Brush Engineered Materials Inc.
6070 Parkland Blvd.
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

 

Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

 

The annual meeting of shareholders of Brush Engineered Materials Inc. will be held at the Clarion Hotel, 26300 Chagrin Blvd., Beachwood, Ohio 44122 on May 5, 2010 at 11:00 a.m., local time, for the following purposes:

 

 

Shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 10, 2010 are entitled to notice of the meeting and to vote at the meeting or any adjournment or postponement of the meeting.

 

Michael C. Hasychak
Secretary

 

March 25, 2010

 

Important — your proxy is enclosed.

 

Please sign, date and return your proxy in the accompanying envelope.

BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.
6070 Parkland Blvd.
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

 

PROXY STATEMENT

March 25, 2010

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

 

Your Board of Directors is furnishing this proxy statement to you in connection with our solicitation of proxies to be used at our annual meeting of shareholders to be held on May 5, 2010. The proxy statement is being mailed to shareholders on March 25, 2010.

 

Registered Holders.  If your shares are registered in your name, you may vote in person or by proxy. If you decide to vote by proxy, you may do so by telephone, over the Internet or by mail.

 

By telephone.  After reading the proxy materials and with your proxy card in front of you, you may call the toll-free number 1-800-560-1965, using a touch-tone telephone. You will be prompted to enter the last four digits of your Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number. Then follow the simple instructions that will be given to you to record your vote.

 

Over the Internet.  After reading the proxy materials and with your proxy card in front of you, you may use a computer to access the web site http://www.eproxy.com/bw. You will be prompted to enter the last four digits of your Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number. Then follow the simple instructions that will be given to you to record your vote.

 

By mail.  After reading the proxy materials, you may mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the enclosed prepaid and addressed envelope.

 

The Internet and telephone voting procedures have been set up for your convenience and have been designed to authenticate your identity, allow you to give voting instructions and confirm that those instructions have been recorded properly. Without affecting any vote previously taken, you may revoke your proxy by delivery to us of a new, later dated proxy with respect to the same shares, or giving written notice to us before or at the annual meeting. Your presence at the annual meeting will not, in and of itself, revoke your proxy.

 

Participants in the Savings and Investment Plan and/or the Payroll Stock Ownership Plan (“PAYSOP”).  If you participate in the Savings and Investment Plan and/or the PAYSOP, the independent Trustee for each plan, Fidelity Management Trust Company, will vote your plan shares according to your voting directions. You may give your voting directions to the plan Trustee in any one of the three ways set forth above. If you do not return your proxy card or do not vote over the Internet or by telephone, the Trustee will not vote your plan shares. Each participant who gives the Trustee voting directions acts as a named fiduciary for the applicable plan under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

 

Nominee shares.  If your shares are held by a bank, broker, trustee or some other nominee, that entity will give you separate voting instructions.

 

At the close of business on March 10, 2010, the record date for the determination of shareholders entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the annual meeting, we had outstanding and entitled to vote 20,638,247 shares of common stock.

 

Each outstanding share of common stock entitles its holder to one vote on each matter brought before the meeting. Under Ohio law, shareholders have cumulative voting rights in the election of directors, provided that the shareholder gives not less than 48 hours notice in writing to the President, any Vice President or the Secretary of Brush Engineered Materials Inc. that the shareholder desires that voting at the election be cumulative, and provided further that an announcement is made upon the convening of the meeting informing shareholders that notice requesting cumulative voting has been given by the shareholder. When cumulative voting applies, each share has a number of votes equal to the number of directors to be elected, and a

shareholder may give all of the shareholder’s votes to one nominee or divide the shareholder’s votes among as many nominees as he or she sees fit. Unless contrary instructions are received on proxies given to us, in the event that cumulative voting applies, all votes represented by the proxies will be divided evenly among the candidates nominated by the Board of Directors, except that if voting in this manner would not be effective to elect all the nominees, the votes will be cumulated at the discretion of the Board of Directors so as to maximize the number of the Board of Directors’ nominees elected.

 

In addition to the solicitation of proxies by the use of the mails, we may solicit the return of proxies in person and by telephone, facsimile or e-mail. We will request brokerage houses, banks and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries to forward soliciting material to the beneficial owners of shares and will reimburse them for their expenses. We will bear the cost of the solicitation of proxies.

 

At the annual meeting, the inspectors of election appointed for the meeting will tabulate the results of shareholder voting. Under Ohio law, our articles of incorporation and our code of regulations provide that, properly signed proxies that are marked “abstain” or are held in “street name” by brokers and not voted on one or more of the items before the meeting will, if otherwise voted on at least one item, be counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum has been achieved at the annual meeting. Votes withheld in respect of the election of directors will not be counted in determining the election of directors. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not affect the vote against Proposal 2.

 

If you sign, date and return your proxy card but do not specify how you want to vote your shares, your shares will be voted for the election of all the Director nominees and for the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm.

 

1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

Our articles of incorporation and code of regulations provide for three classes of directors whose terms expire in different years. At the present time, it is intended that proxies will be voted for the election of Joseph P. Keithley, Vinod M. Khilnani, William R. Robertson and John Sherwin, Jr.

 

Your Board of Directors recommends a vote for these nominees.

 

If any of these nominees becomes unavailable, it is intended that the proxies will be voted as the Board of Directors determines. We have no reason to believe that any of the nominees will be unavailable. The four nominees receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected as directors of Brush Engineered Materials Inc.

 

The following sets forth information concerning the nominees and the directors whose terms of office will continue after the meeting:

 

Directors Whose Terms End in 2010

 

Joseph P. Keithley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Keithley Instruments, Inc. (Electronic test and measurement products). Mr. Keithley has been Chairman of the Board of Keithley Instruments, Inc. since 1991 and a member of its Board of Directors since 1986. He has served as Chief Executive Officer of Keithley Instruments, Inc. since November 1993 and as its President since May 1994. He has also served on the Board of Directors of Nordson Corporation since 2001. Mr. Keithley is 61 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 1997. Mr. Keithley brings an extensive, broad-based business background from his leadership roles at Keithley Instruments, Inc. to his role on our Board of Directors. Among other things, Mr. Keithley draws upon his extensive knowledge in the global semiconductor, fiber optics, telecommunications and electronics industries garnered while at Keithley Instruments, Inc.

 

Vinod M. Khilnani, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, CTS Corporation (Electronic components and accessories). Mr. Khilnani was appointed Chairman of CTS in May of 2009. He has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of CTS Corporation since July 2007. Prior to that time, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since May 2001. Mr. Khilnani is 57 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since February 2009. As the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of CTS Corporation and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Khilnani offers a wealth of management experience and business knowledge regarding operational, financial and corporate governance issues, as well as extensive international experience with CTS’ global operations.

 

William R. Robertson, Retired Partner, Kirtland Capital Partners (Private equity investments). Mr. Robertson retired as Partner of Kirtland Capital Partners on December 31, 2006. Prior to his retirement, he was a Consulting Partner since August 2005 and from September 1997 through August 2005, he was a Managing Partner of Kirtland Capital. He was President and a director of National City Corporation (Diversified financial holding company) from October 1995 until July 1997. He also served as Deputy Chairman and a director from August 1988 until October 1995. Mr. Robertson was appointed to Huntington Bancshares Inc.’s Board of Directors on September 14, 2009. Mr. Robertson is also a member of the Board of Managers of the Prentiss Foundation, an emeritus member of the Board of Trustees of the Cleveland Museum of Art and serves as a director of Hartland & Co. Mr. Robertson is 68 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 1997. With his background and expertise in private equity and banking, Mr. Robertson brings a unique and valuable perspective on the capital markets and acquisitions to our Board of Directors.

 

John Sherwin, Jr., President, Mid-Continent Ventures, Inc. (Venture capital company). Mr. Sherwin has been President of Mid-Continent Ventures, Inc. during the past five years. Mr. Sherwin is a director of John Carroll University, an executive in residence at Lakeland Community College, an advisor to Shorebank Cleveland and a trustee of The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Mr. Sherwin is 71 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 1981 and the Lead Director since 2005. Mr. Sherwin brings extensive business and governance experience to our Board of Directors, including a deep understanding of the Company gained in his 29 years of service on the Board of Directors, positioning him well to serve as our Lead Director.

