Example 1. Employee A is a SEO of a TARP recipient in 2010, but not in 2011. The TARP recipient maintains an annual bonus program, generally paying bonus payments in March of the following year. Employee A may not be paid a bonus payment in 2010 (for services performed in 2009 or any other year). In addition, Employee A may not be paid a bonus payment in 2011 to the extent such bonus payment is based on services performed in 2010.
Example 2. Same facts as in Example 1, provided further that Employee A receives a salary increase for 2011. The salary increase equals the same percentage as similarly situated executive officers, with an additional percentage increase which, over the course of twelve months, equals the bonus that would have been payable to Employee A in 2011 (for services performed in 2010), except for application of paragraph (a) of this section. Under these facts and circumstances, the additional percentage increase will be treated as a bonus payment accrued in 2010 and Employee A may not be paid this bonus payment.
Example 3. Same facts as in Example 1, provided further that on March 1, 2011, Employee A is granted a stock option under the TARP recipient stock incentive plan with a value approximately equal to the bonus that would have been payable to Employee A in 2011 (for services performed in 2010), except for application of paragraph (a) of this section. Other similarly situated employee not covered by the bonus limitation for 2010 do not receive such a grant. Under these facts and circumstances, the stock option grant will be treated as a bonus payment accrued in 2010 and will not be permitted to be paid to Employee A.
Example 4. Employee B is not a SEO or a most highly compensated employee of a TARP recipient during 2009. On July 1, 2009, Employee B is granted the right to a bonus payment of $50,000 if Employee B is employed by the TARP recipient through July 1, 2011 (two years). Employee B is a SEO of a TARP recipient during 2010, but is not a SEO or a most highly compensated employee of the TARP recipient during 2011. Employee B is employed by the TARP recipient on July 1, 2011. Thus, Employee B was a SEO or most highly compensated employee during one-half of the two-year required service period. Provided that Employee B is paid not more than half of the otherwise payable bonus payment, or $25,000, Employee B will not be treated as having accrued a bonus payment while Employee B was a SEO or a most highly compensated employee.
Example 1. TARP recipient sponsors a written restricted stock unit plan. Under the plan, restricted stock units are traditionally granted each July 1, and are subject to a three-year vesting requirement. Employee A, a SEO of TARP recipient, received grants on July 1, 2007, July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. The July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008 grants are excluded from the limitation on payments, because although the awards were subject to a continuing service vesting requirement, Employee A retained a legally binding right to the restricted stock units as of February 11, 2009. However, regardless of the fact that the restricted stock unit program was in existence on February 11, 2009, Employee A did not retain a legally binding right to a restricted stock unit for 2009 as of February 11, 2009, but rather obtained the legally binding right only when the restricted stock unit was granted on July 1, 2009. Accordingly, the July 1, 2009 grant is subject to the limitation and is not permitted to be accrued or paid (unless such grant complies with the exception for certain grants of long-term restricted stock).
Example 2. TARP recipient sponsors an annual bonus program documented in a written plan. Under the bonus program, the board of directors retains the discretion to eliminate or reduce the bonus of any employee in the bonus pool. Employees B and C, both SEOs, are in the bonus pool for 2008. On January 15, 2009, the compensation committee determines the bonuses to which the employees of the division in which Employee B works are entitled, and awards Employee B a $10,000 bonus payable on June 1. Employee B has a legally binding right to the bonus as of February 11, 2009 and payment of the bonus is not subject to the limitation. However, as of February 11, 2009, the board of directors has not met to determine which employees of the division in which Employee C works will be entitled to a bonus or the amount of such bonus. Accordingly, Employee C did not have a legally binding right to a bonus as of February 11, 2009 and may be subject to the bonus payment limitation.
Example 3. TARP recipient sponsors a written stock option plan under which stock options may be granted to SEOs designated by the compensation committee. Designations and grants typically occur at a meeting in August of every year, and no meeting occurred in 2009 before August. Regardless of the existence of the general plan, no SEO had a legally binding right to a stock option grant for 2009 as of February 11, 2009 because no grants had been made under the plan. Accordingly, any 2009 grant will be subject to the limitation and is not permitted to be made.
Example 4. Employee D is an SEO of a TARP recipient. Under Employee D's written employment agreement executed before February 11, 2009, Employee D is entitled to the total of whatever bonuses are made available to Employee E and Employee F. As of February 11, 2009, Employee E had a legally binding right to a $100,000 bonus. Employees E and F are never at any time SEOs or highly compensated employees subject to the limitation. As of February 11, 2009, Employee F had no legally binding right to a bonus, but was eligible to participate in a bonus pool and was ultimately awarded a bonus of $50,000. As of February 11, 2009, Employee D had a legally binding right to a $100,000 bonus, so that bonus is not subject to the limitation. However, as of February 11, 2009, Employee D did not have a legally binding right to the additional $50,000 bonus, so that bonus is subject to the bonus payment limitation and, if not paid before June 15, 2009 is not permitted to be paid.
31 C.F.R. §30.10