent with the view that board
classification is associated with managerial entrenchment and
instead suggests that classification improves the relative
bargaining power of target managers on behalf of their
constituent shareholders.
In Woodwards view, by reducing the threat of an abrupt
change in the composition of the entire Board, our classified
Board permits a more orderly process for your directors to
consider any and all alternatives to maximize stockholder value.
Proponents of declassified boards would have stockholders
believe that the declassification of a companys board of
directors is necessary to ensure director independence and
accountability. This is false. Your Board is committed to
corporate accountability and believes that such accountability
depends on the selection of responsible and experienced
individuals, not on whether they serve one-year or three-year
terms. Moreover, stockholders have a variety of tools at their
disposal to ensure that directors, including directors who are
elected on a classified basis, are accountable to stockholders.
These tools include withholding votes from directors who are
standing for election, publicity campaigns and meeting with
directors to express stockholder concerns. Stockholders have
successfully used these accountability tools with a number of
companies. We also believe that electing directors to three-year
terms, rather than one-year terms, helps to enhance the
independence of non-employee directors by providing them with a
longer assured term of office, thereby insulating them against
pressures from management or from special interest groups who
may have an agenda contrary to the long-term interests of
stockholders. Woodwards current classified Board structure
permits its directors to act independently and on behalf of
stockholders without being concerned as to whether they will be
re-nominated by the other members of the Board each year. The
freedom to focus on Woodwards long-term interests rather
than on the re-nomination process should lead to greater
independence and better governance.
The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares
of common stock in Woodward present in person or by proxy and
entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be required for the
approval of this stockholder proposal. Abstentions from voting
in this matter are treated as votes AGAINST.
Woodwards stockholders should be aware that this
stockholder proposal is simply a request that the Board take the
actions stated in the proposal. The proposal, if approved, would
not be binding on the Board and thus may not result in the
requested declassification of the Board. If the proposal was
approved and the Board elected to implement it, a subsequent
proposal to amend Woodwards certificate of incorporation
would need to be submitted and approved by holders of two-thirds
of Woodwards outstanding common stock before the
declassification could be effectuated.
Your Board of Directors
recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal for the
reasons described above. Proxies solicited by the Board of
Directors will be voted AGAINST this proposal unless
a stockholder has indicated otherwise in voting the
proxy.
42
Stockholder
Nominations and Proposals for 2010 Annual Meeting
Stockholders who, in accordance with SEC
Rule 14a-8,
wish to present proposals for inclusion in our proxy statement
and form of proxy to be distributed in connection with next
years annual meeting must submit their proposals so that
they are received by us at our principal executive offices no
later than the close of business on August 13, 2010.
Proposals should be sent to the attention of the Corporate
Secretary. As the rules of the SEC make clear, simply submitting
a proposal does not guarantee that it will be included.
Under our Bylaws, certain procedures are provided that a
stockholder must follow to nominate persons for election as
directors or to introduce an item of business at an annual
meeting of stockholders (other than a proposal brought pursuant
to SEC
Rule 14a-8).
These procedures provide that nominations for director
and/or an
item of business to be introduced at an annual meeting of
stockholders must be submitted in writing to the Corporate
Secretary of the Company at our principal executive offices by a
stockholder of record on both the date of giving notice and the
record date for the annual meeting. In general, our Bylaws
require that such a notice for nominating a director or
introducing an item of business at the 2010 Annual Meeting must
be received not earlier than September 24, 2010 and not
later than October 24, 2010. However, if the 2010 Annual
Meeting is called for a date that is not within 30 days
before or after the anniversary date of the 2009 Annual Meeting,
the notice must be received not later than the close of business
on the tenth day following the date on which notice of the date
of the 2010 Annual Meeting was mailed or public disclosure of
the date of the Annual Meeting was made, whichever first occurs,
or no less than 90 days or more than 120 days prior to
the 2010 Annual Meeting. To be in proper form, a
stockholders notice must include the specified information
concerning the proposal or nominee as described in
Section 2.11 of our Bylaws attached as Exhibit A. A
stockholder who wishes to submit a proposal or nomination is
encouraged to seek independent counsel about our Bylaw and SEC
requirements. We will not consider any proposal or nomination
that does not meet the Bylaw and SEC requirements for submitting
a proposal or nomination.
Notices of intention to nominate a director or present proposals
at the 2010 Annual Meeting should be addressed to the Corporate
Secretary, Woodward Governor Company, P.O. Box 1519,
1000 E. Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525.
We reserve the right to reject, rule out of order, or take other
appropriate action with respect to any nomination or proposal
that does not comply with these and other applicable
requirements.