Directors Whose Terms End in 2011

 

Albert C. Bersticker, Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ferro Corporation (Paint, varnishes, lacquers, enamels and allied products). Mr. Bersticker had served as Non-executive Chairman of Oglebay Norton Company (Mining, processing and distributing limestone, lime and industrial sand) from May 2003 until January 2005. Mr. Bersticker was Chairman of Ferro Corporation from February 1996 and retired in 1999. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Ferro Corporation from 1991 until January of 1999 and as President from 1988 until February 1996. He also had served as Secretary, Treasurer and a member of the Board of Directors of St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming until January 2005. Mr. Bersticker is 75 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 1993. With his background as the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ferro Corporation and as the Non-executive Chairman of Oglebay Norton Company, Mr. Bersticker brings extensive experience in managing a large, complex global organization to our Board of Directors.

 

William G. Pryor, Retired President, Van Dorn Demag Corporation, Former President and Chief Executive Officer, Van Dorn Corporation (Plastic injection molding equipment). Mr. Pryor was President of Van Dorn Demag Corporation from 1993 and retired in 2002. He had also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Van Dorn Corporation, predecessor to Van Dorn Demag Corporation. Mr. Pryor served on the Board of Directors of Oglebay Norton Company from 1997 until January 2005. Mr. Pryor is 70 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 2003. Mr. Pryor’s experience at the Van Dorn Corporation and Oglebay Norton Company provides our Board of Directors with knowledge on a wide range of operational and manufacturing issues facing large industrial companies such as Brush Engineered Materials Inc.

 

N. Mohan Reddy, Ph.D., Dean and Albert J. Weatherhead III Professor of Management, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Reddy was appointed Dean of the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University in December 2006 and was named Albert J. Weatherhead III Professor of Management, effective January 2007. Prior to that, Dr. Reddy had been Associate Professor of Marketing since 1991 and Keithley Professor of Technology Management from 1996 to 2006 at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Reddy has served on the Board of Directors of Keithley Instruments, Inc. since 2001. Dr. Reddy also serves as consultant to firms in the electronic and semiconductor industries, primarily in the areas of product and market development. Dr. Reddy is 56 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 2000. Dr. Reddy’s knowledge of industrial marketing, technology development and extensive global knowledge in the electronic and semiconductor industries provides valuable insight to our Board of Directors.

 

Directors Whose Terms End in 2012

 

Richard J. Hipple, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Brush Engineered Materials Inc. In May 2006, Mr. Hipple was named Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Brush Engineered Materials Inc. He has served as President since May 2005 and as Chief Operating Officer from May 2005 until May 2006. Mr. Hipple was President of Alloy Products from May 2002 until May 2005. He joined the Company in July 2001 as Vice President of Strip Products and served in that position until May 2002. Prior to joining Brush Engineered Materials, Mr. Hipple was President of LTV Steel Company, a business unit of The LTV Corporation, an integrated steel producer and metal fabricator. Mr. Hipple has served on the Board of Directors of Ferro Corporation since June of 2007. Mr. Hipple is 57 years old. Mr. Hipple’s broad experience and deep understanding of the Company and the materials business, combined with his drive for innovation and excellence, positions him well to serve as our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.

 

William B. Lawrence, Former Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, TRW, Inc. (Advanced technology products and services). Prior to the sale of TRW, Inc. to Northrop Grumman Corporation in December 2002, Mr. Lawrence served as TRW’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since 1997 and held various other executive positions at TRW since 1976. Mr. Lawrence also has served on the Board of Directors of Ferro Corporation since 1999. Mr. Lawrence is 65 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 2003. Mr. Lawrence’s background as an Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of TRW, Inc. and as a director at Ferro Corporation provides him

with the knowledge and experience to address the complex legislative, governance and financial issues facing global companies today.

 

William P. Madar, Retired Chairman of the Board and Former Chief Executive Officer, Nordson Corporation (Industrial application equipment manufacturer). Mr. Madar retired as Chairman of the Board of Nordson Corporation effective March 2004. He had been Chairman since 1997. Prior to that time, he served as Vice Chairman of Nordson Corporation from August 1996 until October 1997 and as Chief Executive Officer from February 1986 until October 1997. From February 1986 until August 1996, he also served as Nordson Corporation’s President. Mr. Madar has also served on the Board of Directors of Nordson Corporation since 1985. Mr. Madar is 70 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since 1988. Through his roles at Nordson Corporation as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Madar has demonstrated leadership capability and extensive knowledge of complex financial and operational issues facing large global organizations.

 

Craig S. Shular, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, GrafTech International Ltd. (Electrical industrial apparatus). Mr. Shular was elected Chairman of the Board of GrafTech International in February 2007. He has served as Chief Executive Officer and a director since January 2003 and as President since May 2002. From August 2001 until May 2002, he served as Executive Vice President of GrafTech’s largest business, Graphite Electrodes. Mr. Shular joined GrafTech as its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in January 1999 and assumed the additional duties of Executive Vice President, Electrode Sales and Marketing in February 2000 until August 2001. Mr. Shular serves on the Board of Directors of Junior Achievement of Greater Cleveland. Mr. Shular is 57 years old and has been a director of Brush Engineered Materials since May 2008. As the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President and former Chief Financial Officer of GrafTech International Ltd., Mr. Shular brings a breadth of financial and operational management experience and provides the Board with a perspective of someone with all facets of a global enterprise.

 

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE; COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

We have adopted a Policy Statement on Significant Corporate Governance Issues and a Code of Conduct Policy in compliance with New York Stock Exchange and Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. These materials, along with the charters of the Audit, Compensation, Governance and Organization and Retirement Plan Review Committees of our Board of Directors, which also comply with applicable requirements, are available on our web site at www.beminc.com, or upon request by any shareholder to Secretary, Brush Engineered Materials Inc., 6070 Parkland Blvd., Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124. We also make our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K available on our web site, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any amendments or waivers to our Code of Conduct Policy, Committee Charters and Policy Statement on Significant Corporate Governance Issues will also be made available on our web site. The information on our web site is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement or any of our periodic reports.

 

Director Independence

 

The New York Stock Exchange listing standards require that all listed companies have a majority of independent directors. For a director to be “independent” under the New York Stock Exchange listing standards, the board of directors of a listed company must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with the Company, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company, or its subsidiaries or affiliates. Our Board of Directors has adopted the following standards, which are identical to those of the New York Stock Exchange listing standards, to assist it in its determination of director independence. A director will be determined not to be independent under the following circumstances:

 

 

Additionally, for purposes of determining whether a director has a material relationship with the Company apart from his or her service as a director, our Board of Directors has deemed the following relationships as categorically immaterial:

 

 

 

Our Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that each of our directors, other than Mr. Hipple, is: “independent” within the meaning of that term as defined in the New York Stock Exchange listing standards; a “non-employee director” within the meaning of that term as defined in Rule 16b-3(b)(3) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and an “outside director” within the meaning of that term as defined in the regulations promulgated under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

 

Charitable Contributions

 

Within the last three years, we have made no charitable contributions during any single fiscal year to any charity in which an independent director serves as an executive officer, of over the greater of $1 million or 2% of the charity’s consolidated gross revenues.

 

Non-management Directors

 

Our Policy Statement on Significant Corporate Governance Issues provides that the non-management members of the Board of Directors will meet during each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors. Presently Mr. Sherwin is the lead non-management director.

 

In addition to the other duties of a director under the Corporation’s Board Governance Principles, the Lead Director, in collaboration with the other independent directors, is responsible for coordinating the activities of the independent directors and in that role will:

 

 

Board Communications

 

Shareholders or other interested parties may communicate with the Board of Directors as a whole, the lead non-management director or the non-management directors as a group, by forwarding relevant information in writing to Lead Director, c/o Secretary, Brush Engineered Materials Inc., 6070 Parkland Blvd., Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124. Any other communication to individual directors or committees of the Board of Directors may be similarly addressed to the appropriate recipients, c/o Secretary, Brush Engineered Materials Inc., 6070 Parkland Blvd., Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124.

Board Leadership

 

Currently, the Chairman of the Board of Directors also serves as the Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors has no policy with respect to the separation of these offices. The Board of Directors believes that this issue is part of the succession planning process and that considering this issue each time that it elects the Chief Executive Officer is in the best interests of the Company. The Board of Directors recognizes that there may be circumstances in the future that would lead it to separate these offices, but the Board of Directors believes that there is no reason to do so at this time.

 

As both a director and officer, Mr. Hipple fulfills a valuable leadership role that the Board believes is essential to the continued success of the Company’s business operations at this time. In the Board’s opinion, Mr. Hipple’s dual role enhances the Company’s ability to coordinate long-term strategic direction with important business opportunities at the operational level and enhances his ability to provide insight and direction on important strategic initiatives impacting the Company and its shareholders to both management and the independent directors.

 

Unless the Chairman of the Board of Directors is an independent director, the independent directors periodically select from among their number, one director who will serve as the lead independent director, which we refer to as the Lead Director. The Lead Director works with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and other Board members to provide strong, independent oversight of the Company’s management and affairs.

 

Risk Oversight

 

Our Board of Directors oversees an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, designed to support the achievement of organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, to improve long-term organizational performance and enhance shareholder value. A fundamental part of risk management is not only understanding the risks a company faces and what steps management is taking to manage those risks, but also understanding what level of risk is appropriate for the company. The involvement of the full Board of Directors in setting the Company’s business strategy is a key part of its assessment of management’s appetite for risk and also a determination of what constitutes an appropriate level of risk for the Company.

 

While the Board of Directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, various committees of the Board also have responsibility for risk management. In particular, the Audit Committee focuses on financial risk, including internal controls, and receives an annual risk assessment report from the Company’s internal auditors. In addition, in setting compensation, the Compensation Committee strives to create incentives that encourage a level of risk-taking behavior consistent with the Company’s business strategy. Finally, the Company’s Governance and Organization Committee conducts an annual assessment of the Board’s structure for compliance with corporate governance and risk management best practices.

 

Audit Committee

 

The Audit Committee held six meetings in 2009. We adopted a revised Audit Committee charter in February 2010. The Audit Committee membership consists of Mr. Lawrence, as Chairman, and Messrs. Bersticker, Keithley, Pryor and Shular. Under the Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee’s principal functions include assisting our Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to:

 

 

We currently do not limit the number of audit committees on which our Audit Committee members may serve. No member of our Audit Committee serves on the audit committee of three or more public companies in addition to ours. The Audit Committee also prepared the Audit Committee report included under the heading “Audit Committee Report” in this proxy statement.

 

Audit Committee Expert, Financial Literacy and Independence

 

Although our Board of Directors has determined that more than one member of the Audit Committee has the accounting and related financial management expertise to be an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it has named the Audit Committee Chairman, Mr. Lawrence, as the Audit Committee financial expert. Each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and satisfies the independence requirements in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange listing standards.

 

Compensation Committee

 

The Compensation Committee held five meetings in 2009. We adopted a revised Compensation Committee charter in February 2010. Its membership consists of Dr. Reddy as Chairman, and Messrs. Khilnani, Madar, Robertson and Sherwin. The committee may, at its discretion, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to a subcommittee; provided that such subcommittee has a published charter in accordance with the rules of the New York Stock Exchange. In particular, the committee may delegate the approval of certain transactions to a subcommittee consisting solely of members of the committee who are (a) “Non-employee Directors” for the purposes of Rule 16b-3 of the Exchange Act, as in effect from time to time, and (b) “outside directors” for the purposes of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The committee’s principal functions include:

 

 

For additional information regarding the operation of the Compensation Committee, see the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” in this proxy statement.

 

Governance and Organization Committee

 

The Governance and Organization Committee held four meetings in 2009. We adopted a revised Governance and Organization Committee charter in February 2010. The Governance and Organization Committee membership consists of Mr. Sherwin, as Chairman, and Messrs. Bersticker, Keithley, Khilnani, Lawrence, Madar, Pryor, Reddy, Robertson and Shular. All the members are independent in accordance with the New York Stock Exchange listing requirements. The committee’s principal functions include:

 

 

As noted above, the Governance and Organization Committee is involved in determining compensation for our directors. The Governance and Organization Committee administers our equity incentive plans with respect to our directors, including approval of grants of stock options and other equity or equity-based awards, and makes recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans for directors. The Governance and Organization Committee periodically reviews director compensation in relation to comparable companies and other relevant factors. Any change in director compensation must be approved by the Board of Directors. Other than in his capacity as a director, no executive officer other than the Chief Executive Officer participates in setting director compensation. From time to time, the Governance and Organization Committee or the Board of Directors may engage the services of a compensation consultant to provide information regarding director compensation at comparable companies.

 

Nomination of Director Candidates

 

The Governance and Organization Committee will consider candidates recommended by shareholders for nomination as directors of Brush Engineered Materials. Any shareholder desiring to submit a candidate for consideration by the Governance and Organization Committee should send the name of the proposed candidate, together with biographical data and background information concerning the candidate, to the Governance and Organization Committee, c/o our Secretary. The Governance and Organization Committee did not receive any recommendation for a candidate from a shareholder or shareholder group as of March 10, 2010.

 

In recommending candidates to the Board of Directors for nomination as directors, the Governance and Organization Committee’s charter requires it to consider such factors as it deems appropriate, consistent with our Policy Statement on Significant Corporate Governance Issues. These factors are as follows:

 

 

The Governance and Organization Committee’s evaluation of candidates recommended by shareholders does not differ materially from its evaluation of candidates recommended from other sources.

 

The Governance and Organization Committee utilizes a variety of methods for identifying and evaluating director candidates. The Governance and Organization Committee regularly reviews the appropriate size of the Board and whether any vacancies on the Board are expected due to retirement or otherwise. In the event that vacancies are anticipated, or otherwise arise, the Governance and Organization Committee considers various potential candidates for director. Candidates may come to the attention of the Governance and Organization Committee through current Board members, professional search firms, shareholders or other persons.

 

A shareholder of record entitled to vote in an election of directors who timely complies with the procedures set forth in our code of regulations and with all applicable requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, may also directly nominate individuals for election as directors at a shareholders’ meeting. Copies of our code of regulations are available by a request addressed to c/o Secretary.

 

To be timely, notice of a shareholder nomination for an annual meeting must be received at our principal executive offices not fewer than 60 nor more than 90 days prior to the date of the annual meeting. However, if the date of the meeting is more than one week before or after the first anniversary of the previous year’s

meeting and we do not give notice of the meeting at least 75 days in advance, nominations must be received within 10 days from the date of our notice.

 

Retirement Plan Review Committee

 

The Retirement Plan Review Committee held three meetings in 2009. Its membership consists of Mr. Keithley, as Chairman, and Messrs. Bersticker, Pryor and Sherwin. Its principal functions include:

 

 

Director Attendance

 

Our Board of Directors held nine meetings in 2009. All of the directors who were directors in 2009 attended at least 75% of the Board and assigned committee meetings during 2009. Our policy is that directors are expected to attend all meetings including the annual meeting of shareholders. All of our directors who were directors at the time of last year’s annual meeting of shareholders attended such meeting.

 

2009 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

Annual compensation for non-employee directors for 2009 was comprised of cash compensation, consisting of annual retainer fees, and equity compensation, consisting of restricted stock units. Each of these components is described in more detail below.

 

 

The columns entitled “Option Awards”, “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation”, “Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings” and “All Other Compensation” to this table have been omitted because no compensation was reportable thereunder.

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2009, the aggregate number of stock options outstanding and the aggregate number of stock awards subject to forfeiture were as follows:

 

Annual Retainer Fees

 

Effective May 7, 2008, non-employee directors receive an annual retainer fee in the amount of $65,000. On April 1, 2009, the directors’ annual retainer fee was reduced by 10%, or $6,500 annually, due to the global economic crisis. In September 2009, the 10% reduction was eliminated, returning the directors’ retainer fee to $65,000 annually. Non-employee directors who chair a committee receive an additional $5,000 annually, with the exception of the Chairman of the Audit Committee, who receives an additional $10,000 annually. The Lead Director receives an additional $15,000 annually. Members of the Audit Committee, with the exception of the Chairman, receive an additional $5,000 annually.

 

Equity Compensation

 

Under the 2006 Director Plan, non-employee directors who continue to serve as a director following an annual meeting of shareholders receive $45,000 worth of restricted stock units, which will be paid out in common stock at the end of a one-year restriction period unless the participant elects that the shares be received in the form of deferred stock units. These restricted stock units are automatically granted on the day following the annual meeting. The number of restricted stock units granted is equal to $45,000 divided by the closing price of our common stock on the date of grant. If the calculation results in fractional shares, the shares are rounded up, in accordance with the plan. In the event a new director is elected or appointed, common stock will be granted on the first business day following the election or appointment to the Board of Directors. This grant of common stock will be equal to $100,000 divided by the closing price of our common stock on the day the director is elected or appointed to the Board of Directors.