Householding
of Proxy Materials
In an effort to reduce printing costs and postage fees, we have
adopted a practice approved by the SEC called
householding. Under this practice, stockholders who
have the same address and last name and do not participate in
electronic delivery of proxy materials will receive only one
copy of our proxy materials, unless one or more of these
stockholders notifies us that he or she wishes to continue
receiving individual copies. Stockholders who participate in
householding will continue to receive separate proxy cards.
If you share an address with another stockholder and received
only one set of proxy materials and would like to request a
separate copy of these materials or any other proxy materials in
the future, please: (1) mail your request to Woodward
Governor Company, P. O. Box 1519, 1000 E. Drake Road,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525, Attn: Corporate Secretary;
(2) send an
e-mail to
investorrelations@woodward.com; or (3) call our Investor
Relations department at 1-815-877-7441. Additional copies of the
proxy materials will be sent within 30 days after receipt
of your request. Similarly, you may also contact us if you
received multiple copies of the proxy materials and would prefer
to receive a single copy in the future.
43
Other
Matters
Woodward is soliciting this proxy on behalf of its Board and
will bear the entire cost of proxy solicitation, including the
preparation, assembly, printing, mailing and distribution of the
proxy materials. This solicitation is being made by mail, but
also may be made personally or by facsimile, telephone,
messenger, or via the Internet. The Company has employed
Morrow & Company to solicit proxies for the annual
meeting from brokers, bank nominees, other institutional
holders, and certain individual stockholders. The Company has
agreed to pay $6,000, plus the out-of-pocket expenses of
Morrow & Company, for these services. The Company will
also pay the regular charge of brokers and other nominees who
hold shares of record for forwarding proxy material to the
beneficial owners of such shares.
We do not know of any matters to be acted upon at the meeting
other than those discussed in this statement. If any other
matter is presented, proxy holders will vote on the matter in
their discretion.
By Order of the Board of Directors
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY
A. Christopher Fawzy
Corporate Secretary
December 11, 2009
44
Section 2.11
of the Amended and Restated Bylaws Requiring Written
Notice
Section 2.11 Notice of Stockholder
Nominations and Other Business.
|
|
(a)
|
Proper Business; Nominations. No business may
be transacted at an annual meeting of stockholders, other than
business that is: (i) specified in the notice of meeting
(or any supplement thereto) given by or at the direction of the
Board of Directors (or any duly authorized committee thereof);
(ii) otherwise properly brought before the annual meeting
by or at the direction of the Board of Directors (or any duly
authorized committee thereof); or (iii) otherwise properly
brought before the annual meeting by any stockholder. In
addition to any other applicable requirements, for nominations
or other business to be properly brought before an annual
meeting by a stockholder: (i) such stockholder must be a
stockholder of record on the date of the giving of the notice
provided for in this Section 2.11 and on the record date
for the determination of stockholders entitled to vote at such
annual meeting; (ii) such stockholder must provide timely
notice in writing to the Corporations Secretary pursuant
to the procedures set forth in this Section 2.11;
(iii) such other business must be a proper matter for
stockholder action under the DGCL; (iv) if the stockholder,
or the beneficial owner on whose behalf any such nomination or
proposal is made, provides the Corporation with a Solicitation
Notice (as defined in this Section 2.11), such stockholder
or beneficial owner must in the case of a proposal, have
delivered a proxy statement and form of proxy to holders of at
least the percentage of the Corporations voting shares
required under applicable law to carry any such proposal, or, in
the case of a nomination or nominations, have delivered a proxy
statement and form of proxy to holders of a percentage of the
Corporations voting shares reasonably believed by such
stockholder or beneficial owner to be sufficient to elect the
nominee or nominees proposed to be nominated by such
stockholder, and must, in either case, have included in those
materials the Solicitation Notice; and (v) if no
Solicitation Notice relating thereto has been timely provided
pursuant to this Section 2.11, the stockholder or
beneficial owner proposing such business or nomination must not
have solicited a number of proxies sufficient to have required
the delivery of such a Solicitation Notice.