 

Deferred Compensation

 

Non-employee directors may defer all or a part of their annual retainer fees in the form of deferred stock units under the 2006 Director Plan until ceasing to be a member of the Board of Directors. A director may also elect to have restricted stock units or other stock awards made under the 2006 Director Plan deferred in the form of deferred stock units.

 

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

 

The following table sets forth information with respect to the beneficial ownership of Brush Engineered Materials common stock by each person known by Brush Engineered Materials to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the common stock, by each present director of Brush Engineered Materials, by each of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other mostly highly compensated executive officer (each named executive officer or NEO) of Brush Engineered Materials and by all directors and executive officers of Brush Engineered Materials as a group, as of February 12, 2010, unless otherwise indicated. The shareholders listed in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to shares beneficially owned by them unless otherwise indicated. Shares that are subject to stock options and stock appreciation rights (SAR) that may be exercised within 60 days of February 12, 2010 are reflected in the number of shares shown and in computing the percentage of Brush Engineered Materials common stock beneficially owned by the person who owns those options.

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

 

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, officers and persons who own 10% or more of our common stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership on Forms 3, 4 and 5 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Directors, officers and 10% or greater shareholders are required by Securities and Exchange Commission regulations to furnish us with copies of all Forms 3, 4 and 5 they file.

 

Based solely on our review of copies of forms that we have received, and written representations by our directors, officers and 10% or greater shareholders, all of our directors, officers and 10% or greater shareholders complied with all filing requirements applicable to them with respect to transactions in our equity securities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Overview

 

This overview explains the 2009 outcomes of our various compensation plans for named executive officers (NEOs) and illustrates the linkage between our compensation philosophy and our financial and shareholder return performance.

 

Our compensation philosophy is targeted at the competitive market median and is designed to attract, motivate and retain the type of executives we need to manage and grow our portfolio of businesses. In addition, our philosophy has a significant pay-for-performance component as reflected in the design of our executive incentive plans and provides opportunities for share ownership to match the interests of our NEOs and shareholders.

 

During 2009, our financial performance was below minimal expectations, although our share price performance was positive. Specifically, our key measure of financial performance, adjusted operating profit, declined from $46.5 million in 2008 to a loss of $19.5 million in 2009. Our share price increased from a

closing price of $12.72 on December 31, 2008 to $18.54 on December 31, 2009, an increase of 45.8%, but still below our closing price of $37.02 on December 31, 2007.

 

The impact of our financial and shareholder return performance in 2009 on our executive compensation plans for our NEOs was as follows:

 

 

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

 

Our long-standing compensation philosophy has three key objectives:

 

 

We achieved the following objectives in 2009:

 

 

Other aspects of our compensation programs designed to help achieve the above objectives include:

 

 

 

 

Overall, our executive compensation programs are targeted, in total, at the market median, recognizing that individual NEOs may be higher or lower based on experience, individual performance and other factors.

 

Factors Influencing Compensation Decisions

 

All the members of the Compensation Committee are independent, non-employee directors. The Committee makes policy and strategy recommendations to the Board and has authority delegated from the Board to:

 

 

The Committee met five times in 2009, including two teleconferences, and also took action on one occasion by written consent. Most meetings included an executive session during which management was not present. Most compensation decisions are finalized in the first quarter of each fiscal year. The Compensation Committee Charter, which discusses the Committee’s responsibilities on a more comprehensive basis, is available at www.beminc.com.

 

The Committee determines compensation elements and performance goals for the NEOs. The Committee relies on several resources to accomplish this task, including the services of Pearl Meyer & Partners (PM&P), an independent compensation consultant that was engaged by, and reports directly to the Committee. However, the Committee also approved management’s request to use PM&P to help prepare this Compensation, Discussion & Analysis. The Committee determined that providing this limited service to management did not impair PM&P’s independence in its services to the Committee. As a result, PM&P provides only executive compensation services to the Company.

 

The Committee received input from the CEO with respect to salaries, incentives, and total pay for the other NEOs, and input from the other NEOs for the other eleven executives who are part of the Committee’s

responsibility. In addition, the Committee reviews tally sheets of overall compensation element values and totals, primarily to identify any competitive issues, gain an understanding of the relative dollar values of each compensation element and to understand the magnitude of total compensation. Finally, the Committee reviews other business documents such as budgets, financial statements and management reports on our business activities in making its decisions.

 

Compensation Consultant and Comparative Pay Data

 

The Committee retained the services of PM&P in 2008 to conduct a competitive pay analysis for our top fourteen executives, including the NEOs. In addition, the Committee retained PM&P to review the overall executive incentive structure and make recommendations for changes that would be effective in the 2009 fiscal year. The Committee relied on this information for its decisions in 2009 as well and expects to update the information during 2010.

 

PM&P based the competitive pay analysis, used to set base salary and total pay targets, on two sources of information. First, PM&P provided information from surveys published by CHiPS (Executive and Senior Management Total Compensation Survey (2007)), Mercer Human Resource Consulting (U.S. Executive Benchmark Database (2007)) and Watson Wyatt Worldwide (Top Management Compensation Survey (2007-08)). Each survey contained several hundred participants. Second, PM&P surveyed a selected peer group of companies.

 

The Committee used the information collected from the published surveys to determine market median salary and target annual and long-term award amounts to match our pay philosophy. The target for both salary and total direct pay (the sum of salary and target annual and long-term incentives) was the median of the companies represented in the published survey data provided by PM&P. Overall, total compensation was within 5-15% of the median for the NEOs and the total group of fourteen executives reviewed by the Committee when compared to the survey data.

 

The Committee selected the peer group of companies used in the pay analysis, with PM&P’s assistance and input from management, by applying criteria to identify companies of similar size, complexity and in similar/aspirational positions on end users’ supply chains, as well as competitors for executive talent. The peer group had:

 

 

The members of the peer group and their 2007 revenue, in millions, were as follows:

 

The median 2007 peer group revenue was $989 million, comparable to our 2007 revenue of $956 million. Cabot and Ferro were included because they are direct competitors for executive talent.

 

The Committee used the median pay data among CEOs and CFOs of the peer group as an additional checkpoint in determining salaries and targets for annual and long-term awards within a competitive total compensation pay opportunity for the executives. The peer group data showed our CEO and CFO at the 45th and 57th percentiles, respectively, for total compensation, within a competitive range of the market median target.

 

Total Compensation Mix for 2009

 

Our major direct compensation components consist of salary, an annual cash incentive and equity-based long-term incentives. The following table illustrates the relative pay mix, based on initial award values, for our NEOs if the target levels for the 2009 MPCP are achieved and equity grants were made at target rates. For simplicity and to illustrate the Committee’s key goals and objectives, we have only included the major direct pay programs:

 

 

Note: The basis for the calculations is the salary that was in place in 2009 for each NEO without taking into account the salary reduction that took place between April and September 2009.

 

Our long-standing pay-for-performance philosophy has caused the Committee to:

 

 

Overall, the table illustrates the following:

 

 

The pay mixes noted above are different from the market median data derived from the competitive pay analysis as we chose in 2009 to move a portion of the equity grant value into the MPCP, which resulted in a higher proportion of targeted pay comprised of annual incentives and a lower proportion in equity incentives than the typical company. Specifically, we discontinued the LTIP we have had in place for a number of years, which provided pay for three-year financial performance, and shifted 50% of its value to the MPCP with the remaining 50% being split between SAR and restricted stock grants, such that SAR grants represented two thirds of the total equity grant and restricted stock represented one third.

 

We undertook this change because of the ongoing difficulty of reliably forecasting three-year financial performance. Our lack of precision on this issue resulted in a significant number of prior LTIPs either not paying out at all, indicating performance below the threshold levels, or paying at maximum, often indicating performance well above maximum. We are more confident in our ability to forecast annual financial

performance through the MPCP, while SAR and restricted stock grants do not require forecasting future financial performance. These changes generally maintained the level of pay-for-performance in our overall executive compensation program.

 

Executive Compensation Elements

 

To meet our objectives and reward executives for demonstrating the desired actions and behaviors, we compensate our executive officers through:

 

 

The following is an explanation of the reasons each pay element is included in the total compensation package of an executive; the intended value, targeted competitive level and targeted portion of total compensation for each pay element; the reasons behind that targeted value, competitive level and proportion of total pay; and the interaction, if any, of each pay element with the other pay elements.

 

Base Salary

 

At the beginning of 2009, the Committee elected to defer consideration for any salary increases until mid-year. However, as economic conditions and the Company’s financial performance continued to deteriorate in early 2009, management recommended to the Committee, and the Committee approved, the reduction of salaries by 10% indefinitely (including each of the NEOs) as one in a series of Company responses to the economic crisis. The salary reduction began on April 4, 2009 and continued until September 26, 2009, when management and the Committee agreed that salaries could be reinstated at their prior levels. As such, NEO salaries paid in 2009 were less than those paid in 2008.

 

In late 2009, the Committee considered and approved salary increases, effective as of January 1, 2010, given the ongoing economic recovery and the Company’s stronger financial position relative to the prior year. The salaries approved for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch for 2010 are $705,000, $375,000 and $345,000. Each executive’s salary will be close to the market median as defined in the 2008 PM&P study.

 

Salaries directly affect the determination of life and disability benefits, which are set as a multiple of salary, and are considered in retirement benefit formulas, including deferral and matching contribution calculations for retirement benefits. Salary is also used as the basis for calculating MPCP awards, as described below, and in calculating payments that may be paid upon a change in control, as described in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

 

2009 MPCP

 

We established annual performance goals for the MPCP including objective financial performance goals and individual goals for 2009. Objective goals are based solely on financial measures, specifically operating profit at the corporate and individual business unit levels and changes in ROIC performance relative to changes among a peer group, which the Committee believes are the Company’s key success factors.

Target incentives as a percent of salary for 2009 were set at 154.5% for Mr. Hipple, 89.5% for Mr. Grampa and 84.5% for Mr. Skoch, reflecting the partial reallocation of equity incentives in 2009. The above figures are allocated to several performance measures as follows:

 

 

Awards for individual goals are payable only if threshold financial performance is achieved and represent an additional 7% of salary at target for all NEOs.

 

The operating profit goals for 2009 for the NEOs were based on the achievement of overall corporate adjusted operating profit as well as the achievement of operating profit targets at each of the Company’s major business units. None of the thresholds for earning MPCP incentives for operating profit were met in 2009 and no payouts to the NEOs were made for this component of the MPCP. The threshold, target and maximum corporate operating profit targets were $1.2 million, $13.7 million and $35.6 million, respectively, while the actual corporate operating loss was $19.5 million.

 

As noted above, we also implemented a performance measure in 2009 designed to compare the relative change from year-to-year of our ROIC versus the twenty company peer group outlined above. We measure the change in ROIC over the course of the trailing four quarters ending on September 30, 2009 (i.e., the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009) in order to determine our ROIC performance versus the four quarters ending on September 30, 2008. We then determine our rank within the peer group, which then correlates to a percentage of target payout scale.

 

For 2009, a rank of 11 of 21 (the twenty peer companies plus the Company) correlates to a target payout, while a rank of 1 correlates to a maximum payout at 200% of target and a rank of 16 generates a threshold payout at 50% of target. A rank below 16 does not generate a payout. For 2009, the Company achieved a ranking of 12, correlating to a 90% of target payout. The Company’s actual performance was a decline of 14.6% in ROIC versus a median (rank: 11) of a decline of 14.1%, with the threshold representing a decline of 23.4%.

 

The Committee set individual goals for the CEO in 2009 designed to focus attention on moving the Company towards its strategic objectives and initiatives, while recognizing the very challenging macro-economic environment. The accomplishment of these goals is a measurable, objective result. The CEO’s 2009 individual goals included:

 

 

2009 individual goals for the other NEOs also included environmental health and safety objectives and improvement of internal business processes. Payments were made for individual objectives to the NEOs, per the MPCP plan provisions.

The table below shows the total payments made from the MPCP based on the achievement of the relative ROIC measure and the individual objectives. Actual payments represent about 40% of target in the aggregate.

 

 

Awards made from the MPCP are taken into account in pension benefit formulas and are used to determine deferral and matching contribution calculations for other retirement and deferred compensation benefits. They also may affect the calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments”.

 

Equity Awards

 

Our equity award program is targeted at levels below the market median for comparable long-term incentive programs among our pay survey group and peer group, offsetting the higher than median targets we have set for the MPCP. As noted, the program for 2009 had two components, including:

 

 

All equity components in 2009 were granted pursuant to the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (2006 Plan). NEOs are required to forfeit outstanding awards and pay back any amounts realized from the above grants if they engage in activity deemed to be detrimental to the Company, as defined in the equity award agreements.

 

In addition, each of the NEOs holds two remaining LTIP grants, made at the beginning of 2007 and 2008, each with three-year terms. The LTIP is a combination of performance restricted shares and performance shares. Performance restricted shares consist of stock grants that will be forfeited if performance targets are not achieved during the performance period. LTIP values are earned based on the achievement of cumulative pre-determined operating profit targets over a three-year period. The LTIPs established for the NEOs are three-year performance plans designed to promote the achievement of cumulative corporate operating profit goals.

 

In 2007, the LTIP was established using performance restricted and performance shares under our 2006 Plan with management objectives based on cumulative operating profit with a performance period of 2007-2009. The adjusted actual cumulative operating profit for 2007-2009 of $93.1 million was below the threshold of the targeted range of $135 million (minimum, target and maximum were $135 million, $169 million and $185 million, respectively). As a result, the participants earned no payouts from the shares originally granted at the beginning of 2007.

 

In 2008, the Committee established the last three-year LTIP using both performance restricted shares and performance shares under our 2006 Plan, with objectives based on cumulative operating profit for the period from 2008-2010. Payouts, if any, will be payable in early 2011. The Committee designed these awards such that, once target performance is attained and the performance restricted shares are earned, results above the targeted level will be paid in performance shares. A cumulative operating profit threshold must be met before any payout is attained. However, should the cumulative operating profit threshold not be met, and our stock performance during the three-year performance period is in the top quartile compared to the Russell 2000, then a payout can be made, but only at the threshold (25% of target) level.

The relative values of total compensation among comparable companies in the survey data are the most important determining factors in setting the long-term incentive amounts, along with consideration of the experience, responsibilities and performance of the executive. The equity grants currently held by each NEO are not taken into consideration in making new grants to that NEO.

 

The Committee is solely responsible for the grant of equity awards. The awards traditionally are granted in February after the Company’s annual earnings have been announced. In February 2007, the Committee adopted Stock Award Administrative Procedure Guidelines related to the various forms of equity grants designed to formalize the process of establishing the date of grant, grant prices at fair market value and other administrative practices appropriate to equity grants to executives.

 

The amounts realized by the NEOs from the LTIP, but not the amounts realized from the SAR and restricted stock, are taken into account in the pension benefit formulas and used for determining deferral and matching contribution calculations for other retirement benefits. None of the equity awards are included in compensation for purposes of determining any other benefit amount, except that they may affect calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

 

Severance Payments and Payments Upon a Change-in-Control

 

Each NEO is party to a Severance Agreement that provides two-year severance benefits in the event of involuntary termination of employment by us, other than for cause or gross misconduct, or if he resigns as a result of a reduction in his salary or incentive pay opportunity, provided that such a reduction in salary or incentive pay opportunity is not part of a general reduction in compensation opportunity for all officers. The Severance Agreements were adopted at a time of transition to a new CEO with the objective to help secure the continued employment of each NEO through and beyond this time of change.

 

The Severance Agreements also provide each NEO with benefits in specified circumstances following a change in control. The triggering events for a change in control are described in the section entitled “Other Potential Post-employment Payments”. When the Committee chose these triggering events in July 2008, they were understood to be competitive and appropriate at that time, and were based primarily on advice from legal counsel as well as their experiences with other companies our directors have been associated with during their careers. If the NEO resigns for defined “Good Reason”, or his employment is terminated by the Company for reasons other than for cause during the three years following a change in control, he will receive three-year severance benefits, as described under “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.” In addition, the NEO can resign for any reason during the 30-day period following the first anniversary of a change in control. The NEO also receives these benefits if any employment change occurs during discussions with any third party that results in a change in control.