|
|
(b)
|
Timeliness. To be timely, a stockholders
notice to the Secretary (other than a request for inclusion of a
proposal in the Corporations proxy statement pursuant to
Rule l4a-8
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act)) must be delivered to, or mailed and received at,
the Corporations principal executive offices (addressed to
the attention of the Secretary) not less than ninety
(90) days nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days
prior to the anniversary date of the immediately preceding
annual meeting of stockholders. Provided, however, that in the
event that the annual meeting is called for a date that is not
within thirty (30) days before or after such anniversary
date, notice by the stockholder in order to be timely must be
delivered to, or mailed and received at, the Corporations
principal executive offices not later than the close of business
on the tenth (10th) day following the day on which such notice
of the date of the annual meeting was mailed or such public
disclosure of the date of the annual meeting was made, whichever
first occurs, or no less than ninety (90) days nor more
than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the annual
meeting. In the event that the number of a class of directors to
be elected is increased and there is no public announcement
naming all of the nominees for director or specifying the size
of the increased Board of Directors made by the Corporation at
least one hundred (100) days prior to the first anniversary
of the preceding years annual meeting, a
stockholders notice required by this Section 2.11
will also be considered timely, but only with respect to
nominees for any new positions created by such increase, if the
notice is delivered to, or mailed and received at, the
Corporations principal executive offices (addressed to the
attention of the Secretary) not later than ten (10) days
following the day on which the Corporation makes such public
announcement.
|
|
|
(c) |
Information Required. The stockholders
notice pursuant to this Section 2.11 must include all of
the following: (i) as to each person whom the stockholder
proposes to nominate for election or reelection as a director
all of the information relating to such person that is required
to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of
directors in an election contest, or is otherwise required, in
each case pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Exchange Act
and
Rule 14a-11
thereunder (including such nominees written consent to
being named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serving
as a director if elected); (ii) as to any other business
that the stockholder proposes to bring before the meeting, a
brief description of the business desired to be brought before
the meeting, the reasons for conducting such business at the
meeting and any material interest in such business of such
stockholder and the beneficial owner, if any, on whose behalf
the proposal is made; (iii) the name and record address of
such stockholder and such beneficial owner; (iv) the class
or series and number of shares of capital stock of the
Corporation that are owned beneficially or of record by such
stockholder and beneficial owner; (v) a description of all
arrangements or understandings between such stockholder and any
other person or persons (including their names) in connection
with the nomination or proposal of such business by such
stockholder; (vi) whether such stockholder intends to
appear in person or by proxy at the annual meeting to bring such
business before the meeting; and (vii) whether such
stockholder or beneficial owner intends to deliver a proxy
statement and form of proxy to holders of, in the case of a
proposal, at least the percentage of the Corporations
voting shares required under applicable law to carry the
proposal or, in the case of a nomination or nominations, a
sufficient number of holders of the Corporations voting
shares to elect such nominee or nominees (an affirmative
statement of such intent, a Solicitation Notice).
|
A-1
Section 2.11 of the
Amended and Restated Bylaws Requiring Written
Notice (continued)
|
|
(d)
|
Inclusion in Company Proxy
Statement. Notwithstanding the foregoing
provisions of this Section 2.11, in order to include
information with respect to a stockholder proposal in the
Corporations proxy statement and form of proxy for a
stockholders meeting, a stockholder must provide notice as
required by the regulations promulgated under the Exchange Act.
Nothing in these Bylaws is deemed to affect any rights of
stockholders to request inclusion of proposals in the
Corporations proxy statement pursuant to Rule
14a-8 of the
Exchange Act or any successor rule.
|
|
(e)
|
Special Meeting Nominations. At any special
meeting of the stockholders, only such business may be conducted
as is brought before the meeting pursuant to the
Corporations notice of meeting. In the event that a
special meeting of the stockholders is called for the purpose of
electing one or more directors, nominations of a person or
persons for election may be made (i) by or at the direction
of the Board of Directors or (ii) by a stockholder who
complies with the procedures in this Section 2.11 if such
stockholder is a stockholder of record on the date of the giving
of the notice provided for in this Section 2.11 and on the
record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to
vote at such special meeting and such stockholder provides
timely notice in writing to the Corporations Secretary
(including all of the information required by paragraph
(c) of this Section 2.11) not later than the close of
business on the tenth (10th) day following the day on which such
notice of the date of the special meeting was mailed or such
public disclosure of the date of the special meeting was made,
whichever first occurs, or no less than ninety (90) days
nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the
special meeting.
|
|
|
(f) |
Determination of Proper Business. Only such
persons who are nominated in accordance with the procedures set
forth in this Section 2.11 will be eligible to serve as
directors and only such business may be conducted at a meeting
of stockholders as is brought before the meeting in accordance
with the procedures set forth in this Section 2.11; provided,
however, that once business has been properly brought before a
meeting in accordance with such procedures, nothing in this
Section 2.11 will be deemed to preclude discussion by any
stockholder of any such business (subject to any rules for the
orderly conduct of the meeting as may be adopted by the Chairman
of the meeting or the Board of Directors). The Chairman of the
meeting and the Board of Directors each has the power to
determine whether a nomination or any business proposed to be
brought before the meeting was made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in this Section 2.11 and, if any
proposed nomination or business is not in compliance with this
Section 2.11, to declare that such defective proposal be
disregarded and not presented for stockholder action.