 

The Committee adopted a “gross-up” provision in February 2007 for the “parachute tax” under the Internal Revenue Code Section 280G in the context of a change in control. The “parachute tax” applies to separation compensation beyond a determined cap as defined under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code. Average W-2 compensation for the prior five years is used in calculating the cap. The Committee decided a “gross-up” feature was appropriate because the CEO was new to his role and the cap would be determined by his compensation in a lesser capacity and the Company had been in a turnaround situation for five years prior to 2007. Based on this logic, the Committee also included a sunset provision in the “gross-up” feature so that it would automatically end five years after adoption.

 

The Committee believes the Severance Agreements are an important part of the competitive executive compensation package because they help ensure the continuity and stability and provide protection to the NEOs. The Committee also believes the Severance Agreements reduce the NEOs’ interest in working against a potential change in control and help to minimize interruptions in business operations by reducing any concerns they have of being terminated prematurely and without cause during an ownership transition. In exchange, each NEO agrees not to compete while employed or for two years after an involuntary termination of employment; nor to solicit any employees, agents, or consultants to terminate their relationship with us; and to protect our confidential information. Each NEO also assigns to the Company any intellectual property rights

to any discoveries, inventions or improvements made while employed by us or within one year after his employment terminates.

 

Retirement Benefits

 

We provide a variety of plans and benefits to our NEOs that fall under the heading of retirement and deferred compensation benefits, including:

 

 

The special awards are designed to make up for Internal Revenue Code limitations associated with the Pension Plan for the NEOs, while the EDCP II is designed to make up for similar limitations related to the 401(k) Plan. The Committee believed each of these programs to be necessary from a competitive viewpoint and for retention purposes.

 

Pension Plan

 

The Pension Plan is the primary vehicle for providing retirement compensation to all employees and is a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan. All the NEOs participate in the Pension Plan. Before June 1, 2005, the benefit formula was 50% of final average earnings over the highest five consecutive years minus 50% of the annual Social Security benefit with the result prorated for service of less than 35 years. Effective as of May 31, 2005, we froze the benefit under the prior formula for all employees including the NEOs.

 

Beginning June 1, 2005, the Pension Plan formula was reduced for all participants, including the NEOs, to 1% of each year’s compensation, as defined in the Pension Plan. The retirement benefit for these individuals will be equal to the sum of that earned as of May 31, 2005 and that earned under the new formula for service after May 31, 2005. However, because the amount of compensation that may be included in the formula for calculating pension benefits and the amount of benefit that may be accumulated in the Pension Plan are limited by the Internal Revenue Code, the NEOs will not receive a Pension Plan benefit equal to 1% of their total pay.

 

The tax code limitations associated with the Pension Plan are taken into account by the Committee in determining amounts intended to supplement retirement income for the NEOs, such as the special awards described below. The benefit accumulated under the Pension Plan does not affect any other element of compensation for the NEOs, except to the extent it is included in the calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

 

Special Awards

 

As noted, the NEOs will not receive a full benefit from the Pension Plan and we do not provide a supplemental retirement plan for our NEOs. At its December 2009 meeting, the Committee exercised its discretion to authorize special awards in lieu of a supplemental retirement benefit plan for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch in the amounts of $168,450, $78,315 and $131,770, respectively, all of which were paid in January 2010.

 

The amounts of these payments were derived by making assumptions regarding future anticipated earnings and actuarially calculating a present value benefit equivalent to what would have been accrued if we had a supplemental retirement benefit plan in effect. This calculation used the reduced Pension Plan formula for all service after May 31, 2005. The Committee added an additional five years of service to the calculation as part of Mr. Hipple’s overall compensation package upon his becoming CEO. No obligation exists for future special awards.

These payments may be taken into account in calculating future supplemental retirement amounts, if any are awarded. They also affect the calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments,” but generally are not intended to affect the amounts of any other compensation element for the NEOs.

 

401(k) Plan

 

The 401(k) Plan is a tax-qualified defined contribution plan. All of the NEOs participate in this plan as part of their competitive total compensation package. The 401(k) Plan offers the NEOs and all other employees the opportunity to defer income. In addition, we made a matching contribution to each employee equal to 25% of the first 6% of compensation deferred by the employee, beginning on January 1, 2009. However, as of April 4, 2009, we eliminated the match for the remainder of 2009 in response to the economic crisis.

 

This compensation element is tax-deferred and is not intended to affect the value of any other compensation element, but the amount of contributions that may be made under the 401(k) plan may affect calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

 

EDCP II

 

In 2004, the Committee established the EDCP II to replace the Key Employee Share Option Plan (KESOP), which is described in the section entitled “2009 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation”. The EDCP II provides an opportunity for the NEOs to defer a portion of their compensation. The EDCP II also provides a nonelective deferred compensation credit to each NEO’s account in an amount equal to 1.5% of the NEO’s annual compensation above the qualified plan limit in 2009. As of April 4, 2009, we eliminated this credit in response to the economic crisis. The limit for 2009 was $245,000, as determined under the Internal Revenue Code. The Committee considers this contribution to be a replacement for the loss of any 401(k) Plan matching contribution that otherwise would have been attributable to compensation earned over the qualified plan limit. Earnings are credited to each NEO’s account based on his choice of investment alternatives from a list provided by the Committee.

 

This compensation element is tax-deferred and is not intended to affect the value of any other compensation element.

 

Health and Welfare Benefits

 

The NEOs participate in group life, health and disability programs provided to all salaried employees. Except for periodic executive physicals, no other special health or welfare benefits are provided for the NEOs. Almost all of the value of these benefits is not taxable and does not affect the value of any other elements of compensation for the NEOs, but they may affect calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

 

Perquisites

 

We pay for financial planning services, to a maximum of $12,500 each year for each NEO, and annual dues for various club memberships for the NEOs, subject to Committee approval. The Committee believes that such memberships provide the NEOs with important contacts within the business community and provide a good environment for business entertainment needs.

 

These benefits are included in taxable income, and do not affect the determination of retirement benefits. They are not expected to affect the value of any other elements of compensation for the NEOs, except to the extent that they may affect calculation of payments that may be paid upon a change in control or other potential severance payments, as described below in “Other Potential Post-employment Payments.”

Accounting and Tax Effects

 

The Committee considers both the financial reporting and the taxation of compensation elements in its decision making process. The Committee seeks a balance between the Company’s best interests, fair treatment for the executives and minimizing taxation of the compensation offered to the executive while maximizing immediate deductibility.

 

The Committee designed the severance plans for all executives, except the NEOs, to reduce amounts payable that otherwise would have been subject to an excise tax known as “excess golden parachute payments” as defined under Internal Revenue Code section 280G. The Committee is also aware of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), which limits deductions for compensation paid to individual NEOs (with the exception of the CFO) in excess of $1 million. In response, the Committee designs much of the total compensation package of the NEOs to qualify for the exemption of “performance-based” compensation from the deductibility limit. However, the Committee reserves the right to design and use compensation instruments that may not be deductible within the rules of Internal Revenue Code section 162(m), if those instruments are in the Company’s best interests.

 

2009 Compensation Mix Change

 

The Committee made several changes to the total compensation mix, beginning in 2009. First, the Committee increased the annual and equity opportunity for the NEOs to the new market medians based on information derived from the PM&P data developed during 2008. These changes are shown in the table below:

 

 

The above changes were made to ensure that our total compensation program remains targeted at the competitive market median, based on our pay philosophy. In addition, the changes place greater emphasis on variable compensation versus fixed salary compensation, again linking closely to our pay philosophy.

 

Second, the Committee eliminated the three-year equity-based LTIP and reallocated the values associated with it. Specifically, 50% of the former LTIP opportunity was shifted to the 2009 MPCP, with the remaining 50% of the LTIP value allocated to SAR and restricted stock grants. These changes are summarized in the table below:

 

 

The Committee found these changes to be necessary because of the difficulty inherent in setting long-term financial performance objectives for the LTIP. Specifically, the timing and magnitude of the cyclicality associated with our major customers’ businesses renders setting such goals extremely difficult. The resulting volatility introduces a “lottery” effect to the LTIP, which the Committee believes is counter to the underlying incentive motive of such a plan. The Committee believes such volatility has been reflected in the LTIP over the past 10 years in which performance outcomes and the associated payouts have oscillated from below threshold to above maximum.

 

The Committee believes we have better success forecasting on an annual basis, which accounts for the shift in values to the MPCP for 2009. The Committee used the additional allocation to the 2009 MPCP to create a

relative performance measure based on ROIC versus the peer group. This measure is designed to motivate participants to use capital more efficiently, which we believe will lead to the creation of shareholder value.

 

The reallocations from the LTIP to SAR does not require forecasting and will serve to increase the emphasis placed on share price appreciation, which is a key aspect of our pay philosophy.

 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

 

We have reviewed and discussed with management the foregoing Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based on our review and discussion with management, we have recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

The foregoing report has been furnished by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

 

N. Mohan Reddy (Chairman)

 

Vinod M. Khilnani

 

William P. Madar

 

William R. Robertson

 

John Sherwin, Jr.

 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as set forth in any of our previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that incorporate future filings, including this proxy statement, in whole or in part, the foregoing Compensation Committee Report shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings other than our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

 

Compensation Policies and Practices to Risk Management

 

The Compensation Committee and management do not believe that the Company maintains compensation policies or practices that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Brush Engineered Materials. However, as part of a larger enterprise risk management review, during 2010 we will review our compensation policies and practices with respect to executive and non-executive employees to ensure that the compensation program continues to align the interests of our employees with those of our shareholders and does not create any unnecessary or excessive risk.

 

2009 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and our other named executives who served in such capacities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Named Executive Officers”):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2009 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

 

We currently are utilizing two incentive plans that provide executives opportunities to earn cash or stock compensation. The MPCP provides cash compensation for annual performance. The 2006 Stock Incentive Plan provides opportunities for equity-based compensation for service and performance for periods of more than one year.

 

The following table sets forth information concerning annual incentive cash awards, grants of SAR and restricted shares to the NEOs during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as well as estimated future payouts under those incentive plans. See the CD&A for further discussion of these incentive plans, these types of grants and the reason for these types of grants.

 

 

 

 

Executive Employment Arrangements

 

None of the NEOs has an employment agreement. However, each NEO has a Severance Agreement that provides the executive with three-year severance benefits upon termination or significant change in the duties of the executive as a result of a change in control as defined in the agreement, and two-year severance benefits in the event of certain involuntary terminations. Discussion of the payouts provided for under various termination situations is set forth in the section “Other Potential Post-employment Payments” below.

 

Base Salary

 

The Compensation Committee annually reviews and adjusts base pay, in keeping with the overall objectives, pay philosophy and relative position with comparable companies, all as discussed in more detail in the CD&A.

Bonuses

 

Bonus compensation in 2009, as shown in the “2009 Summary Compensation Table,” consisted of discretionary amounts paid in lieu of supplemental retirement benefits, as discussed in more detail in the CD&A under the section entitled “Special Awards.”

 

Non-equity Incentive Plan Compensation

 

For 2009, base salaries and bonuses (including amounts deferred to the 401(k) plan) as a percentage of total compensation shown in the “2009 Summary Compensation Table”, were 33% for Mr. Hipple; 43% for Mr. Grampa; and 45% for Mr. Skoch.

 

Stock Awards

 

Stock-based awards under the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan during 2009 were made in the form of SAR and restricted stock. Descriptions and the reason for these types of grants are in the CD&A.

 

Grants of restricted stock and SAR were made in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The associated expense recorded in accordance with accounting guidelines is disclosed in the “2009 Summary Compensation Table”. The restricted shares and SAR vest after three years from the date of grant.

2009 OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END

 

 

The column entitled “Equity Incentive Plan Awards, Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options” to this table has been omitted because no awards were reportable thereunder.

 

 

 

2009 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

 

 

The columns under the heading entitled “Stock Awards” to this table have been omitted because no stock awards were reportable thereunder.

 

2009 PENSION BENEFITS

 

 

Assumptions:

 

 

The Brush Engineered Materials Inc. Pension Plan (qualified pension plan) is a defined benefit plan under which Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch are currently accruing benefits. Effective as of the close of business on May 31, 2005, the benefit under the prior formula for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch (50% of final average earnings over highest 5 consecutive years minus 50% of annual Social Security benefit, the result prorated for service less than 35 years) was frozen. The frozen annual benefits as of May 31, 2005, payable beginning at age 65 as a single life annuity, for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch are $9,855; $17,252 and $54,856, respectively. Credited service for pension benefit purposes as of May 31, 2005 for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch is 3, 6 and 21, respectively.

 

Beginning June 1, 2005, the qualified pension plan formula was changed for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch to 1% of each year’s earnings. The retirement benefit for these individuals will be equal to the sum of that earned as of May 31, 2005 and that earned under the new formula for service after May 31, 2005.

 

The “2009 Pension Benefits” table shows for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch the number of years of credited service, present value of accumulated benefit and payments during the last fiscal year under the

qualified pension plan. We do not sponsor any other qualified or nonqualified defined benefit plan that provides benefits to Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch.

 

The “Present Value of Accumulated Benefit” is the lump-sum value as of December 31, 2009 of the annual pension benefit that was earned as of December 31, 2009 that would be payable under the qualified pension plan for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch for life beginning at their normal retirement age. The normal retirement age is defined as age 65 in the qualified pension plan. Certain assumptions were used to determine the lump-sum value and to determine the annual pension that is payable beginning at normal retirement age. Those assumptions are described immediately following the “2009 Pension Benefits” table.

 

If the participant terminates employment before completing 10 years of service, the annuity may not commence prior to age 65. If the participant terminates employment after completing 10 years of service, the annuity may commence as early as age 55 and is reduced 6.67% per year between ages 60 and 65 and 3.33% per year between ages 55 and 60 based on the participant’s age at commencement, if the benefit commences prior to normal retirement age. An unreduced benefit is available commencing at age 62 for those participants who terminate after age 55 with at least 30 years of service. At year-end 2009, Messrs. Grampa and Skoch had attained early retirement eligibility and Mr. Hipple had not attained early retirement eligibility. Mr. Skoch is the only named executive who may become eligible to commence his benefit on an unreduced basis prior to age 65. Assuming continued uninterrupted employment with the Company, Mr. Skoch would reach 30 years of service at the end of the month in which he attains age 64.

 

Benefits provided under the qualified pension plan are based on compensation up to a compensation limit under the Internal Revenue Code (which was $245,000 in 2009). In addition, benefits provided under the qualified pension plan may not exceed a benefit limit under the Internal Revenue Code (which was $195,000 payable as a single life annuity beginning at normal retirement age in 2009).

 

Compensation is generally equal to the total amount that is included in income (such as regular base salary, incentive compensation under any form of incentive compensation plan, sales commissions and performance restricted shares of stock at the time these shares are includable in the participant’s gross income for Federal income tax purposes), plus salary reduction amounts under sections 125 and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. The annual salary and bonus for the current year for Messrs. Hipple, Grampa and Skoch is indicated in the “2009 Summary Compensation Table”. Each year’s compensation for the qualified pension plan is limited by the compensation limits under the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Generally, a participant’s years of credited service are based on the years an employee participates in the qualified pension plan. However, in certain cases, credit for service prior to participation in the qualified pension plan is granted. Such cases include employment with the Company in a position that is not eligible for participation in the qualified pension plan and service with a predecessor employer. The years of credited service for Messrs. Hipple and Grampa are based only on their service while eligible for participation in the qualified pension plan. The years of credited service for Mr. Skoch include service for the period June 29, 1983 through December 1, 1985 during which time he was covered under The S.K. Wellman Corp. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees. All S.K. Wellman Corp. salaried employees who had transferred to Brush Wellman Inc. as salaried employees prior to May 4, 1986 and were still employed after May 4, 1986, receive credited service under the qualified pension plan equal to their credited service under The S.K. Wellman Corp. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees at the time of their transfer. Mr. Skoch received a lump-sum payment during January 1987 in lieu of the benefit he had accrued for the period June 29, 1983 through December 1, 1985 under The S.K. Wellman Corp. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees. Mr. Skoch’s accrued benefit under the qualified pension plan has been offset for the benefit for which he received this lump-sum payment.

 

Lump sums are available under the qualified pension plan only for the portion of the participant’s benefit that was accrued prior to July 1, 1992. Mr. Skoch is eligible to elect to receive the portion of his benefit that was accrued prior to July 1, 1992 as a lump sum with the remaining portion of his benefit payable in the form of an annuity with monthly benefit payments. Messrs. Hipple and Grampa are eligible only to have their benefits payable in the form of an annuity with monthly benefit payments.