|
|
|
(g)
|
No New Time Period. In no event will the
public announcement of an adjournment or postponement of an
annual or special meeting commence a new time period for the
giving of a stockholders notice.
|
|
(h)
|
Public Announcement. For the purposes of this
Section 2.11, a public announcement includes
disclosure in a press release issued to a national news service,
in a document publicly filed by the Corporation with, or
furnished on
Form 8-K
to, the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Exchange Act, or other method deemed to be a public announcement
under the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
|
|
(i)
|
Delivery. For purposes of this
Section 2.11, delivery of a proxy statement or delivery of
a form of a proxy includes sending a Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials in accordance with
Rules 14a-16
under the Exchange Act.
|
A-2
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010 AT 8:00 A.M. FORT COLLINS HILTON
425 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, Colorado
fort collins hilton To reach the Hilton, exit from I-25 at the
Prospect Road exit (exit 268). Go west (left) on Prospect for 4.3 miles. The Hotel is 2 blocks
west of the College Avenue intersection. The Hilton is a 9-story building on the south side of
Prospect Road (on your left). WOOD WARD |
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY
Proxy for Annual Meeting of Stockholders January 22, 2010
Solicited by the Board of Directors
The undersigned hereby appoints Thomas A. Gendron and Robert F. Weber, Jr., and each or any of
them, as the undersigneds proxies, with full power of substitution, to represent and to vote, as
designated on the reverse side, all the undersigneds common stock in Woodward Governor Company at
the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Friday, January 22, 2010, and at any adjournment
thereof, with the same authority as if the undersigned were personally present.
THIS PROXY WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED WILL BE VOTED IN THE MANNER DIRECTED HEREIN BY THE UNDERSIGNED
STOCKHOLDER(S). IF NO SPECIFICATION IS MADE, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR ALL PROPOSALS.
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for our Annual Meeting to Be Held on
January 22, 2010:
This proxy statement and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2009, including consolidated financial statements, are available to you at http://www.woodward.com.
5 FOLD AND DETACH HERE 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
|
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
|
|
|
|
|
FOR ALL |
|
|
|
|
FOR |
|
WITHHOLD |
|
EXCEPT |
|
|
01 John D. Cohn 03 James R. Rulseh
02 Michael H. Joyce |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INSTRUCTIONS: To withhold authority to vote for any individual nominee, mark
the FOR ALL EXCEPT box and strike a line through the
nominees name in the list provided above. Your shares will be voted for the remaining nominees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruction for Cumulative Voting for Directors: Unless otherwise specified above, this proxy/instruction card
shall authorize the proxies listed herein to cumulate all votes that the undersigned is entitled to cast at the Annual
Meeting for, and to allocate such votes among, one or more of the nominees for directors, as such proxies shall
determine in their sole discretion. To specify a method of cumulative voting, mark the box below with an X and
write the number of Shares and the name(s) of the nominee(s) for directors in the space below. If you wish to
cumulate your votes, you must vote by using the proxy card rather than voting by telephone or the Internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE
MARK VOTES
AS IN THIS EXAMPLE
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
|
PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP AS INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. |
|
FOR o |
|
AGAINST o |
|
ABSTAIN o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
|
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE DIRECTORS. |
|
FOR o |
|
AGAINST o |
|
ABSTAIN o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
IN THEIR DISCRETION, THE PROXIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO VOTE UPON SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE MEETING. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any and each of said attorneys or proxies, who are present at the meeting shall
have, and may exercise, all of the powers, jointly and severally, of all said
attorneys or proxies hereunder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature (if held jointly) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: Please sign exactly as name appears hereon. When shares are held by joint
tenants, both should sign. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator,
trustee or guardian, please give full title as such. If a corporation, please
sign in full corporate name by President or other authorized officer. If a
partnership, please sign in partnership name by authorized
person. |
PLEASE MARK, SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN THIS PROXY CARD USING THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.
5 FOLD AND DETACH HERE 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VOTE BY TELEPHONE OR INTERNET QUICK * * * EASY * * * IMMEDIATE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY
January 22, 2010
PROXY VOTING INSTRUCTIONS
TO VOTE BY MAIL
Please date, sign and mail your proxy card in the envelope provided as soon as possible.
TO VOTE BY TELEPHONE (TOUCH-TONE PHONE ONLY)
Please
call 1-888-266-6788 toll-free and follow the instructions. Have your control number and the proxy card available when you call.
TO VOTE BY INTERNET
Please access the web page at www.proxyvoting.com/wgov and follow the on-screen instructions. Have your control number available when you access the web page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control Number for Internet/ Telephone Voting
|