The qualified pension plan was designed to provide tax-qualified pension benefits for most of our employees. Benefits under the qualified pension plan are funded by an irrevocable tax-exempt trust. An executive’s benefits under the qualified pension plan are payable from the assets held by the tax-exempt trust.

 

2009 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

 

We maintain two nonqualified arrangements for executives, the Key Employee Share Option Plan (the KESOP) and the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan II (the EDCP II). A primary purpose of each is to provide benefits in the event a participant’s compensation exceeds the amount of compensation that may be taken into account for deferring income and matching contributions under the Brush Engineered Materials Inc. Savings and Investment Plan.

 

Key Employee Share Option Plan

 

The KESOP was established in 1998 to provide executives with options to purchase property other than our common stock (in this case, options to purchase certain mutual fund shares as further described below), which options replace a portion of the executive’s compensation. The options cover property with an initial value equal to the amount of compensation they replace, divided by 75%, with an exercise price equal to the difference between that amount and the amount of compensation replaced (in other words, 25% of the fair market value of the option property). Thus, the executive may receive the increase or decrease in market value of the entire amount of the property covered by the option, including the exercise price. Due to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 which added section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code, the KESOP was frozen effective December 31, 2004. Moreover, options for purchase of property that did not become exercisable prior to 2005 under the KESOP and corresponding elections under the KESOP were cancelled. Each participant who had such KESOP options and elections cancelled received payment in the amount of the cancelled deferrals. Eligibility to participate and the property (consisting of shares of mutual funds) subject to the KESOP options were determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board. Mutual fund selection was intended to be the same or similar to that offered under the 401(k) plan, but was not required. Executives were permitted to select among those mutual funds to determine those covered by the options obtained by them as a result of their compensation elections, but generally were not permitted to change that selection once made.

 

Although the KESOP was frozen as noted above, options that became exercisable prior to January 1, 2005 and which have not as yet been exercised remain on the books for some executives.

 

The KESOP balance of each executive is equal to the most recent closing price of the mutual funds under the options accumulated by the executive as of the end of the year. To obtain the portion of this balance based on any particular option, however, the executive must pay the 25% exercise price set when the option was granted. In addition to potential gains through changes in the market value for the underlying mutual funds, the executive may accumulate value whenever any dividends or other cash distributions are made relative to those mutual funds. Starting with dividends for the year ending December 31, 2004, the value of any such dividends or distributions is credited to the executive’s EDCP II account (see discussion below of the EDCP II) as part of the compensation deferred under that program.

 

Unless the amount of mutual funds available under an option is adjusted as a result of a stock split, merger, divestiture, consolidation or other corporate transaction, or unless other property is substituted for the mutual fund shares originally subject to the option, an option becomes exercisable 184 days after the grant of the option and remains exercisable at any time after that date until the earlier of the fifteenth anniversary of the grant or the third anniversary of the executive’s termination of employment. If any adjustment in the number of mutual fund shares or any substitution of new property occurs, the exercise period will be interrupted for 184 days and the deadline to exercise will be extended by 184 days, but not more than 5 years beyond the original exercise deadline. Any option not exercised by the deadline may not be exercised after that.

 

The KESOP is unfunded. The options obligation for each executive is maintained in a book reserve account. We are under no obligation to set aside funds specifically designated to satisfy this obligation or to invest in any of the optioned mutual funds selected by the executive. However, we maintain a trust, as part of

the general assets of the Company, intended to hold property for use in meeting this obligation, unless we become insolvent. In that case, the assets in the trust would be available to satisfy our creditors just as any other general assets of the Company, before the option property would be delivered. In other words, each executive participating in the KESOP is an unsecured general creditor of the Company with respect to the value of the property optioned as his KESOP benefits.

 

When an option is exercised, the executive pays the applicable exercise price to the Company and we deliver to the executive the underlying property, which may have been obtained and held as general assets of the Company before the option was exercised. The value of the underlying property delivered, less the exercise price paid, is treated as taxable income to the executive and he must pay the Company for any income taxes or other payroll taxes required to be withheld by the Company on that income. We may take an income tax deduction for the value of the property delivered, reduced by the exercise price paid.

 

No executive may transfer or sell his KESOP options during his life, except for a transfer, for no payment and only as approved by the Committee, to a member of the executive’s immediate family, to a trust for the benefit of such a family member or to a partnership consisting only of such family members as partners. Upon an executive’s death, his KESOP options will pass to his beneficiaries or estate, but they must be exercised before the earlier of the original deadline or the first anniversary of his death. No other transfers or withdrawals are permitted under the KESOP.

 

The latest exercise deadline for any existing KESOP options is June 30, 2019. As noted earlier, options may expire earlier, within three years of the executive’s termination of employment.

 

Executive Deferred Compensation Plan II

 

The EDCP II provides executives an opportunity to make deferral elections generally not permitted under the 401(k) plan. Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(17) limits the amount of compensation that may be taken into account for deferrals under the 401(k) plan. For 2009, that limit was $245,000. Executives may elect each year to defer all or any portion of the sum of his Management Performance Compensation Plan payouts payable in cash for that year, plus the portion of his base salary for that year that is in excess of the compensation limit under Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(17). Previously we had provided a non-elective deferral equal to three percent (3%) of his total compensation in excess of the Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(17) limit (his Excess Compensation) designed to reflect the employer matching contribution not permitted under the 401(k) plan because of the Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(17) compensation limit. In 2009, the Company contribution was eliminated. Credits in amounts equal to the value of any dividends or other cash distributions payable from mutual funds optioned to the executive under the KESOP (see discussion of the KESOP above) are also credited to the executive’s EDCP II account balance starting with dividends for the year 2004.

 

The compensation deferrals credited to each executive are credited with earnings at a rate equal to the return on hypothetical investments selected by the executive from a list of mutual funds identified by the Compensation Committee of the Board. Investment selection is intended to be the same or similar to that offered under the 401(k) plan, but this is not required. The executive’s investment selection is used only to determine earnings credits on the compensation deferrals under the EDCP II. We are not obligated to invest any funds in the mutual funds selected by the executive. Earnings returns will change from year to year.

 

The EDCP II is unfunded. Deferred compensation credits and related earnings credits for each executive are maintained in a book reserve account. We are under no obligation to set aside funds specifically designated to pay these deferred income amounts. However, we maintain a trust, as part of the general assets of the Company, intended to pay these deferred income amounts, unless we become insolvent. In that case, the assets in the trust would be available to satisfy creditors of the Company, just as any other general assets of the Company, before the deferred income amounts would be paid. In other words, each executive participating in the EDCP II is an unsecured general creditor of the Company with respect to the payment of his EDCP II benefits.

Upon termination of employment for any reason other than death, distribution from the EDCP II will be made as a lump sum or installments over three or five years, as elected by the executive when the deferral election was initially made. If no distribution election was made, the benefit will be paid in a lump sum. If the executive dies before his full EDCP II account is distributed, any remaining balance credited to that account will be paid to his beneficiary in a single lump sum.

 

Distribution will be made or begin 60 days following the executive’s termination of employment (or as soon as practicable after that date), except that in the case of certain specified executives, section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code requires that payment not be made earlier than six months after he separates from service for any reason other than death. Distribution or withdrawal for any other reason is not permitted under the EDCP II.

 

2009 NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE

 

The “2009 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table” shows deferrals to the EDCP II by Brush Engineered Materials on behalf of each NEO for 2009 earnings, if applicable, credited to his EDCP II account and KESOP account for 2009, any distributions made from his KESOP account during 2009, and the aggregate balance of his EDCP II credits and KESOP credits as of December 31, 2009.

 

 

 

 

OTHER POTENTIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS

 

The Company has entered into severance agreements with the NEOs to help ensure the continuity and stability of our senior management. The other incentive arrangements maintained by the Company also provide for payments to be made to the NEOs upon certain terminations of employment.

 

Severance Agreements

 

Basic Severance Benefits.  The severance agreements provide that if the executive’s employment is terminated by the Company or one of its affiliates except for cause or gross misconduct, or if he resigns as a result of a reduction in his salary or incentive pay opportunity, severance benefits will apply. Severance benefits include rights to: