UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule14a-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant ☑
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐
Check the appropriate box:
☐ | Preliminary Proxy Statement | |
☐ | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted byRule 14a-6(e)(2)) | |
☑ | Definitive Proxy Statement | |
☐ | Definitive Additional Materials | |
☐ | Soliciting Material Pursuant to§240.14a-12 |
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
☑ | No fee required. | |||
☐ | Fee computed on table below per Exchange ActRules 14a-6(i)(1) and0-11. | |||
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange ActRule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
| |||
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
| |||
(5) | Total fee paid:
| |||
☐ | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |||
☐ | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange ActRule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. | |||
(1) | Amount Previously Paid:
| |||
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
| |||
(3) | Filing Party:
| |||
(4) | Date Filed:
|
September 28, 201725, 2019
Dear Lam Research Stockholders,
We cordially invite you to attend, in person or by proxy, the Lam Research Corporation 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The annual meeting will be held on Wednesday,Tuesday, November 8, 2017,5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time in the Building CA1 Auditorium at the principal executive offices of Lam Research Corporation, which isare located at 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538.
At this year’s annual meeting, stockholders will be asked to elect the ten10 nominees named in the attached proxy statement as directors to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders, and until their respective successors are elected and qualified; to cast an advisory vote to approve our named executive officer compensation, or “Say on Pay”; to cast an advisory vote to approve the frequency of holding future stockholder advisory votes on our named executive officer compensation, or “Say on Frequency”;and to ratify the appointment of theErnst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2018; and to consider, if properly presented at the annual meeting, a stockholder proposal described in the accompanying proxy statement.2020. The boardBoard of directorsDirectors recommends that you vote in favor of each director nominee Say on Pay, annual Say on Frequency, and the ratificationeach of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm; and that you vote against the stockholder proposal, if properly presented at the annual meeting.these proposals. Management will not provide a business update during this meeting; please refer to our latest quarterly earnings report for our current outlook.
Please refer to the proxy statement for detailed information about the annual meeting, each director nominee, and each of the proposals, as well as voting instructions.Your vote is important, and we strongly urge you to cast your vote as soon as possible by the internet, telephone, or mail, even if you plan to attend the meeting in person.
Sincerely yours,
Lam Research Corporation
Stephen G. Newberry
Chairman of the Board
Notice of of Stockholders |
4650 Cushing Parkway
Fremont, California 94538
Telephone:510-572-0200
Meeting Information
Category | Details | |
Date and Time | Tuesday, November | |
5, 2019 9:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time | ||
Place | Lam Research Corporation Building CA1 Auditorium 4650 Cushing Parkway Fremont, California 94538 | |
Record Date | Only stockholders of record at the close of business on September 6, 2019, the “Record Date,” are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the annual meeting. |
Proxy and Annual Report Materials
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE 2019 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019
Our notice of 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, proxy statement, and annual report to stockholders are available on the Lam Research website athttps://investor.lamresearch.com.
Elect Electronic Delivery - Save Time, Money & Trees | ||
As part of our efforts to be an environmentally responsible corporate citizen, we encourage Lam | ||
• If you are a registered stockholder, please visit • If you are a stockholder who owns stock through a broker or brokerage account, please opt fore-delivery at https://enroll.icsdelivery.com/lrcxor by contacting your nominee. |
Date of Distribution
This notice, proxy statement and proxy card are first being made available and/or mailed to our stockholders on or about September 25, 2019.
Items of Business
# | Proposal | Our Board’s | ||||
1. | Election of |
☑FOR each Director Nominee | |||
2. | Advisory vote to approve our named executive officer compensation, or “Say on Pay” |
☑FOR |
3. | Ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year |
☑FOR |
Transaction of such other business |
Record Date
Only stockholders of record at the close of business on September 11, 2017, the “Record Date,” are entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting.
Voting
Please vote as soon as possible, even if you plan to attend the annual meeting in person.person, on all of the voting matters. You have three options for submitting your vote before the annual meeting: by the internet, telephone, or mail.
by the internet, | ||
by telephone, or | ||
by mail. |
The proxy statement and the accompanying proxy card provide detailed voting instructions.
Internet AvailabilityIT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU VOTE to play a part in the future of Proxy Materials
Our Notice of 2017the Company. Please carefully review the proxy materials for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Proxy Statement, and Annual Report to Stockholders are available on the Lam Research website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com and atwww.proxyvote.com.Stockholders.
By Order of the Board of Directors,
Sarah A. O’Dowd
Secretary
This proxy statement is first being made available and/or mailed to our stockholders on or about September 28, 2017.
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION
Proxy Statement for 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
Proxy Statement Summary | 1 | |||
1 | ||||
2 | ||||
Figure 3. Director Nominee Key Qualifications, Skills and Experiences Highlights | 3 | |||
3 | ||||
Stock Ownership | ||||
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management | ||||
6 | ||||
Governance Matters | ||||
14 | ||||
14 | ||||
Compensation Matters | ||||
45 | ||||
Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans | ||||
Audit Matters | ||||
Relationship with Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm | ||||
Annual Evaluation and Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm | ||||
Policy on Audit CommitteePre-Approval of Audit andNon-Audit Services | ||||
Voting Proposals | ||||
Proposal No. 2: Advisory Vote to Approve Our Named Executive Officer Compensation, or “Say on Pay” | ||||
Voting and Meeting Information | ||||
|
To assist you in reviewing the proposals to be acted upon at the annual meeting, we call your attention to the following summarized information about the Company, the proposals and voting recommendations, the Company’s director nominees, and highlights of the Company’sdirectors’ key qualifications, skills and experiences, board composition, corporate governance, and executive compensation. The following description is only a summary. For more complete information about these topics, please review the complete proxy statement.statement before voting. We also encourage you to read our latest annual report on Form10-K, which is also available at:https://investor.lamresearch.com. The content of any website referred to in this proxy statement is not a part of nor incorporated by reference in this proxy statement unless expressly noted.
We use the terms “Lam Research,” “Lam,” the “Company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” in this proxy statement to refer to Lam Research Corporation, a Delaware corporation. We also use the term “Board” to refer to the Company’s Board of Directors.
ABOUT LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION
Lam Research is a global supplier of innovative wafer fabrication equipment and services to the semiconductor industry. We have built a strong global presence with core competencies in areas like nanoscale applications enablement, chemistry, plasma and fluidics, advanced systems engineering, and a broad range of operational disciplines. Our products and services are designed to help our customers build smaller, faster, and better performing devices that are used in a variety of electronic products, including mobile phones, personal computers, servers, wearables, automotive vehicles, and data storage devices. Our vision is to realize full value from the natural technology extensions of our Company.
Our customer base includes leading semiconductor memory, foundry, and integrated device manufacturers that make products such asnon-volatile memory, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and logic devices. We aim to increase our strategic relevance with our customers by contributing more to their continued success. Our core technical competency is integrating hardware, process, materials, software, and process control enabling results on the wafer.
Semiconductor manufacturing, our customers’ business, involves the complete fabrication of multiple dies or integrated circuits on a wafer. This involves the repetition of a set of core processes and can require hundreds of individual steps. Fabricating these devices requires highly sophisticated process technologies to integrate an increasing array of new materials with precise control at the atomic scale. Along with meeting technical requirements, wafer processing equipment must deliver high productivity and be cost-effective.
Demand from the Cloud, Internet of Things (IoT), and other markets is driving the need for increasingly powerful and cost-efficient semiconductors. At the same time, there are growing technical challenges with traditional scaling. These trends are driving significant inflections in semiconductor manufacturing, such as the increasing importance of vertical 3D scaling strategies as well as multiple patterning to enable shrinks.
We believe we are in a strong position with our leadership and competency in deposition, etch, and clean to facilitate some of the most significant innovations in semiconductor device manufacturing. Several factors create opportunity for sustainable differentiation for us: (i) our focus on research and development, with severalon-going programs related to sustaining engineering, product and process development, and concept and feasibility; (ii) our ability to effectively leverage cycles of learning from our broad installed base; (iii) our collaborative focus with ecosystem partners; and (iv) our focus on delivering our multi-product solutions with a goal to enhance the value of Lam’s solutions to our customers.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 1 |
FISCAL YEAR 2019 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Figure 1. Proposals and Voting Recommendations
Voting Matters | Board Vote Recommendation | |||
Proposal | FOR each nominee | |||
Proposal | FOR | |||
Proposal | ||||
FOR | ||||
Transaction of such other business as may properly come before the annual meeting (including any adjournment or postponement thereof) | ||||
Figure 2. Summary Information Regarding Director Nominees
You are being asked to vote on the election of the ten director nominees listed in the table below.these 10 directors. The following table provides summary information about each director nominee as of September 11, 2017,2019, and their biographical information is contained in the “Voting Proposals – Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors – 20172019 Nominees for Director” section below.
Director | Committee Membership | Other Current Public Boards | Director | Committee Membership | Other Current Public Boards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Age | Since | Independent(1) | AC | CC | NGC | Age | Since | Independent (1) | AC | CC | NGC | ||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 50 | 2012 | No | * | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sohail U. Ahmed |
| 61 |
|
| 2019 |
| Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer |
| 52 |
|
| 2018 |
| No | * | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eric K. Brandt | 55 | 2010 | Yes | C/FE | Altaba (formerly Yahoo!), Dentsply Sirona |
| 57 |
|
| 2010 |
| Yes | C/FE | M | Altaba (formerly Yahoo!), Dentsply Sirona, Macerich | |||||||||||||||||
Michael R. Cannon | 64 | 2011 | Yes | M/FE | M | Seagate Technology, Dialog Semiconductor |
| 66 |
|
| 2011 |
| Yes | M/FE | M | Dialog Semiconductor, Seagate Technology | ||||||||||||||||
Youssef A. El-Mansy | 72 | 2012 | Yes | M |
| 74 |
|
| 2012 |
| Yes | M | ||||||||||||||||||||
Christine A. Heckart | 51 | 2011 | Yes | M | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Young Bum (YB) Koh | 59 | 2017 | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Catherine P. Lego | 60 | 2006 | Yes | * | C | M | Cypress Semiconductor, IPG Photonics |
| 62 |
|
| 2006 |
| Yes | * | C | M | Cypress Semiconductor, Guidewire Software, IPG Photonics | ||||||||||||||
Stephen G. Newberry | 63 | 2005 | No | * | Splunk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bethany J. Mayer |
| 57 |
|
| 2019 |
| Yes | M/FE | Marvell Technology Group, Sempra Energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar | 53 | 2011 | Yes (Lead Independent Director) | * | M | C | Advanced Micro Devices, TE Connectivity, iRhythm Technologies |
| 55 |
|
| 2011 |
| Yes (Lead Independent Director(2)) | * | M | C | Advanced Micro Devices, iRhythm Technologies, TE Connectivity | ||||||||||||||
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai | 66 | 2016 | Yes | MediaTek, USI Corporation |
| 68 |
|
| 2016 |
| Yes | M | MediaTek | |||||||||||||||||||
Leslie F. Varon |
| 62 |
|
| 2019 |
| Yes | M/FE | Dentsply Sirona, Hamilton Lane |
(1) | Independence determined in accordance with Nasdaq rules. |
(2) | Mr. Talwalkar will continue as the lead independent director (“LID”) through November 4, 2019. Thereafter, there will no longer be an LID and provided he isre-elected, Mr. Talwalkar will be the chairman of the Board. See “Governance Matters – Corporate Governance – Leadership Structure of the Board” for details. |
|
| |
AC – Audit committee | C – Chairperson | |
CC – Compensation and human resources committee | M – Member | |
FE – Audit committee financial expert (as determined based on SEC rules) | ||
* – Qualifies as an audit committee financial expert (as determined based on SEC rules) |
Figure 3. Director Nominee Key Qualifications, Skills and Experiences Highlights
The table below summarizes the key qualifications, skills and experiences of our nominees. Not having a mark does not mean the director nominee does not possess that qualification, skill or experience. The director biographies contained in the “Voting Proposals – Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors – 2019 Nominees for Director” section below describe each director nominee’s background and relevant experience in more detail, and identifies those qualifications, skills and experiences considered most relevant to the decision to nominate candidates to serve on our Board.
Key Qualifications, Skills & Experiences of Director Nominees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Industry Knowledge– Knowledge of and experience with our semiconductor and broader technology industries and markets | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Customer/Deep Technology Knowledge– Deep knowledge and understanding of semiconductor processing equipment technologies, including an understanding of our customers’ markets and needs | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marketing Experience– Extensive knowledge and experience inbusiness-to- business marketing and sales, and services and/or business development, preferably in a capital equipment industry | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leadership Experience– Experience as a current Or former CEO, president, COO and/or general manager of a significant business | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance Experience – Profit and loss (P&L) and financing experience as an executive responsible for financial results of a breadth and Level of complexity comparable to the Company | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Global Business Experience– Experience as a current or former business executive of a business with substantial global operations | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mergers and Acquisitions (‘‘M&A”) Experience– M&A and integration experience (includingbuy- and sell-side and hostile M&A experience) as a public company director or officer | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Board/Governance Experience– Experience with corporate governance requirements and practices | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cybersecurity Expertise– Understanding of and/or experience overseeing corporate cybersecurity programs, and having a history of participation in relevant cyber education | X | X | X |
Figure 4. Director Nominee Composition Highlights
The Board is committed to diversity and the pursuit of board refreshment and balanced tenure. The following table shows the tenure, age and gender diversity of the director nominees.
Tenure | Age | Gender Diversity |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Figure 3.5. Corporate Governance Highlights
Board and Other Governance Information | As of September | |||
Size of Board as Nominated | 10 | |||
Number of Independent Nominated Directors | 9 | |||
Number of Nominated Directors Who Attended³75% of Meetings | 10 | |||
Number of Nominated Directors on More Than Four Public Company Boards | 0 | |||
Number of NominatedNon-Employee Directors Who Are Sitting Executives on More Than Three Public Company Boards | 0 | |||
Directors Subject to Stock Ownership Guidelines (Page 12) | Yes | |||
Hedging and Pledging Prohibited (Page 9) | Yes | |||
Annual Election of Directors (Page 50) | Yes | |||
Voting Standard (Page 50) | Majority | |||
Plurality Voting Carveout for Contested Elections | Yes | |||
Separate Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) | Yes | |||
Lead Independent Director (Page 11) | Yes | (1) | ||
Independent Directors Meet Without Management Present (Page 11) | Yes | |||
Annual Board (Including Individual Director) and Committee Self-Evaluations (Page 12) | Yes | |||
Annual Independent Director Evaluation of CEO (Page 14) | Yes | |||
Risk Oversight by Full Board and Committees (Page 14) | Yes | |||
Commitment to Board Refreshment and Diversity (Page 10) | Yes | |||
Robust Director Nomination Process (Pages 9-10) | Yes | |||
Significant Board Engagement (Page 14) | Yes | |||
Board Orientation/Education Program (Page 11) | Yes | |||
Code of Ethics Applicable to Directors (Page 9) | Yes | |||
Stockholder Proxy Access (Pages 10, 63) | Yes | |||
Stockholder Ability to Act by Written Consent | Yes | |||
Stockholder Engagement Program (Page 14) | Yes | |||
Poison Pill | No | |||
Publication of Corporate Social Responsibility Report on Our Website (Pages 14-15) | Yes |
(1) | Effective as of November 5, 2019, there will be no lead independent director position and only an independent chairman. |
Figure 4.6. Executive Compensation Highlights
What We Do |
Pay for Performance |
Three-Year Performance Period for Our |
Absolute and Relative Performance Metrics (Pages |
Balance of Annual and Long-Term Incentives – Our incentive programs provide a balance of annual and long-term incentives. |
Different Performance Metrics for Annual and Long-Term Incentive Programs |
Capped Amounts (Pages |
Compensation Recovery/Clawback Policy (Page |
Prohibit Option Repricing – Our stock incentive plans prohibit option repricing without stockholder approval. |
Stock Ownership Guidelines (Page |
Independent Compensation Advisor |
Stockholder Engagement – We engage with stockholders on an annual basis and stockholder advisory firms on an as needed basis to obtain feedback concerning our compensation program. |
What We Don’t Do |
Tax |
Single-Trigger Change in Control Provisions (Pages |
(1) | Our executive officers may receive taxgross-ups in connection with relocation benefits that are widely available to all of our employees. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
|
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The table below sets forth the beneficial ownership of shares of Lam common stock by: (1) each person or entity who we believe, based on our review of filings made with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the “SEC,” beneficially owned as of September 11, 2017, more than 5% of Lam’s common stock on the date set forth below; (2) each current director of the Company; (3) each NEO identified below in the “Compensation Matters – Executive Compensation and Other Information – Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section; and (4) all current directors and current executive officers as a group. With the exception
of 5% owners, and unless otherwise
noted, the information below reflects holdings as of September 11, 2017,6, 2019, which is the Record Date for the 2017 annual meeting2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and the most recent practicable date for determining ownership. For 5% owners, holdings are as of the dates of their most recent ownership reports filed with the SEC, which are the most practicable dates for determining their holdings. The percentage of the class owned is calculated using 162,496,503144,834,045 as the number of shares of Lam common stock outstanding on September 11, 2017.6, 2019.
Figure 5.7. Beneficial Ownership Table
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Name of Person or Identity of Group
| Shares
| Percentage
| ||||||
5% Stockholders | ||||||||
The Vanguard Group, Inc. |
| 11,885,413 | (2) |
| 8.21 | % | ||
BlackRock, Inc. |
| 11,429,062 | (3) |
| 7.89 | % | ||
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. |
| 9,286,271 | (4) |
| 6.41 | % | ||
Directors | ||||||||
Sohail U. Ahmed |
| 470 |
|
| * |
| ||
Timothy M. Archer (also a Named Executive Officer) |
| 118,447 |
|
| * |
| ||
Eric K. Brandt |
| 26,195 |
|
| * |
| ||
Michael R. Cannon |
| 16,090 |
|
| * |
| ||
Youssef A.El-Mansy |
| 22,176 |
|
| * |
| ||
Christine A. Heckart |
| 15,540 |
|
| * |
| ||
Catherine P. Lego |
| 50,598 |
|
| * |
| ||
Bethany J. Mayer |
| 470 |
|
| * |
| ||
Stephen G. Newberry |
| 9,847 |
|
| * |
| ||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar |
| 13,727 |
|
| * |
| ||
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai |
| 4,870 |
|
| * |
| ||
Leslie F. Varon |
| 470 |
|
| * |
| ||
Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) | ||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger |
| 114,489 |
|
| * |
| ||
Richard A. Gottscho |
| 63,345 |
|
| * |
| ||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 1,620 |
|
| * |
| ||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 33,423 |
|
| * |
| ||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 43,425 |
|
| * |
| ||
Martin B. Anstice |
| 81,037 | (5) |
| * |
| ||
All current directors and executive officers as a group (20 people) |
| 628,915 |
|
| * |
|
* | Less than 1%. |
(1) | Includes shares subject to outstanding stock options that are now exercisable or will become exercisable within 60 days after September |
Shares | ||||
Sohail U. Ahmed | 470 | |||
Timothy M. Archer | 50,042 | |||
Eric K. Brandt | 1,350 | |||
Michael R. Cannon | 1,350 | |||
Youssef A.El-Mansy | 1,350 | |||
Christine A. Heckart | 1,350 | |||
Catherine P. Lego | 1,350 | |||
Bethany J. Mayer | 470 | |||
Stephen G. Newberry | 1,350 | |||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar | 1,350 | |||
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai | 1,350 | |||
Leslie F. Varon | 470 | |||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 57,982 | |||
Richard A. Gottscho | 1,753 | |||
Patrick J. Lord | 1,333 | |||
Vahid Vahedi | 1,192 | |||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan | 1,192 | |||
Martin B. Anstice | — | |||
All current directors and executive officers as a group | 181,206 |
The terms of any outstanding stock options that are now exercisable are reflected in “Figure 31. FYE201737. FYE2019 Outstanding Equity Awards.Awards,” except as described in the following sentences. Scott Meikle, Ph.D. and Sarah A. O’Dowd have options covering 876 and 54,626 shares, respectively, which are unexercised and exercisable within 60 days of September 6, 2019. The grants for Dr. Meikle and Ms. O’Dowd have terms consistent with the terms reflected in “Figure 37. FYE 2019 Outstanding Equity Awards,” except for the grant to Ms. O’Dowd on February 8, 2013 of 22,140 shares, which fully vested on February 8, 2015 and will expire on February 8, 2020.
As discussed in “Governance Matters – Director Compensation” below, thenon-employee directors receive an annual equity grant as part of their compensation. These grants generally vest on October 31, 2017,2019, subject to continued service on the board as of that date, with immediate delivery of the shares upon vesting. For 2017,2019, Drs.El-Mansy and Tsai; Messrs. Brandt, Cannon, Newberry and Talwalkar; and Mses. Heckart and Lego each received grants of 2,0501,350 RSUs. TheseFor 2019, Mr. Ahmed and Mses. Mayer and Varon, who were appointed directors following the annual equity grant, each receivedpro-rated grants of 470 RSUs that are included in the tables above. As of November 11, 2016, Dr. Koh had not yet been appointed to the board of the Company. In accordance with the Company’s non-employee director compensation program, Dr. Koh received a pro-rated equity award of 1,000 RSUs (or 75% of the $200,000 targeted grant date value, with the number of RSUs determined in the same manner as an annual equity award) on May 12, 2017, the first Friday following his first attended board meeting.
(2) | All information regarding The Vanguard Group, Inc., or “Vanguard,” is based solely on information disclosed in amendment number |
(3) | All information regarding BlackRock Inc., or “BlackRock,” is based solely on information disclosed in amendment number |
|
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
(4) | All information regarding Ameriprise Financial, Inc., or “Ameriprise,” is based solely on information disclosed in amendment number six to Schedule 13G filed by Ameriprise with |
(5) | Mr. Anstice terminated his employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018, the date as of which his beneficial ownership information is reflected. |
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers, directors, and people who own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file an initial report of ownership (on a Form 3) and reports on subsequent changes in ownership (on Forms 4 or 5) with the SEC by specified due dates. Our executive officers, directors, and greater-than-10% stockholders are also required by SEC rules
to furnish us with copies of all section 16(a) forms they file. We are required to disclose in this proxy statement any failure to file any of these reports on a timely basis. Based solely on our review of the copies of the forms that we received from the filers, and on written representations from certain reporting persons, we believe that all of these requirements were satisfied during fiscal year 2017.
|
Our Board and members of management are committed to responsible corporate governance to manage the Company for the long-term benefit of its stockholders. To that end, the Board and management periodically review and update, as appropriate, the Company’s corporate governance policies and practices. As part of that process, the Board and management consider the requirements of federal and state law, including rules and regulations of the SEC; the listing standards for the Nasdaq Global Select Market, or “Nasdaq;”“Nasdaq”; published guidelines and recommendations of proxy advisory firms; published guidelines of some of our top stockholders; published guidelines of other selected public companies; and any feedback we receive from our stockholders. A list of key corporate governance practices is provided in the “Proxy Statement Summary” above.
We have instituted a variety of policies and procedures to foster and maintain responsible corporate governance, including the following:
Board committee charters. Each of the Board’s audit, compensation, and nominating and governance committees has a written charter adopted by the Board that establishes practices and procedures for the committee in accordance with applicable corporate governance rules and regulations. Each committee reviews its charter annually and recommends changes to the Board, as appropriate. Each committee charter is available on the Investors section of our website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfm. The content on any website referred to in this proxy statement is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this proxy statement unless expressly noted. Also see “Board Committees” below for additional information regarding these committees.
Corporate governance guidelines. We adhere to written corporate governance guidelines, adopted by the Board and reviewed annually by the nominating and governance committee and the Board. Selected provisions of the guidelines are discussed below, including in the “Board NominationFigure 8. Policies and Procedures” “Director Independence Policies,” and “Other Governance Practices” sections below. The corporate governance guidelines are available on the Investors section of our website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfm. Summary
Corporate code of ethics. We maintain a code of ethics that applies to all employees, officers,
Policy and Procedure | Summary | |
Board committee charters* | Each of the Board’s audit, compensation and human resources, and nominating and governance committees has a written charter adopted by the Board that delegates authority and responsibilities to the committee. Each committee reviews its charter, and the nominating and governance committee reviews the charters of all of the committees, annually and recommends changes to the Board, as appropriate. See “Board Committees” below for additional information regarding these committees. | |
Corporate governance guidelines* | We adhere to written corporate governance guidelines, adopted by the Board and reviewed annually by the nominating and governance committee and the Board. Selected provisions of the guidelines are discussed below, including in the “Board Nomination Policies and Procedures,” “Director Independence Policies,” and“Other Governance Practices” sections below. |
Corporate Code of Ethics* | We maintain a code of ethics that applies to all employees, officers, and members of the Board. The code of ethics establishes standards reasonably necessary to promote honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships, and full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports we file with the SEC and in other public communications. We will promptly disclose to the public any amendments to, or waivers from, any provision of the code of ethics to the extent required by applicable laws. We intend to make this public disclosure by posting the relevant material on our website, to the extent permitted by applicable laws. | |
Global Standards of Business Conduct* | We maintain written standards of business conduct to address a variety of situations that apply to our worldwide workforce. Among other things, these global standards of business conduct address relationships and/or conduct with one another, with Lam (including conflicts of interest, safeguarding of Company assets, and protection of confidential information), and with other companies and stakeholders (including anti-corruption). | |
Insider Trading Policy | Our insider trading policy restricts the trading of Company stock by our directors, officers, and employees, and includes provisions addressing insider blackout periods and prohibiting pledges of Company stock, and prohibiting such persons from engaging in hedging transactions, such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity swaps and other similar arrangements. Investments in exchange funds may be permitted on acase-by-case basis if the fund is broadly diversified. |
The code of ethics establishes standards reasonably necessary to promote honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships, and full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports we file with the SEC and in other public communications. We will promptly disclose to the public any amendments to, or waivers from, any provision of the code of ethics to the extent required by applicable laws. We intend to make this public disclosure by posting the relevant material on our website, to the extent permitted by applicable laws. A copy of the code of ethics is available on the Investors section of our website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfm.
A copy is available on the Investors section of our website athttps://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance Board Nomination Policies and Procedures Board membership criteria. Under our corporate governance guidelines, the nominating and governance committee is responsible for Global standards of business conduct policy.* We maintain written standards of appropriate conduct in a variety of business situations that apply to our worldwide workforce. Among other things, these global standards of business conduct address relationships with one another, relationships with Lam (including conflicts of interest, safeguarding of Company assets, and protection of confidential information), and relationships with other companies and stakeholders (including anti-corruption).Insider trading policy. Our insider trading policy restricts the trading of Company stock by our directors, officers, and employees, and includes provisions addressing insider blackout periods and prohibiting hedges and pledges of Company stock.assessingrecommending nominees to the independent directors, and the independent directors nominate the slate of directors for approval by our stockholders. In making its recommendations, whether for new or incumbent directors, the committee assesses the appropriate balance of experience, skills, and characteristics required for the Board and for recommending director nominees toat the independent directors.time.
Continues on next page u
The guidelines direct the committee to consider all factors it considers appropriate. The committee need not consider all of the same factors for every candidate.
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 9 |
Factors to be considered by the nominating and governance committee may include, but are not limited to: experience; business acumen; wisdom; integrity; judgment; the ability to make independent analytical inquiries; the ability to understand the Company’s business environment; the candidate’s willingness and ability to devote adequate time to board duties; specific skills, background, or experience considered necessary or desirable for board or committee service; specific experiences with other businesses or
Continues on next page u
organizations that may be relevant to the Company or its industry; diversity with respect to any attribute(s) the Board considers appropriate, including geographic, gender, age, and ethnic diversity; and the interplay of a candidate’s experiences and skills with those of other Board members.
The specific skills, background, and experiences that are evaluated in connection with board service include (but are not limited to or required):include:
• | Industry knowledge: knowledge of and experience with |
• | Customer/deep technology knowledge: deep knowledge and understanding of semiconductor processing equipment technologies, including an understanding of our customers’ markets and needs; |
• |
Marketing experience: extensive knowledge and experience inbusiness-to-business marketing and sales, and services and/or business development, preferably in a capital equipment industry; |
• |
• | Finance experience: profit and loss |
• |
• | Mergers and acquisitions |
• | Board/governance experience: experience with corporate governance requirements and |
• | Cybersecurity |
Each nominee’s key qualifications, skills, and attributes considered most relevant to the nomination of the candidate to serve on the Board are reflected in his or her biography under “Voting Proposals – Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors – 2019 Nominees for Director” below. For a summary of the key qualifications, skills, and attributes of the nominees to the Board, see “Proxy Statement Summary – Figure 3. Director Nominee Key Qualifications, Skills and Experiences Highlights.”
The Board and the nominating and governance committee regard board refreshment as important, and strive to maintain an appropriate balance of tenure, turnover, diversity, and skills on the Board. See “Proxy Statement Summary – Figure 4. Director Nominee Composition Highlights”for additional information. In line with the Board’s pursuit of board refreshment and balanced tenure, including consideration of any resignations, the Board has appointed four new directors in the last year.
For many years, the composition of the Board has reflected the Board’s commitment to diversity. For example, every year since 2006, the Board has had at least two female directors, since 2006, and over the last 10 years has appointed directors who have expanded the experiences, and areas of substantive expertise and geographic and industry diversity of the directors,board, as illustrated by the information provided in their biographies under “Voting Proposals – Proposal–Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors – 20172019 Nominees for Director” below. Most recently, the Board has increased its geographic diversity with the appointment of two directors whose careers include significant leadership
experience with major non-U.S. customers and who reside in Asia.
Regarding tenure, the Board believes that new perspectives and ideas are important to a forward-looking and strategic board, as is the ability to benefit from the valuable experience and familiarity of longer-serving directors. In linelonger serving directors who can bring to bear their learnings from their experience with the Board’s pursuit of board refreshmentCompany and balanced tenure, including consideration of any resignations,with the Board appointed two new directors withinindustry and business environment in which the last fiscal year, and has appointed 12 new directors in the last 10 years.
Prior to recommending the nomination of an incumbent non-employee director for reelection, the committee reviews the experiences, skills, and qualifications of the director to assess the continuing relevance of his or her experiences, skills, and qualifications to those considered necessary or desirable for the Board at that time.Company operates.
To be nominated, a new or incumbent candidate must provide an irrevocable conditional resignation that will be effective upon (1) the director’s failure to receive the required majority vote at an annual meeting at which the nominee facesre-election and (2) the Board’s acceptance of such resignation. In addition, no director, after having attained the age of 75 years, may be nominated forre-election or reappointment to the Board.
Nomination procedure. The nominating and governance committee sets specific qualifications for new directors, and identifies, screens, evaluates, and recommends qualified candidates for appointment or election to the Board. The committee considers recommendations from a variety of sources, including search firms, Board members, executive officers, and stockholders. Nominations for election by the stockholders are made by the independent members of the Board. See “Voting Proposals – Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors – 20172019 Nominees for Director” below for additional information regarding the 20172019 candidates for election to the Board.
Certain provisions of our bylaws apply to the nomination or recommendation of candidates by a stockholder. For example, in February 2017, the Board amended and restated our bylaws to provide that under certain circumstances, a stockholder, or group of up to 20 stockholders, who have maintained continuous ownership of at least three percent (3%) of our common stock for at least three years may nominate and include a specified number of director nominees in our annual meeting proxy statement that cannot exceed the
greater of two or 20% of the aggregate number of directors then serving on the Board (rounded down). Information regarding the nomination procedure is provided in the “Voting and Meeting Information – Other Meeting Information – Stockholder-Initiated–Stockholder-Initiated Proposals and Nominations for 20182020 Annual Meeting” section below.
Director Independence Policies
Board independence requirements. Our corporate governance guidelines require that a majority of the Board members be independent. No director will qualify as “independent” unless the Board affirmatively determines that the director qualifies as independent under the Nasdaq rules and has no relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment as a director. In addition, nonon-employee director may serve as a consultant or service provider to the Company without the approval of a majority of the independent directors (and any such director’s independence must be reassessed by the full Board following such approval).
Board member independence. The Board has determined that all current directors, other than Messrs. Anstice and Newberry,Mr. Archer, are independent in accordance with Nasdaq criteria for director independence. In making the determination, the Board considered prior employment with the Company, disclosed related party transactions, known familial relationships of directors with employees (not involving immediate family members) and commercial transactions involving other parties with common directorships, none of which qualified as related party transactions or were considered by the Board to interfere with the exercise of independent judgment as a director.
Board committee independence. All members of the Board’s audit, compensation, and nominating and governance committees must benon-employee or outside directors and independent in accordance with applicable Nasdaq criteria as well as, in the case of the compensation and human resources committee, applicable rules under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the “Code,” and Rule16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the “Exchange Act.” See “Board Committees” below for additional information regarding these committees.
Lead independent director. Our corporate governance guidelines authorize the Board to designate a lead independent director from among the independent members. Mr. Talwalkar, who was appointed the lead independent director effective August 27, 2015. See2015, will continue to hold such role until November 4, 2019, the effective date of Mr. Newberry’s previously disclosed retirement. As described below under “Leadership Structure of the Board,” below for information regardingbeginning November 5, 2019, Mr. Talwalkar will be chairman of the responsibilities of theboard and there will be no lead independent director.
Executive sessions of independent directors. The Board and its audit, compensation, and nominating and governance committees hold meetings of the independent directors and
committee members, without management present, as part of each regularly scheduled meeting and at any other time at the discretion of the Board or committee, as applicable.
Board access to independent advisors. The Board as a whole, and each standing Board committee separately, has the complete authority to retain, at the Company’s expense, and terminate, in their discretion, any independent consultants, counselors, or advisors as they deem necessary or appropriate to fulfill their responsibilities.
Board education program. Our corporate governance guidelines provide that directors are expected to participate in educational events sufficient to maintain their understanding of their duties as directors and to enhance their ability to fulfill their responsibilities. In addition to any external educational
opportunities that the directors find useful, the Company and the board leadership are expected to facilitate such participation by arranging for appropriate educational presentations from time to time.
Leadership Structure of the Board
The currentCompany’s governance framework provides the Board with the flexibility to select the appropriate leadership structure for the Board of the Company. In making determinations about the leadership structure, the Board considers many factors, including the specific needs of the business and what is in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders.
The leadership structure of the Board currently consists of a chairman and a lead independent director. The chairman, Mr. Newberry, served as chief executive officer of the Company from June 2005 to January 2012. The Board believes that this is the appropriate board leadership structure at this time. Lam and its stockholders benefithave benefited from having Mr. Newberry as its chairman, as he brings to bear his experience as CEO as well as his other qualifications in carrying out his responsibilities as chairman. In light of Mr. Newberry’s previously announced retirement from the board, effective the close of business on November 4, 2019, the Board has elected Mr. Talwalkar, whom it has determined to be independent, as chairman, and determined there will be no lead independent director position as of November 5, 2019. Lam believes that it and its stockholders will benefit from having Mr. Talwalkar as its chairman, which role will include all of the responsibilities of the current chairman and lead independent director, as he will bring to bear his experiences as the Company’s lead independent director over the last four years, a former CEO of a semiconductor company, and a board chairman of another public company, as well as his other qualifications in carrying out his responsibilities as chairman.
The chairman’s duties will include (1) preparing the agenda for the Board meetings with input from the CEO, the Board, and the committee chairs; (2) upon invitation, attending meetings of any of the Board committees onof which he is not a member; (3) conveying to the CEO, together with the chair of the compensation and human resources committee, the results of the CEO’s performance evaluation; (4) reviewing proposals submitted by stockholders for action at meetings of
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 11 |
stockholders and, depending on the subject matter, determining the appropriate body, among the Board or any of the Board committees, to evaluate each proposal, and making recommendations to the Board regarding action to be taken in response to such proposal; (5) as requested by the Board, providing reports to the Board on the chairman’s activities; (6) coordinating the activities of the independent directors; (7) developing the agenda for, and moderating executive sessions of, the full Board and the Board’s independent directors; and (8) performing such other duties as the Board may reasonably request from time to time; and (6) providing reports to the Board on the chairman’s activities under his agreement. The Company and its stockholders also benefit from having a lead independent director to provide independent board leadership. The lead independent director is responsible for: (1) coordinating the activities of the independent directors; (2) consulting with the chairman regarding matters such as (a) schedules of and agendas for Board meetings, (b) the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the flow of information from management, and (c) the retention of consultants who report directly to the Board; and (3) developing the agenda for and moderating executive sessions of the Board’s independent directors.time.
In addition to the principal policies and procedures described above, we have established a variety of other practices to enhance our corporate governance, including the following:
Board and committee assessments. Every year, the Board conducts a self-evaluation of the Board, its committees, and the individual directors, overseen by the nominating and governance committee and generally led by the lead independent director and the chairman of the Board.committee. From time to time, the evaluation is facilitated by an independent third-party consultant. The evaluation solicits the opinions of the directors regarding the effectiveness of the Board, Board committees, and individual directors in fulfilling its/their
Continues on next page u
obligations. Feedback on Board and committee effectiveness is provided to the full Board for discussion, and feedback regarding individual director performance is provided to each individual director. The Board and committees identify and hold themselves accountable for any action items stemming from the assessment. The results of the evaluations are also considered as part of the director nomination process.
Director resignation or notification of change in executive officer status. Under our corporate governance guidelines, any director who is also an executive officer of the Company must offer to submit his or her resignation as a director to the Board if the director ceases to be an executive officer of the Company. The Board may accept or decline the offer, in its discretion. The corporate governance guidelines also require anon-employee director to notify the nominating and governance committee if the director changes or retires from his or her executive position at another company. The nominating and governance committee reviews the appropriateness of the director’s continuing Board membership under the circumstances, and the director is expected to act in accordance with the nominating and governance committee’s recommendations.
Limitations on other board and committee memberships.Board members may not serve on more than four public company boards (including service on the Company’s Board).Non-employee directors who are sitting executives at other public companies may not serve on more than three public company boards (including the Company’s Board). The nominating and governance committee will review the
appropriateness of continued Board membership if anon-employee director who is a sitting executive serves on more than two such boards, and the director is expected to follow the recommendation of the nominating and governance committee. In addition,non-employee directors may not serve on more than three audit committees of public company boards (including the Company’s audit committee). Finally, the Company’s CEO may not serve on more than one other public company board.
Director and executive stock ownership. Under the corporate governance guidelines, each director is expected to own at least the lesser of five times the value of the annual cash retainer (not including any committee chair or other supplemental retainers for directors) or 5,0003,000 shares of Lam common stock, by the fifth anniversary of his or her initial election to the Board. Guidelines for stock ownership by designated members of the executive management team are described below under “Compensation Matters – Executive Compensation and Other Information – Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” All of our directors and designated members of our executive management team were in compliance with the Company’s applicable stock ownership guidelines at the end of fiscal year 20172019 or have a period of time remaining under the programguidelines to do so.meet the requirements.
Communications with Boardboard members. Any stockholder who wishes to communicate directly with the Board, with any Board committee, or with any individual director regarding the
Company may write to the Board, the committee, or the director c/o Secretary, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538. The Secretary will forward all such communications to the appropriate director(s).
Any stockholder, employee, or other person may communicate any complaint regarding any accounting, internal accounting control, or audit matter to the attention of the Board’s audit committee by sending written correspondence by mail (to Lam Research Corporation, Attention: Board Audit Committee, P.O. Box 5010, Fremont, California 94537-5010) or by telephone(855-208-8578) or internet (through the Company’s third-party provider website atwww.lamhelpline.ethicspoint.com)www.lamhelpline.ethicspoint.com). The audit committee has established procedures to ensure that employee complaints or concerns regarding audit or accounting matters will be received and treated anonymously (if the complaint or concern is submitted anonymously and if permitted under applicable law).
Our Board held a total of sixeight meetings during fiscal year 2017.2019. The number of committee meetings held is shown in Figure 6.Figures9-11. All of the directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate number of Board meetings and meetings of Board committees on which they served during their tenure in fiscal year 2017, with the exception of Mr. Cannon due to medical reasons. We expect his attendance going forward to be consistent with prior years.2019.
We expect our directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders each year unless unusual circumstances make attendance impractical. All but one of the individuals who were directors as of the 20162018 annual meeting of stockholders attended that meeting.
The Board has three standing committees: an audit committee, a compensation and human resources committee, and a nominating and governance committee. The purpose, membership, and charter of each are described below.
Figure 6. Committee Membership
Current Committee Memberships | ||||||
Name | Audit | Compensation | Nominating and Governance | |||
Eric K. Brandt | Chair | |||||
Michael R. Cannon | x | x | ||||
Youssef A. El-Mansy | x | |||||
Christine A. Heckart | x | |||||
Catherine P. Lego | Chair | x | ||||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar | x | Chair | ||||
Total Number of Meetings Held in FY2017 | 9 | 6 | 4 |
Audit committee. The purpose Copies of the audit committee is to oversee the Company’s accounting and financial reporting processes and the audits of our financial statements, including the system of internal controls. As part of its responsibilities, the audit committee reviews and oversees the potential conflict of interest situations, transactions required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K of the SEC, and any other transaction involving an executive or Board member. A copy of the audit committeeeach charter isare available on the Investors section of our website at http:https://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfmcorporate-governance.
Figure 9. Audit Committee
The Board concluded that all audit committee members are
Membership (1)(2) | Meetings in FY2019 | |||
Eric K. Brandt (Chair) (3) Michael R. Cannon (3) Christine A. Heckart Bethany J. Mayer (4) Leslie F. Varon (3)(4) | Independence (5) 5 of 5 | 8 | ||
Purpose | ||||
Purpose is to oversee the Company’s accounting and financial reporting processes, the Company’s Internal Audit Program, its investment policies and performance, its information security policies, its Ethics and Compliance Program, and the audits of our financial statements, including the system of internal controls. | ||||
As part of its responsibilities, the audit committee reviews and oversees potential conflict of interest situations, transactions required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of RegulationS-K of the SEC, and any other transaction involving an executive or Board member. |
(1) | As of September 6, 2019. |
(2) | Each member is able to read and understand fundamental financial statements as required by the Nasdaq listing standards. Messrs. Newberry and Talwalkar and Ms. Lego (members of the Board) each qualify as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in the SEC rules. |
(3) | Each is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in the SEC rules. |
(4) | Mses. Mayer and Varon were appointed to the committee effective August 26, 2019. |
(5) | The Board concluded that all members arenon-employee directors who are independent in accordance with the Nasdaq listing standards and SEC rules for audit committee member independence. |
Figure 10. Compensation and SEC rules for audit committee member independence and that each audit committee member is able to read and understand fundamental financial statements as required by the Nasdaq listing standards. The Board also determined that Messrs. Brandt and Cannon (both members of the committee) are each, and Messrs. Anstice, Newberry, and Talwalkar and Ms. Lego (members of the Board) each qualify as, an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in the SEC rules.
Compensation committee. The purpose of the compensation committee is to discharge certain responsibilities of the Board relating to executive compensation; to oversee incentive, equity-based plans, and other compensatory plans in which the Company’s executive officers and/or directors participate; and to produce an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion as required in the Company’s annual proxy statement. The compensation committee is authorized to perform the responsibilities of the committee referenced above and described in the charter. A copy of the compensation committee charter is available on the Investors section of our website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfm.Human Resources Committee
The Board concluded that all members of the compensation committee are non-employee directors who are independent in accordance with Rule
Membership (1) | Meetings in FY2019 | |||
Youssef A. El-Mansy Catherine P. Lego (Chair) Abhijit Y. Talwalkar Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai (2) | Independence (3) 4 of 4 | 4 | ||
Purpose | ||||
Purpose is to discharge certain responsibilities of the Board relating to executive compensation; to oversee incentive, equity-based plans, and other compensatory plans in which the Company’s executive officers and/or directors participate; to produce an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion as required in the Company’s annual proxy statement; and to discharge certain responsibilities of the Board with respect to organization and people matters. | ||||
The committee is authorized to perform the responsibilities referenced above and described in its charter. |
(1) | As of September 6, 2019. |
(2) | Dr. Tsai was appointed to the committee effective August 26, 2019. |
(3) | The Board concluded that all members of the compensation and human resources committee arenon-employee directors who are independent in accordance with Rule16b-3 of the Exchange Act and the Nasdaq criteria for director and compensation committee member independence, and |
Figure 11. Nominating and governance committee.Governance Committee The purpose of the nominating and governance committee is to identify individuals qualified to serve as members of the Board of the Company, to recommend nominees for election as directors of the Company, to oversee self-evaluations of the Board’s performance, to develop and recommend corporate governance guidelines to the Board, and to provide oversight with respect to corporate governance. A copy of the nominating and governance committee charter is available on the Investors section of our website athttp://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.cfm
Membership (1) | Meetings in FY2019 | |||
Eric K. Brandt (2) Michael R. Cannon Catherine P. Lego Abhijit Y. Talwalkar (Chair) | Independence (3) 4 of 4 | 4 | ||
Purpose | ||||
Purpose is to identify individuals qualified to serve as members of the Board of the Company, to recommend nominees for election as directors of the Company, to oversee self-evaluations of the Board’s performance, to develop and recommend corporate governance guidelines to the Board, and to provide oversight with respect to corporate governance. | ||||
The nominating and governance committee will consider for nomination persons properly nominated by stockholders in accordance with the Company’s bylaws and other procedures described below under “Voting and Meeting Information – Other Meeting Information – Stockholder-Initiated Proposals and Nominations for the 2020 Annual Meeting.
|
(1) | As of September 6, 2019. |
(2) | Mr. Brandt was appointed to the committee effective August 26, 2019. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 13 |
(3) | The Board concluded that all nominating and governance committee members arenon-employee directors who are independent in accordance with the Nasdaq criteria for director independence. |
General. The Board directs and oversees the management of the business and affairs of the Company. In this oversight role, the Board serves as the ultimate decision-making body of the Company, except for those matters reserved for the stockholders. Board agendas facilitate Board/management dialogue regarding drivers of long-term stockholder value and key strategic and operational risks.
The Board and its committees have the primary responsibilities of:for:
° | A strategic plan is presented to the Board for discussion on an annual basis, and updates are presented at each quarterly Board |
° | An operating plan is presented to the Board for discussion on an annual basis, and updates are presented at each quarterly Board |
° | Capital allocation plans and priorities are discussed on a quarterly |
° |
Continues on next page u
Risk oversight.Oversight. The Board is actively engaged in risk oversight. Management regularly reports to the Board on its risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies for the major risks of our business. Generally, the Board exercises its oversight responsibility directly; however, in specific cases, such responsibility has been delegated to committees of the Board. Committees that have been charged with risk oversight regularly report to the Board on those risk matters within their
areas of responsibility. Risk oversight responsibility has been delegated to committees of the Board as set forth below.
We believe that engagement with our stockholders is an important part of effective corporate governance. Our senior management, including our president and CEO, chief financial officer (CFO) and members of our Investor Relations team, maintain regular contact with a broad base of investors through quarterly earnings calls, meetings, investor day events, industry conferences and other investor and industry events. In addition, we regularly engage with major stockholders on governance matters, including compensation and environmental and social governance. The outreach is generally conducted outside of our proxy solicitation period and, depending on the topics, includes members of our Legal, Investor Relations, Corporate Communications and Human Resources functions. During the proxy solicitation period, we may also engage with our stockholders about topics to be addressed at our annual meeting of stockholders. We share the opinions and information received from our stockholders with our board of directors. Over the last few years, we have heard from stockholders about their views on subjects such as proxy access, returning capital to stockholders, director tenure, board refreshment, director skills and experiences, board and workforce diversity, and environmental and social governance matters. Understanding the feedback shared with us, we have adopted proxy access, have maintained our focus on board diversification, board refreshment based on skills and experiences, workforce diversity, and pay for performance, and have enhanced our proxy statement and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Report disclosures.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Our core values underpin our commitments to sustainable growth and making a positive contribution to people and the planet. We are committed to responsible business practices and continuous improvement in our own operations, in our partnerships with our customers, and across our supply chain.
Workplace. Guided by our Core Value of mutual trust and respect, we strive to provide a work environment that fosters inclusion and diversity, ensures every voice can be heard and enables employees to achieve their full potential. We aim to maintain a collaborative, supportive, and opportunity-rich culture that enhances innovation and employee engagement.
Community. We believe that positively involving our employees and giving back to our community is central to our culture and aligned with our Core Values. Our charitable giving includes employee volunteer hours, the Lam Research Foundation grant program, and employee donations.
Our charitable grantmaking is focused on two key areas: science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education/education support programs and “quality of life” grants for social impact. As a successful equipment supplier in the technology industry, we encourage students to pursue STEM careers, engage in activities that give young people visibility into careers in the semiconductor industry, and support those students who demonstrate excellence in the STEM fields.
Operations:Environment and Safety. Lam Research carefully monitors and manages its environmental impact across the business – from procurement to manufacturing, during research and development (R&D) and product design, and throughout a product’s lifecycle.
We aim to protect the health and safety of our personnel throughout our entire operation, including our offices, manufacturing sites, R&D centers, and our field team working at customer sites.
Responsible and Accountable Global Supply Chain. All direct suppliers are expected to comply with our Global Supplier Code of Conduct and the Responsible Business Alliance Code of Conduct, both of which cover ethics, integrity, transparency, anti-corruption, conflict minerals, human trafficking, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility.
Lam Research is a proponent of industry standards and has adopted the standard guidelines published by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM), “Principles And Standards Of Ethical Supply Management Conduct With Guidelines.” Lam Research has also adopted the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) Code of Conduct.
For more information about our corporate social responsibility efforts, please refer to our report available on the Environmental Health & Safety section our website athttps://www.lamresearch.com/company/corporate-social-responsibility/environmental-health-safety/.
Our director compensation is designed to attract and retain high-caliber directors and to align director interests with those of stockholders. Director compensation is reviewed and determined annually by the Board (in the case of Messrs. NewberryMr. Archer, as our president and Anstice,CEO, by the independent members of the Board, and in the case of Mr. Newberry, by all other independent members of the Board), upon following a recommendation from the compensation [and people] committee.Non-employee director compensation (including the compensation of Mr. Newberry, who is currently ournon-employee chairman) is described below. Mr. Anstice,Archer, whose compensation as president and CEO is described below under “Compensation Matters – Executive Compensation and Other Information – Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” does not receive additional compensation for his service on the Board.
Non-employee director compensation.Non-employee directors receive annual cash retainers and equity awards. The chairman of the Board, committee chairs, the lead independent director, and committee chairs and members receive additional cash retainers.Non-employee directors who join the Board or a committee midyearmid-year receivepro-rated cash retainers and equity awards, as applicable. Ournon-employee director compensation program is based on service during the calendar year; however, SEC rules require us to report compensation in this proxy statement on a fiscal-year basis. Cash compensation paid tonon-employee directors for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2017,30, 2019, together with the annual cash compensation program components in effect for calendar years 20162019 and 2017,2018, is shown in the table below.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 15 |
Figure 7.12. Director Annual Retainers
Annual Retainers | Calendar Year 2017 ($) | Calendar Year 2016 ($) | Fiscal Year 2017 ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Retainers (1) | Calendar Year 2019 ($) | Calendar Year 2018 ($) | Fiscal Year 2019 ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Non-employee Director | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 |
| 75,000 |
|
| 75,000 |
|
| 75,000 |
| ||||||||||||
Chairman |
| 120,000 |
|
| 120,000 |
|
| 120,000 |
| |||||||||||||||
Lead Independent Director | 22,500 | 22,500 | 22,500 |
| 27,500 |
|
| 27,500 |
|
| 27,500 |
| ||||||||||||
Chairman | 160,000 | 280,000 | 220,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Audit Committee – Chair | 30,000 | 30,000 | 30,000 |
| 30,000 |
|
| 30,000 |
|
| 30,000 |
| ||||||||||||
Audit Committee – Member | 12,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 |
| 12,500 |
|
| 12,500 |
|
| 12,500 |
| ||||||||||||
Compensation Committee – Chair | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Compensation Committee – Member | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Compensation and Human Resources Committee – Chair |
| 20,000 |
|
| 20,000 |
|
| 20,000 |
| |||||||||||||||
Compensation and Human Resources Committee – Member |
| 10,000 |
|
| 10,000 |
|
| 10,000 |
| |||||||||||||||
Nominating and Governance Committee – Chair | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| 15,000 |
|
| 15,000 |
|
| 15,000 |
| ||||||||||||
Nominating and Governance Committee – Member | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 |
| 5,500 |
|
| 5,500 |
|
| 5,500 |
|
(1) | Each director is entitled to an annualnon-employee director cash retainer. Directors are also entitled to supplemental retainer fees if they have board leadership positions (e.g., chairman or lead independent director) and/or are either committee leaders or members. |
Eachnon-employee director also receives an annual equity grant on the first Friday following the annual meeting with a targeted grant date value equal to $200,000 (the number of RSUs subject to the award is determined by dividing $200,000 by the closing price of a share of Company common stock as of the date of grant, rounded down to the nearest 10 shares). These grants generally vest on October 31 in the year following the grant and are subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2015 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, or the “2015 Plan,” and the applicable award agreements. These grants immediately vest in full: (1) if anon-employee director dies or becomes subject to a “disability” (as determined pursuant to the 2015 Plan), (2) upon the occurrence of a “Corporate Transaction” (as defined in the 2015 Plan), or (3) on the date of the annual meeting, if the annual meeting during the year in which the award was expected to vest occurs prior to the vest date and thenon-employee director is notre-elected or retires or resigns effective immediately prior to the annual meeting.Non-employee directors who
commence service after the annual award has been granted receive on the first Friday following the first regularly scheduled, quarterly Board meeting attended apro-rated grant based on the number of regularly scheduled, quarterly Board meetings remaining in the year as of the effective date of the director’s appointment. Thepro-rated grants are subject to the same vesting schedule, terms and conditions as the annual equity awards, except that if the award is granted on the first Friday following the regularly scheduled quarterly November Board meeting, the grant vests immediately.
On November 11, 2016, Dr. Tsai, who was appointed to9, 2018, each director at such time other than the Board effective September 13, 2016,president and CEO received a pro-rated grant of 5101,350 RSUs for service during calendar year 2016 that vested immediately.
On November 11, 2016, each director other than Mr. Anstice and Dr. Koh, who was appointed a director on May 10, 2017, received a grant of 2,050 RSUs for service during calendar year 2017.
On May 12, 2017, Dr. Koh, who was appointed to the Board effective May 10, 2017, received a pro-rated grant of 1,000 RSUs for service during calendar year 2017.2019.
Unless there is an acceleration event, these RSUs granted to each current director for service during calendar year 20172019 will vest in full on October 31, 2017,2019, subject to the director’s continued service on the Board.
Chairman compensation. Mr. Newberry, who served asvice-chairman from December 7, 2010 to November 1, 2012 and since such date has served as chairman, has a chairman’s agreement documenting his responsibilities, described above under “Governance Matters – Corporate Governance –Leadership Structure of the Board,” and compensation. Mr. Newberry entered into a chairman’s agreement with the Company commencing on January 1, 2017, and expiring on December 31, 2017, subject to the right of earlier termination in certain circumstances and a one-year extension upon mutual written agreement of the parties. The agreement provides that Mr. Newberry will serve as chairman (and not as an employee or officer) and in addition to his regular compensation as anon-employee director, he receivesreceived an additional cash retainer of $160,000 on the same date.$120,000.
Mr. Newberry was eligible to participate through 2014 in the Company’s Elective Deferred Compensation Plan that is generally applicable to executives of the Company, subject to the general terms and conditions of such plan. He continues to maintain a balance in the plan until he no longer performs service for the Company as a director, but is no longer eligible to defer any compensation into the plan.
The following table shows compensation for fiscal year 20172019 for persons serving as directors during fiscal 2017year 2019 other than Mr. Archer and Martin B. Anstice:
Figure 8. FY201713. FY2019 Director Compensation
Director Compensation for Fiscal Year 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Director Compensation for Fiscal Year 2019 | Director Compensation for Fiscal Year 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) | Stock Awards ($) (1) | All Other sation ($) (2) | Total ($) | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) | Stock Awards ($) (1) | All Other Compen- sation ($) (2) | Total ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen G. Newberry | 225,000 | (6) | 197,415 | (3) | 26,275 | 448,690 |
|
195,000
|
(3)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
31,030
|
|
|
419,850
|
| ||||||||||||||
Sohail U. Ahmed(5)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Eric K. Brandt | 95,000 | (7) | 197,415 | (3) | — | 292,415 |
|
105,000
|
(6)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
—
|
|
|
298,820
|
| ||||||||||||||
Michael R. Cannon | 82,500 | (8) | 197,415 | (3) | — | 279,915 |
|
93,000
|
(7)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
—
|
|
|
286,820
|
| ||||||||||||||
Youssef A. El-Mansy | 75,000 | (9) | 197,415 | (3) | 26,275 | 298,690 |
|
85,000
|
(8)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
31,030
|
|
|
309,850
|
| ||||||||||||||
Christine A. Heckart | 77,500 | (10) | 197,415 | (3) | — | 274,915 |
|
87,500
|
(9)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
—
|
|
|
281,320
|
| ||||||||||||||
Young Bum (YB) Koh | 48,750 | (11) | 148,690 | (4) | — | 197,440 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Catherine P. Lego | 90,000 | (12) | 197,415 | (3) | 25,012 | 312,427 |
|
100,500
|
(10)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
29,668
|
|
|
323,988
|
| ||||||||||||||
Krishna C. Saraswat(13) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bethany J. Mayer(5)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar | 112,500 | (14) | 197,415 | (3) | — | 309,915 |
|
127,500
|
(11)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
—
|
|
|
321,320
|
| ||||||||||||||
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai | 81,250 | (15) | 247,135 | (3),(5) | — | 328,385 |
|
75,000
|
(12)
|
|
193,820
|
(4)
|
|
—
|
|
|
268,820
|
| ||||||||||||||
Leslie F. Varon(5)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
(1) | The amounts shown in this column represent the grant date fair value of unvested RSU awards granted during fiscal year |
(2) | Represents the portion of medical, dental, and vision premiums paid by the Company. |
(3) | Mr. Newberry received $195,000, representing his $120,000 chairman retainer and $75,000 annual retainer as a director. |
(4) | On November |
(5) | Mr. Ahmed was appointed to the Board effective June 3, 2019. Mses. Mayer and Varon were appointed to the Board effective May 9, 2019. Each received |
(6) |
Mr. Brandt received |
Mr. Cannon received |
Dr. El-Mansy received |
Ms. Heckart received |
Continues on next page u
Ms. Lego received |
Mr. Talwalkar received |
Dr. Tsai received |
Other benefits. Any members of the Board enrolled in the Company’s health plans on or prior to December 31, 2012, can continue to participate after retirement from the Board in the Company’s Retiree Health Plans. The Board eliminated this benefit for any person who became a director after December 31, 2012. The most recent valuation of the Company’s accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation under Accounting Standards Codification 715,Compensation-Retirement Benefits, or “ASC 715,” as of June 25, 2017,30, 2019, for eligible former directors and the current directors who may become eligible is shown below. Factors affecting the amount of post-retirement benefit obligation include current age, at enrollment, age at retirement, coverage tier (e.g., single, plus spouse, plus family), interest rate, and length of service.
Figure 9. FY201714. FY2019 Accumulated Post-Retirement Benefit Obligations
Director Compensation for Fiscal Year | ||||
Name | Accumulated
| |||
Stephen G. Newberry | 847,000 | |||
Sohail U. Ahmed | — | |||
Eric K. Brandt | — | |||
Michael R. Cannon | — | |||
Youssef A.El-Mansy | 584,000 | |||
Christine A. Heckart | — | |||
Catherine P. Lego | 487,000 | |||
Bethany J. Mayer | — | |||
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar | — | |||
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai | — | |||
Leslie F. Varon | — |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 17 |
|
Executive Compensation and Other Information
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis, or “CD&A,” describes our executive compensation program. It is organized into the following four sections:
I. | Overview of Executive Compensation | |
II. | Executive Compensation Governance and Procedures | |
III. | Primary Components of Named Executive Officer Compensation; Calendar Year | |
IV. | Tax and Accounting Considerations |
Our CD&A discusses compensation earned by our fiscal year 20172019 “Named Executive Officers,” or “NEOs,” who are as follows:
Figure 10. FY201715. FY2019 NEOs
Named Executive Officer | Position(s) | |
Timothy M. Archer | President and Chief Executive Officer | |
President and Chief Operating Officer (through December 5, 2018) | ||
Douglas R. Bettinger | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | |
Richard A. Gottscho | Executive Vice President, | |
Patrick J. Lord | Senior Vice President and General Manager, Customer Support Business Group (CSBG) | |
Vahid Vahedi | Senior Vice President and General Manager, Etch Business Unit | |
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan | Senior Vice President and General Manager, Deposition Business Unit | |
Martin B. Anstice | Former Chief |
On December 5, 2018, Martin B. Anstice resigned as CEO of the Company and a member of the Board, terminating his participation in the calendar year 2018 annual incentive program and canceling all of his unvested equity awards under the Company’s long-term incentive programs. In order to create a long-term, stable leadership structure, the Board took the following actions. Pursuant to the Company’s succession plan, the Board immediately appointed Mr. Archer, the Company’s then president and chief operating officer (“COO”), as CEO and as a member of the Board. The Board also took steps to retain Mr. Bettinger as CFO and, in lieu of appointing a COO, expanded Mr. Bettinger’s responsibilities to cover certain operational matters. The Board issued longer-term retentive awards to both of them and adjusted their compensation accordingly. The details are described in more detail under each element of our compensation program, including “Compensation Relating to Management Transition,”under “III. Primary Components of Named Executive Officer Compensation; Calendar Year 2018 Compensation Payouts; Calendar 2019 Compensation Targets and Metrics.”
I. OVERVIEW OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
To align with stockholders’ interests, our executive compensation program is designed to foster apay-for-performance culture and achieve the executive compensation objectives set forth in “Executive Compensation Philosophy and Program Design – Executive Compensation Philosophy” below. We have structured our compensation program and payouts to reflect these goals. Highlights of our executive compensation program are listed in “Proxy Statement Summary – Figure 6. Executive Compensation Highlights” above. Our president and CEO’s compensation in relation to each of our revenue and net income, isas well as the Company’s cumulative five-year total shareholder return on common stock compared against the cumulative returns of other indexes, are shown below.
Figure 11. FY2012-FY2017 16. FY2014-FY2019 CEO Pay for Performance
CEO Pay for Performance
Continues on next page u
(1) | “CEO Total Compensation” consists of base salary, annual incentive payments, accrued values of the cash payments under the long-term incentive program when applicable and grant date fair values of equity-based awards both under the long-term incentive program or otherwise, and all other compensation as reported in the “Summary Compensation Table” below. |
(2) | The CEO Total Compensation for fiscal |
year as |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 19 |
The graph below compares Lam’s cumulative five-year total shareholder return on common stock with the cumulative total returns of the Nasdaq Composite Index, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Sector Index. The graph tracks the performance of a $100 investment in our common stock and in each of the indices (with the reinvestment of all dividends) for the five years ended June 30, 2019.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE FIVE-YEAR TOTAL RETURN*
Among the Company, the Nasdaq Company Index,
the S&P 500 Index and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Sector Index
* | $100 invested on |
Copyright© 2019 Standard & Poor’s, a division of S&P Global. All rights reserved.
To understand our executive compensation program fully, we believe it is important to understand:
Our Business, Our Industry Environment, and Our Financial Performance
Lam Research has been an innovative supplierAn overview of wafer fabrication equipmentour business and services to the semiconductor industry for more than 35 years. Our customer base includes leading semiconductor memory, foundry, and integrated device manufacturers that make products such asnon-volatile memory (NVM), DRAM memory, and logic devices. We aim to increase our strategic relevance with our customers by contributing more to their continued success. Our core technical competencyenvironment is integrating hardware, process,
materials, software, and process control enabling results on the wafer.
Our products and services are designed to help our customers build smaller, faster, and better performing devices that are usedset forth in a variety of electronic products, including mobile phones, personal computers, servers, wearables, automotive devices, storage devices, and networking equipment.
Semiconductor manufacturing, our customers’ business, involves the complete fabrication of multiple dies or integrated circuits on a wafer. This involves the repetition of a set of core processes and can require hundreds of individual steps. Fabricating these devices requires highly sophisticated process technologies to integrate an increasing array of new materials with precise control at the atomic scale. Along with meeting technical requirements, wafer processing equipment must deliver high productivity and be cost-effective.
Demand from the Cloud, Internet of Things (IoT), and other markets is driving the need for increasingly powerful and cost-efficient semiconductors. At the same time, there are growing technical challenges with traditionaltwo-dimensional scaling. These trends are driving significant inflections in semiconductor manufacturing, such as the increasing importance of vertical scaling strategies like 3D architectures as well as multiple patterning to enable shrinks.
We believe we are in a strong position with our leadership and competency in deposition, etch, and single-wafer clean to facilitate some of the most significant innovations in semiconductor device manufacturing. Several factors create opportunity for sustainable differentiation for us: our focus on research and development, with a breadth of programs across sustaining engineering, product and process development, and concept and feasibility; our ability to effectively leverage cycles of learning from our broad installed base; and our collaborative focus with ecosystem partners. “Proxy Statement Summary” above.
Although we have a June fiscal year end, our executive compensation program is generally designed and oriented on a calendar-year basis to correspond with our calendar-year-based business planning. This CD&A generally reflects a calendar-year orientation rather than a fiscal-year orientation, as shown below. The Executive Compensation Tables at the end of this CD&A are based on our fiscal year, as required by SEC regulations.
Figure 12.17. Executive Compensation Calendar-Year Orientation
In calendar year 2016,2018, demand for semiconductor equipment increasedcontinued to increase relative to calendar year 20152017, as technology inflections ledcontinued to lead to higher investments.investments from our customers. Against this backdrop, Lam delivered another year of record financial performance.
Highlights for calendar year 2016:2018:
In the first half of calendar year 2017, investments for2019, wafer fabrication equipment spending have remained solid as customers transitionlevels reduced mainly related to next-generation technology nodes, which are increasingly complex and more costlythe memory segment. Customers lowered their investments in memory capacity in response to produce.the overall demand environment.
In a reduced wafer fabrication spending environment, Lam has continued to generate solid operating income and cash generation with revenues of $4.5$4.8 billion, and operating cash flows from operations of $1.2$1.8 billion, earned from the March and June 20172019 quarters combined.
Executive Compensation Philosophy and Program Design
Executive Compensation Philosophy
The philosophy of our compensation and human resources committee that guided this year’s awards and payout decisions is that our executive compensation program should:
Our compensation and human resources committee’s executive compensation objectives are to motivate:
Program Design
Our program design incorporates an annual review of the compensation elements. However, a review can be undertaken whenever there is a change in roles or responsibilities or a new hire joins the Company.
Our program design uses a mix of annual and long-term components, and a mix of cash and equity components. Our executive compensation program includes base salary,salary; an annual incentive program, or “AIP,” and“AIP”; a long-term incentive program, or “LTIP,”“LTIP”; promotion, retention and/or new hire awards whenever necessary, which is not usual; as well as stock ownership guidelines and a compensation recovery policy. As illustrated below, our program design is weighted towardstoward performance and stockholder value. The performance-based program components include AIP cash payouts and market-based equity and stock option awards under the LTIP.
For senior vice presidents and above, we also have stock ownership guidelines that foster a long-term orientation. See next paragraph for additional information.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Figure 13.18. NEO Compensation Target Pay Mix Averages(1)
(1) | Data for |
(2) | The Company’s LTIP design provides that 50% of the target award opportunity is awarded in Market-based PRSUs and the remaining 50% in a combination of stock options and service-based RSUs with at least 10% of the award in each of these two vehicles. |
(3) | For purposes of this illustration, we include Market-based PRSUs and stock options as performance-based, but do not classify service-based RSUs as performance-based. |
(4) | Data for 2018 and 2019 does not include the service-based RSUs and stock options awarded to Mr. Archer and the service-based RSUs awarded to Mr. Bettinger in connection with the management transition. See “III. Primary Components of NamedExecutive Officer Compensation; Calendar Year 2018 Compensation Payouts; Calendar Year 2019 Compensation Targets and Metrics – Compensation Relating to Management Transition” for further information regarding the amount and terms of such awards. Theseone-time 2018 awards are not included in the 2018 or 2019 target pay mix in order to allow the reader to more easily compare pay mixes relative to prior and future periods. |
For senior vice presidents and above, we also have stock ownership guidelines that foster a long-term orientation. Our stock ownership guidelines for our NEOs and certain other senior executives are shown below. The requirements are specified in the alternative of shares or dollars to allow for stock price volatility. Ownership levels as shown below must be achieved within five years of appointment to one of the
below positions. Increased requirements due to promotions or
an increase in the ownership guideline must be achieved within five years of promotion or a change in the guidelines. At the end of fiscal year 2017,2019, all NEOs were in compliance with our stock ownership guidelines or have a period of time remaining under the guidelines to meet the required ownership level.
Figure 14.19. Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines
Position | Guidelines (lesser of) | |
President and Chief Executive Officer | 5x base salary or | |
Executive Vice Presidents | 2x base salary or | |
Senior Vice Presidents | 1x base salary or |
Compensation Recovery, or “Clawback” Policy
Our executive officers covered by section 16 of the Exchange Act are subject to the Company’s compensation recovery, or “clawback,” policy. The clawback policy was adopted in August 2014 and will enable us to recover, within 36 months of the issuance of the original financial statements, the excess amount of cash incentive-based compensation issued starting
in calendar year 2015 to officers covered by section 16 of the Exchange Act when a material restatement of financial results
is required. A covered individual’s fraud must have materially contributed to the need to issue restated financial statements in order for the clawback policy to apply to that individual. The recovery of compensation is not the exclusive remedy available in the event that the clawback policy is triggered.
Executive Compensation Highlights
Highlights of our executive compensation program are listed in Figure 4. Executive Compensation Highlights.
II. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION GOVERNANCE AND PROCEDURES
Role of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee
Our Board has delegated certain responsibilities to the compensation and human resources committee, or the “committee,” through a formal charter. The committee1(1) oversees the compensation programs in which our president and chief executive officer and hisour CEO’s direct executive and senior vice president reports participate. The independent members of our Board approve the compensation packages and payouts for our CEO. The CEO is not present for any decisions regarding his compensation packages and payouts.
Committee responsibilities include but are not limited to:
The committee is authorized to delegate such of its authority and responsibilities as the committeeit deems proper and consistent with legal requirements to its members, of the committee, any other committee of the Board andand/or one or more officers of the Company, in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law. For additional information on the committee’s responsibilities and authorities, see “Governance Matters – Corporate Governance – Board Committees – Compensation–Compensation and Human Resources Committee” above.
In order to carry out these responsibilities, the committee receives and reviews information, analysisanalyses, and proposals prepared by our management and by the committee’s compensation consultant (see “Role of Committee Advisors” below).
Role of Committee Advisors
The committee is authorized to engage its own independent advisors to assist in carrying out its responsibilities. The committee has engaged the services of Compensia, Inc., or “Compensia,” a national compensation consulting firm, as the committee’s compensation consultant. Compensia provides the committee with independent and objective guidance regarding the amount and types of compensation for our chairman,non-employee directors, and executive officers, and how these amounts and types of compensation compare to other companies’ compensation practices, as well as guidance on market trends, evolving regulatory requirements, compensation of our independent directors, peer group composition, and other matters as requested by the committee.
Representatives of Compensia regularly attend committee meetings (including executive sessions without management present), communicate with the committee chair outside of meetings, and assist the committee with its consideration of performance metrics and goals. Compensia reports to the
(1) | For purposes of this CD&A, a reference to a compensation action or decision by the committee with respect to our chairman and our chief executive officer, means an action or decision by the independent members of our Board after considering the recommendation of the committee and, in the case of all other NEOs, an action or decision by the compensation and human resources committee. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 23 |
committee, not to management. At the committee’s request, Compensia meets with members of management to gather and discuss information that is relevant to advising the committee. The committee may replace Compensia or hire additional advisors at any time. Compensia has not provided any other services to the committee or to our management, and has received no compensation from us other than with respect to the services described above. The committee assessed the independence of Compensia pursuant to SEC rules and Nasdaq listing standards, including the following factors: (1) the absence of other services provided by it to the Company; (2) the fees paid to it by the Company as a percentage of its total revenue; (3) its policies and procedures to prevent conflicts of interest; (4) the absence of any business or personal relationships with committee members; (5) the fact that it does not own any Lam common stock; and (6) the absence of any business or personal relationships with our executive officers. The committee assessed this information and concluded that the work of Compensia had not raised any conflict of interest.
Role of Management
Our CEO, with support from our human resources and finance organizations, develops recommendations for the compensation of our other executive officers. Typically, these
Continues on next page u
recommendations cover base salaries, annual incentive program target award opportunities, long-term incentive program target award opportunities, and the criteria upon which these award opportunities may be earned, as well as actual payout amounts under the annual and long-term incentive programs.
The committee considers the CEO’s recommendations within the context of competitive compensation data, the Company’s compensation philosophy and objectives, current business conditions, the advice of Compensia, and any other factors it considers relevant. At the request of the committee, our chairman also provides input to the committee.
Our CEO attends committee meetings at the request of the committee but leaves the meeting for any deliberations related to and decisions regarding his own compensation, when the committee meets in executive session, and at any other time requested by the committee.
Peer Group Practices and Survey Data
In establishing the total compensation levels of our executive officers, as well as the mix and weighting of individual compensation elements, the committee monitors compensation data from a group of comparably sized companies in the technology industry, or the “Peer Group,” which may differ from peer groups used by stockholder advisory firms. The committee selects the companies constituting our Peer Group based on their comparability to our lines of business and industry, annual revenue, and
market capitalization, and our belief that we are likely to compete with them for executive talent. Our Peer Group is focused on U.S. based,U.S.-based, public semiconductor, semiconductor equipment and materials companies, and similarly sizedsimilarly-sized high-technology equipment and hardware companies with a global presence and a significant investment in research and development. The table below summarizes how the Peer Group companies compare to the Company:
Figure 15. 201720. 2019 Peer Group Revenue and Market Capitalization
Metric | Lam Research ($M) | Target for Peer Group | Peer Group Median ($M) | |||||||
Revenue (last completed four quarters as of June 20, 2016) | 5,821 | 0.33 to 3.0 times Lam | 4,492 | |||||||
Market Capitalization (30-day average as of June 20, 2016) | 12,722 | 0.33 to 3.0 times Lam | 12,203 |
Metric | Lam Research ($M) | Target for Peer Group | Peer Group Median ($M) | |||||||
Revenue (last completed reported four quarters as of July 2, 2018) | 10,296 | 0.33 to 3 times Lam | 5,992 | |||||||
Market Capitalization(30-day average as of July 2, 2018) | 30,657 | 0.33 to 3 times Lam | 23,030 |
Based on these criteria, the Peer Group and targets may be modified from time to time. Our Peer Group was reviewed in August 20162018 for calendar year 20172019 compensation decisions and based on the criteria identified above, two companies wereone company was added to the peer group (Micron Technology and
Skyworks Solutions) and three companies (Avago Technologies, Freescale Semiconductor, and Marvel Technology Group Ltd.) were removed.(Qualcomm Incorporated). Our Peer Group consists of the companies listed as follows.follows:
Figure 16. CY201721. CY2019 Peer Group Companies
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Micron Technology, Inc. | |
Agilent Technologies, Inc. | NetApp, Inc. | |
Analog Devices, Inc. | NVIDIA Corporation | |
Applied Materials, Inc. | ON Semiconductor Corporation | |
Broadcom Limited | Qualcomm Incorporated | |
Corning Incorporated | Skyworks Solutions, Inc. | |
Juniper Networks, Inc. | Texas Instruments Inc. | |
KLA Corporation | Western Digital Corporation | |
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. | ||
Xilinx, Inc. | ||
Microchip Technology Incorporated | ||
We derive revenue, market capitalization, and NEO compensation data from public filings made by our Peer Group companies with the SEC and from other publicly available sources. Radford Technology Survey data may be used to supplement compensation data from public filings as needed. The committee reviews compensation practices and selected data on base salary, bonus targets, total cash compensation, equity awards, and total compensation drawn from the Peer Group companies and/or the Radford Technology Survey as a reference to help ensure compensation packages are consistent with market norms.
Base pay levels for each executive officer are generally set with reference to market competitivemarket-competitive levels and in reflection of
each officer’s skills, experiences, and performance. Variable pay target award opportunities and total direct compensation for each executive officer are generally designed to deliver market competitivemarket-competitive compensation for the achievement of stretch goals, with downside risk for underperforming and upside reward for success.overperforming. For those executive officers who are new to their roles, compensation arrangements may be designed to deliver below marketbelow-market compensation for a period of time. However, the committee does not “target” pay at any specific percentile. Rather, individual pay positioning depends on a variety of factors, such as prior job performance, job scope and responsibilities, skill set, prior experience, time in position, internal comparisons of pay levels for similar skill levels or positions, our goals to attract and retain executive talent, Company performance, and general market conditions.
Assessment of Compensation Risk
Management, with the assistance of Compensia, the committee’s independent compensation consultant, conducted
a compensation risk assessment in 20172019 and concluded that the Company’s current employee compensation programs are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.
20162018 Say on Pay Voting Results; Company Response
We evaluate our executive compensation program and practices at least annually. Among other things, we consider the outcome of our most recent Say on Pay vote and input we receive from our stockholders. In 2016,2018, our stockholders approved our 2016
2018 advisory vote on executive compensation, with 98.32%91.17% of the votes cast in favor of the advisory proposal. We believe that our most recent Say on Pay vote signifies our stockholders’ support of our executive compensation program and practices. We did not make any material changes to our programs and practices in fiscal year 2017.2019.
III. PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION; CALENDAR YEAR 20162018 COMPENSATION PAYOUTS; CALENDAR YEAR 20172019 COMPENSATION TARGETS AND METRICS
This section describes the components of our executive compensation program. It also describes, for each component, the payouts to our NEOs for calendar year 20162018 and the forward-looking actions taken with respect to our NEOs in calendar year 2017.2019.
Base Salary
We believe the purpose of base salary is to provide competitive compensation to attract and retain top talent and to provide compensation to employees, including our NEOs, with a fixed and fair amount of compensation for the jobs they perform. Accordingly, we seek to ensure that our base salary levels are competitive in reference to Peer Group practice and market survey data. Adjustments to base salary are generally considered by the committee each year in February.
For calendar years 20172019 and 2016,2018, base salaries for NEOs were determined by the committee in February of each year (other than the calendar year 2019 base salary for Mr. Bettinger, which was determined by the committee in November 2018 in connection with the management transition described under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above) and became effective on March 1 or the first day of the pay period that included March 1 (if earlier), based on the factors described above. The following base salary adjustments for 20172019 were made to remain competitive againstrelative to our Peer Group and reflect performance as follows: Mr. Archer’s base salary was increased by 5%45% following his
December 5, 2018 promotion to CEO (see “CompensationDiscussion and Analysis” above for additional detail), Mr. Anstice’sBettinger’s base salary was increased by 3.1%,8% in light of his additional responsibilities associated with increased oversight for the operational performance of the Company, and the base salaries of Drs. Gottscho, Lord and Vahedi and Mr. Bettinger’s and Ms. O’Dowd’s wereVaradarajan increased by 3%, and Dr. Gottscho’s was increased by 2%. The base salaries of the NEOs for calendar years 20172019 and 20162018 are as follows:shown below.
Figure 17.22. NEO Annual Base Salaries
Named Executive Officer | Annual Base Salary 2017 (1) ($) | Annual Base ($) | Annual Base 2019 (1) | Annual Base 2018 (2) | ||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 990,000 | 960,000 | ||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 668,367 | 636,540 |
| 1,000,000 |
|
| 688,418 |
| ||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 584,010 | 567,000 |
| 640,000 |
|
| 592,770 |
| ||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 567,324 | 556,200 |
| 584,344 |
|
| 567,324 |
| ||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 462,341 | 448,875 | ||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 463,500 |
|
| 450,000 |
| ||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 453,200 |
|
| 440,000 |
| ||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 453,200 |
|
| 440,000 |
| ||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice(3) |
| — |
|
| 1,025,000 |
|
(1) | Effective February |
(2) | Effective February |
(3) | Mr. Anstice terminated his employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 25 |
Annual Incentive Program
Design
Our annual incentive program is designed to provide annual, performance-based compensation that: (1) is based on the achievement ofpre-set annual financial, strategic, and operational objectives aligned with outstanding performance,performance; and (2) will allow us to attract and retain top talent, while maintaining cost-effectiveness to the Company. The committee establishes individual target award opportunities for each NEO as a percentage of base salary. Specific target award opportunities are determined based on job scope and responsibilities, as well as an assessment of Peer Group data. Awards have a maximum payment amount defined as a multiple of the target award opportunity. The maximum award for 20162018 and 20172019 was set at 2.25 times target, consistent with prior years.
Annual incentive program components
Annual incentive program components, each of which plays a role in determining actual payments made, include:
The Funding Factor is set by the committee to create a maximum payout amount from which annual incentive program payouts may be made. The committee may exercise negative (but not positive) discretion against the Funding Factor result, and generally the entire funded amount is not paid out. Achievement of a minimum level of performance against the Funding Factor goals is required to fund any program payments. In February 2016,2018, for calendar year 2016,2018, the committee setnon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue as the metric for the Funding Factor, with the following goals:
Continues on next page u
The committee selectednon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue because it believes that operating income as a percentage of revenue is the performance metric that best reflects core operating results.2(2)Non-GAAP operating income is considered useful to investors for analyzing business trends and comparing performance to prior periods. By excluding certain costs and expenses that are not indicative of core results,non-GAAP results are more useful for analyzing business trends over multiple periods.
As a guide for using negative discretion against the Funding Factor results and for making payout decisions, the committee primarily tracks the results of the following two components that are weighted equally in making payout decisions, and against which discretion may be applied in a positive or negative direction, provided the Funding Factor result is not exceeded:
The specific metrics and goals, and their relative weightings, for the Corporate Performance Factor are determined by the committee based uponfollowing the recommendation of our CEO, and the Individual Performance Factors are determined by our CEO, or in the case of the CEO, by the committee.
The metrics and goals for the Corporate and Individual Performance Factors are set annually. Goals are set depending on the business environment, ensuring that they
are stretch goals regardless of changes in the business environment. Accordingly, as business conditions improve, goals are set to require better performance, and asif business conditions deteriorate, goals are set to require stretch performance under more difficult conditions.
We believe that, over time, outstanding business results create stockholder value. Consistent with this belief, multiple performance-based metrics(non-GAAP operating income, product market share, and strategic operational, and organizational metrics) are established for our NEOs as part of the Corporate and Individual Performance Factors.
We believe the metrics and goals set under this program, together with the exercise of discretion by the committee as described above, have been effective to motivate our NEOs and the organizations they lead and to achievepay-for-performance results.
(2) | Non-GAAP |
Figure 18.23. Annual Incentive Program Payouts
Calendar Year | Average NEO’s Annual Incentive Payout as % of Target Award Opportunity | Business Environment | ||||
2016 | 166 | Strong operating performance and continued expansion of served available markets, supported by stable economic conditions. Healthy demand for semiconductor equipment driven by capacity and technology investments. | ||||
2015 | 159 | Strong operating performance and expansion of served available markets, supported by stable economic conditions. Robust demand for semiconductor equipment driven by both capacity and technology investments. | ||||
2014 | 127 | Strong operating performance supported by stable economic conditions and healthy demand for semiconductor equipment; Company growth in various growing industry technology inflections |
Calendar Year | Average NEO’s Annual Incentive Payout as % of Target Award Opportunity | Business Environment | ||||
2018 | 137 | Strong operating performance and continued expansion of served available markets. Growth in demand for semiconductor equipment driven by the memory segment for both capacity and technology investments. | ||||
2017 | 204 | Strong operating performance and continued expansion of served available markets, supported by overall economic environment. Healthy demand for semiconductor equipment driven by capacity and technology investments. | ||||
2016 | 166 | Strong operating performance and continued expansion of served available markets, supported by stable economic conditions. Healthy demand for semiconductor equipment driven by capacity and technology investments. |
Calendar year 20162018 annual incentive program parameters and payout decisions
In February 2016,2018, the committee set the calendar year 20162018 target award opportunity and established the metrics and goals for the Funding Factor, the metrics and annual goals for the Corporate Performance Factor, and the metrics and goals were established for the Individual Performance Factors for each NEO were established.then-employed NEO. In February 2017,2019, the committee considered the actual results under these factors and made payout decisions for the calendar year 20162018 program, all as described below.
20162018 Annual Incentive Program Target Award Opportunities. The annual incentive program target award opportunities for calendar year 20162018 for each NEO were as set forth below in Figure 19 below24 in accordance with the principles set forth above under “Executive Compensation Governance and Procedures – Peer Group Practices and Survey Data.”
20162018 Annual Incentive Program Corporate Performance Factor. In February 2016,2018, the committee setnon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue as the metric for the calendar year 20162018 Corporate Performance Factor, and set:
These goals were designed to be stretch goals. Actualnon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue was 22.9%29.6% for calendar year 2016.2018. This performance resulted in a total Corporate Performance Factor of 1.26 for calendar year 2016 of 1.29.2018.
20162018 Annual Incentive Program Organization/Individual Performance Factor.Factors. For 2016,2018, the organization-specific performance metrics and goals for each NEO’s Individual Performance Factor were set on an
annual basis and were designed to be stretch goals. The Individual Performance Factor for Mr. AnsticeArcher for calendar year 20162018 was based on the average of the Individual Performance Factors of all the
executive and senior vice presidents reporting to him.him, subject to discretion based on the Company’s performance to business, strategic, and operational objectives. For all other NEOs, their respective Individual Performance Factors were based on market share and/or strategic, operational, and organizational performance goals specific to the organizations they managed, as described in more detail below.
The accomplishments of actual individual performance against the established goals described below during 20162018 were considered.
Mr. Varadarajan’s Individual Performance Factor for calendar year 2018 was based on the accomplishment of
In
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 27 |
market share, strategic, operational, and organizational development goals for the deposition business unit. |
The committee’s consideration of the CEO’s assessment of each individual’s achievements andabove accomplishments resulted in the teamwork demonstrated to deliver the overall strong company performance in 2016, the committee exercised discretion such that each NEO received anfollowing Individual Performance Factor of 1.29 (equal to the Corporate Performance Factor)Factors for the 2016 calendar year.each NEO: Mr. Archer, 1.09; Mr. Bettinger, 1.10; Dr. Gottscho, 1.10; Dr. Lord, 1.15; Dr. Vahedi, 1.05; and Mr. Varadarajan, 1.05.
20162018 Annual Incentive Program Payout Decisions. In February 2017,2019, in light of the Funding Factor results and based on the above results and decisions, the committee approved the following payouts for the calendar year 20162018 annual incentive program payouts for each NEO, which were substantially less than the maximum payout available under the Funding Factor:Factor as shown below in Figure 24:
Figure 19. CY201624. CY2018 Annual Incentive Program Payouts
Named Executive Officer | Target Award Opportunity (% of Base Salary) | Target Award ($) (1) | Maximum Payout under ($) (2) | Actual Payouts ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 150 | 1,440,000 | 3,240,000 | 2,396,304 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer (1) | Target Award Opportunity (% of Base Salary) | Target Award Opportunity ($) (2) | Maximum Payout under Funding Factor (225.0% of Target Award Opportunity) ($) (3) | Actual Payouts ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 110 | 700,194 | 1,575,437 | 1,165,193 |
| 125 |
|
| 860,523 |
|
| 1,936,176 |
|
| 1,181,842 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 90 | 510,300 | 1,148,175 | 849,190 |
| 90 |
|
| 533,493 |
|
| 1,200,359 |
|
| 739,421 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 90 | 500,580 | 1,126,305 | 833,015 |
| 90 |
|
| 510,592 |
|
| 1,148,831 |
|
| 707,680 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 80 | 359,100 | 807,975 | 597,578 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 85 |
|
| 382,500 |
|
| 860,625 |
|
| 554,243 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 85 |
|
| 374,000 |
|
| 841,500 |
|
| 494,802 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 85 |
|
| 374,000 |
|
| 841,500 |
|
| 494,802 |
|
(1) | Mr. Anstice did not receive a payout under the annual incentive program for calendar year 2018 because he terminated his employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018. |
(2) | Calculated by multiplying each NEO’s annual base salary for |
The Funding Factor resulted in a potential payout of up to 225.0% of target award opportunity for the calendar year (based on the actualnon-GAAP operating income percentage results detailed under “ |
Continues on next page u
Calendar year 20172019 annual incentive program parameters
In February 2017,2019, the committee set the target award opportunity for each NEO as a percentage of base salary, and consistent with prior years set a cap on payments equal to 2.25 times the target award opportunity. The target award opportunity for each NEO is shown below. The target percentages increased for Mr. Archer to reflect his promotion to CEO and Mr. Bettinger to reflect a more competitive level and his additional responsibilities associated with increased oversight for the operational performance of the Company.
Figure 20. CY201725. CY2019 Annual Incentive Program Target Award Opportunities
Named Executive Officer(1) | Target Award Opportunity (% of Base Salary) | |||
Timothy M. Archer | 150 | |||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 100 | |||
Richard A. Gottscho | 90 | |||
Patrick J. Lord | 85 | |||
Vahid Vahedi | 85 | |||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan | 85 |
(1) | Mr. Anstice did not participate in the annual incentive program for calendar year 2019 because he terminated his employment as of December 5, 2018. |
The committee also approvednon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue as the annual metric for the Funding Factor and the Corporate Performance Factor, asnon-GAAP operating income as a percentage of revenue, and set the annual goals for the Funding Factor and the Corporate Performance Factor. Consistent with the program design, the Corporate Performance Factor goal is more difficult to achieve than the Funding Factor goal. Individual Performance Factor metrics and goals were also established for each NEO. These include strategic and operational performance goals specific to individuals and their business organization. As a result, each NEO has multiple performance metrics and goals under this program. All Corporate and Individual Performance Factor goals were designed to be stretch goals.
Long-Term Incentive Program
Design
Our long-term incentive program, or “LTIP,”LTIP is designed to attract and retain top talent, provide competitive levels of compensation, align pay with achievement of business objectives and with stock performance over a multi-year period, reward our NEOs for outstanding Company performance, and create stockholder value over the long term.long-term.
Under the current long-term incentive program, at the beginning of each multi-year performance period, target award opportunities (expressed as a U.S. dollar value) and performance metrics are established for the program. Of the
total target award opportunity, 50% is awarded in Market-based PRSUs, and the remaining 50% is awarded in a combination of stock options and service-based RSUs with at least 10% of the award in each of these two vehicles. The specific percentage of service-based RSUs and stock options are reviewed annually to determine whether service-based RSUs or stock options are the more efficient form of equity for the majority of the award based on criteria such as the current business environment and the potential value to motivate and
retain the executives. We consider performance-based RSUsMarket-based PRSUs and stock options as performance-based, but do not classify service-based RSUs as performance-based. This means that if options constitute 10% of the total target award opportunity, the long-term incentive program will be 60% performance-based. If options constitute 40% of the total target award opportunity, the long-term incentive program will be 90% performance-based.
Equity Vehicles
The equity vehicles used in our 2017/20192019/2021 long-term incentive program are as follows:
Figure 21. 2017/201926. 2019/2021 LTIP Program Equity Vehicles
Equity Vehicles | % of Target Award Opportunity | Terms | ||||
Market-based PRSUs | 50 | • Awards cliff vest three years from the March 1,
• The performance period for Market-based PRSUs is three years from the first business day in February (February 1,
• The number of shares represented by the Market-based PRSUs that can be earned over the performance period is based on our stock price performance compared to the market price performance of the Philadelphia Semiconductor Sector Index (SOX), subject to the below-referenced ceiling. The stock price performance or market price performance is measured using the closing price for the 50 trading days prior to the dates the performance period begins and ends. The target number of shares represented by the Market-based PRSUs is increased by 2% of target for each 1% that Lam’s stock price performance exceeds the market price performance of the SOX index; similarly, the target number of shares represented by the Market-based PRSUs is decreased by 2% of target for each 1% that Lam’s stock price performance trails the market price performance of the SOX index. The result of the vesting formula is rounded down to the nearest whole number. A table reflecting the potential payouts depending on various comparative results is shown below in Figure
• The final award cannot exceed 150% of target (requiring a positive percentage change in the Company’s stock price performance compared to that of the market price performance of the SOX index equal to or greater than 25 percentage points) and can be as little as 0% of target (requiring a percentage change in the Company’s stock price performance compared to that of the market price performance of the SOX index equal to or lesser than negative 50 percentage points).
• The number of Market-based PRSUs granted was determined by dividing 50% of the target opportunity by the30-day average of the closing price of our common stock prior to the Grant Date,
• Awards that vest at the end of the performance period are distributed in shares of our common stock. | ||||
Stock Options | • Awards vestone-third on the first, second, and third anniversaries of the March 1,
• The number of stock options granted is determined by dividing
• The exercise price of stock options is the closing price of our common stock on the Grant Date. • Awards are exercisable upon vesting.
• Expiration is on the seventh anniversary of the Grant Date. | |||||
Service-based | • Awards vestone-third on the first, second, and third anniversaries of the March 1,
• The number of RSUs granted is determined by dividing
• Awards are distributed in shares of our common stock upon vesting. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Figure 22.27. Market-based PRSU Vesting Summary
% Change in Lam’s Stock Price Performance Compared to % Change in SOX Index Market Price Performance | Market-Based PRSUs That Can Be Earned (% of Target) (1) | |||
+ 25% or more | 150 | |||
10% | 120 | |||
0% (equal to index) | 100 | |||
-10% | 80 | |||
-25% | 50 | |||
-50% or less | 0 |
% Change in Lam’s Stock Price Performance Compared to % Change in | Market-based PRSUs (% of Target) (1) | |||
+ 25% or more |
| 150 |
| |
10% |
| 120 |
| |
0% (equal to index) |
| 100 |
| |
- 10% |
| 80 |
| |
- 25% |
| 50 |
| |
- 50% or less |
| 0 |
|
(1) | As set forth in the third bullet of the first row of Figure |
Target Award Opportunity
Under the long-term incentive program, the committee sets a target award opportunity for each participant based on the NEO’s position and responsibilities and an assessment of competitive compensation data. The target award opportunities for each participant are expressed in a U.S. dollar value. The target amounts for each NEO under the program cycles affecting fiscal year 20172019 are as follows:shown below.
Figure 23.28. LTIP Target Award Opportunities
Named Executive Officer(1) | Long- Term Incentive Program | Target Award
| ||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 2019/2021 | (2) | 7,200,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 5,000,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 4,500,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 4,000,000 | ||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 2019/2021 | (2) | 2,700,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 2,250,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 2,750,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 2,750,000 | ||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 2019/2021 | (2) | 2,250,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 2,500,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 3,250,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 3,250,000 | ||||||||
Patrick J. Lord(6) | 2019/2021 | (2) | 1,800,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 1,900,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 1,350,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 1,100,000 | ||||||||
Vahid Vahedi(6) | 2019/2021 | (2) | 1,575,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 1,700,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 1,200,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 1,100,000 | ||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) | 2019/2021 | (2) | 1,575,000 | |||||||
2018/2020 | (3) | 1,700,000 | ||||||||
2017/2019 | (4) | 1,200,000 | ||||||||
2016/2018 | (5) | 1,100,000 |
(1) | Mr. Anstice did not participate in the 2019/2021 LTIP. His unvested awards under the 2016/2018, 2017/2019 and 2018/2020 LTIPs were canceled as of December 5, 2018 when he terminated his employment. |
(2) | The three-year performance period for the 2019/2021 LTIP began on February 1, 2019 and ends on January 31, 2022. |
(3) | The three-year performance period for the 2018/2020 LTIP began on February 1, 2018 and ends on January 31, 2021. |
(4) | The three-year performance period for the 2017/2019 LTIP began on February 1, 2017 and ends on January 31, 2020. |
The three-year performance period for the 2016/2018 LTIP began on February 1, 2016 and |
Of the |
Calendar Year 2014/20162016/2018 LTIP Award Parameters and Payouts
On February 18, 2014,March 1, 2016, the committee granted to each then current NEO (Mr. Archer, Mr. Bettinger, Dr. Gottscho and Mr. Anstice) as part of the calendar year 2014/20162016/2018 CEO staff long-term incentive program, or “2014/2016“2016/2018 CEO Staff LTIP Awards,” Market-based PRSUs, and service-based RSUs and stock options, with a total target award opportunity shown below. On March 1, 2016, the equity award grant board committee granted to the remaining current NEOs (Dr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi and Mr. Varadarajan) as part of the 2016/2018 vice president long-term incentive program, or “2016/2018 VP LTIP Awards” and collectively with 2016/2018 CEO Staff LTIP Awards, the “2016/2018 LTIP Awards,” Market-based PRSUs and service-based RSUs with a total award opportunity shown below. The service-based RSUs and stock options (only under the 2016/2018 CEO Staff LTIP Awards) vested over three years,one-third on each anniversary of the grant date. The Market-based PRSU’sPRSUs cliff vested three years from the grant date. The terms of the Market-based PRSUs and service-based RSUs granted to all of the NEOs as part of the 2016/2018 LTIP Awards were the same.
Figure 24. 2014/201629. 2016/2018 LTIP AwardsAward Grants
Named Executive Officer | Target Award Opportunity ($) | Market- Based PRSUs Award (1) (#) | Stock Options Award (#) | Service- Based RSUs Award (#) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 6,500,000 | 62,789 | 37,671 | 50,231 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer (1)(2) | Target Award Opportunity ($) | Market- based PRSUs Award (#) | Stock Options Award (#) | Service- based RSUs Award (#) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 3,000,000 | 28,979 | 17,385 | 23,183 |
| 4,000,000 |
|
| 28,935 |
|
| 34,722 |
|
| 17,361 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 2,500,000 | 24,149 | 14,487 | 19,319 |
| 2,750,000 |
|
| 19,892 |
|
| 23,871 |
|
| 11,935 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 2,500,000 | 24,149 | 14,487 | 19,319 |
| 3,250,000 |
|
| 23,509 |
|
| 28,209 |
|
| 14,105 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 1,300,000 | 12,557 | 7,533 | 10,046 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 1,100,000 |
|
| 7,957 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,957 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 1,100,000 |
|
| 7,957 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,957 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 1,100,000 |
|
| 7,957 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,957 |
|
(1) | All of the Market-based PRSUs andone-third of the stock options and service-based RSUs granted to Mr. Anstice under the 2016/2018 LTIP that were scheduled to vest in February 2019 were canceled upon his termination of employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018. |
(2) | The number of |
In February 2017,2019, the committee determined the payouts for the calendar year 2014/20162016/2018 LTIP Awards of Market-based PRSUs. The number of shares represented by the Market-based PRSUs earned over the performance period was based on our stock price performance compared to the market price performance of the SOX index.
Based on the above formula and Market-based PRSU Vesting Summary set forth inFigures 21-22,26 and 27, the Company’s stock price performance over the three-year performance period was equal to 110.32%89.93% and performance of the SOX index (based on market price) over the same three-year
performance period was equal to 76.27%84.47%. While Lam’s stock price outperformed the SOX index by 34.05%5.46%, which would have resulted in a performance payout of 168%110.93% to target under our Market-based PRSU program, the actual number of shares paid represented by the Market-based PRSUs was limited to the maximum payout of 150% of the target number of Market-based PRSUs granted to each NEO. Based on such
results, the committee made the following payouts to each NEO for the 2014/20162016/2018 LTIP Award of Market-based PRSUs.
Figure 25. 2014/201630. 2016/2018 LTIP Market-based PRSU Award Payouts
Named Executive Officer | Target Market- Based PRSUs (#) | Payout (equal (#) | ||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 62,789 | 94,183 | ||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer (1) | Target Market- based PRSUs (#) | Actual Payout of (#) | ||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 28,979 | 43,468 |
| 28,935 |
|
| 32,097 |
| ||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 24,149 | 36,223 |
| 19,892 |
|
| 22,066 |
| ||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 24,149 | 36,223 |
| 23,509 |
|
| 26,078 |
| ||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 12,557 | 18,835 | ||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 7,957 |
|
| 8,826 |
| ||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 7,957 |
|
| 8,826 |
| ||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 7,957 |
|
| 8,826 |
|
(1) | All of the Market-based PRSUs granted to Mr. Anstice under the 2016/2018 LTIP that were scheduled to vest in February 2019 were canceled upon his termination of employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018. |
Calendar Year 20172019 LTIP Awards
Calendar year 20172019 decisions for the 2017/20192019/2021 long-term incentive program.On March 1, 2017,2019, the committee made a grant under the 2017/20192019/2021 long-term incentive program, of Market-based PRSUs, stock options, and service-based RSUs on the terms set forth in Figure 2126 with a combined value equal to the NEO’s total target award opportunity, as shown in the following table.below.
Figure 26. 2017/201931. 2019/2021 LTIP AwardsAward Grants
Named Executive Officer | Target Award Opportunity Award ($) | Market- Based PRSUs (1) (#) | Stock Options Award (#) | Service- Based RSUs Award (#) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 8,000,000 | 34,539 | 27,628 | 27,631 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer (1)(2) | Target Award Opportunity ($) | Market- based PRSUs Award (#) | Stock Options Award (#) | Service- based RSUs Award (#) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 4,500,000 | 19,428 | 15,540 | 15,542 |
| 7,200,000 |
|
| 21,243 |
|
| 33,988 |
|
| 12,746 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 2,750,000 | 11,872 | 9,496 | 9,498 |
| 2,700,000 |
|
| 7,966 |
|
| 12,744 |
|
| 4,779 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 3,250,000 | 14,031 | 11,224 | 11,225 |
| 2,250,000 |
|
| 6,638 |
|
| 10,620 |
|
| 3,983 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 1,400,000 | 6,044 | 4,832 | 4,835 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 1,800,000 |
|
| 5,310 |
|
| 8,496 |
|
| 3,186 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 1,575,000 |
|
| 4,647 |
|
| 7,432 |
|
| 2,788 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 1,575,000 |
|
| 4,647 |
|
| 7,432 |
|
| 2,788 |
|
(1) | The number of |
(2) | Mr. Anstice did not participate in the 2019/2021 LTIP because he terminated his employment with the Company as of December 5, 2018. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 31 |
Employment/Compensation Relating to Management Transition
The independent members of the Board consulted with the committee and the committee’s compensation consultant to determine the appropriate amount and vesting schedule for Mr. Archer’s award. The independent members of the Board, on December 6, 2018, granted to Mr. Archer a $5,000,000 equity award consisting of 50% service-based RSUs and 50% stock options with a four-year vesting schedule, as shown below. No adjustment was made at that time to his annual base salary or his target award opportunities under the AIP or LTIP. These were adjusted to be competitive with CEOs in our peer group as part of the normal annual compensation review in February 2019.
In light of Mr. Bettinger’s critical role, his expanded responsibilities, and the intense competition in the technology industry for proven CFO talent, he received a special equity award on November 30, 2018. The committee consulted with its compensation consultant and with the Board to determine the amount and vesting schedule for the award. The committee granted to Mr. Bettinger aone-time service-based restricted stock unit (RSU) award with a nominal value of $8,000,000 and a four-year vesting schedule, as shown below.
Figure 32. 2018 Special Equity Award Terms
Named Executive Officer | Equity Vehicle | Granted (#) | Terms | |||
Timothy M. Archer | Stock Options | 71,430 | • Award vestsone-quarter on the first anniversary of the December 6, 2018 grant date, or “Grant Date,” and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment. • The number of stock options granted was determined by dividing 50% of the $5,000,000 nominal value of the equity grant by the30-day average of the closing price of our common stock prior to the Grant Date, $146.87, rounded down to the nearest share and multiplying the result by approximately 4.2. The ratio of options for every RSU was based on a Black Scholes fair value accounting analysis. • The exercise price of stock options is the closing price of our common stock on the Grant Date. • Award is exercisable upon vesting. • Expiration is on the seventh anniversary of the Grant Date. | |||
Timothy M. Archer | Service-based RSUs | 17,021 | • Award vestsone-quarter on the first anniversary of the December 6, 2018 grant date, or “Grant Date,” and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment. • The number of RSUs granted was determined by dividing 50% of the $5,000,000 nominal value of the equity grant by the30-day average of the closing price of our common stock prior to the Grant Date, $146.87, rounded down to the nearest share. • Award is distributed in shares of our common stock upon vesting. | |||
Douglas R. Bettinger | Service-based RSUs | 54,884 | • Award vestsone-quarter on the first anniversary of the November 30, 2018 grant date and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the last day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment. • The number of RSUs granted was determined by dividing the $8,000,000 nominal value of the equity grant by the30-day average of the closing price of our common stock prior to the November 30, 2018 grant date, $145.76, rounded down to the nearest share. • Award is distributed in shares of our common stock upon vesting. |
Employment / Change in Control Arrangements
The Company enters into employment/employment / change in control agreements to help attract and retain our NEOs and believes that these agreements facilitate a smooth transaction and transition planning in connection with change in control events. Effective January 2015,2018, the Company entered into new three-year term employment agreements with Messrs. Anstice,Mr. Archer (amended on March 16, 2018 and August 8, 2019), Mr. Bettinger and(amended on November 30, 2018), Dr. Gottscho and aMr. Anstice, and new change in control agreementagreements with Ms. O’Dowd.
Dr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi and Mr. Varadarajan. The employment agreements generally provide for designated
payments in the event of an involuntary termination of employment, death or disability, as such terms are defined in the applicable agreements. The employment agreements, and also the change in control agreements, generally provide for designated payments in the case of a change in control when coupled with an involuntary termination (i.e., a double trigger is required before payment is made due to a change in control), as such terms are defined in the applicable agreements.
For additional information about these arrangements and detail about post-termination payments under these arrangements, see the“Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” section below.
Other Benefits Not Available to All Employees
Elective Deferred Compensation Plan
The Company maintains an elective deferred compensation planElective Deferred Compensation Plan that allows eligible employees (including all the NEOs) to voluntarily defer receipt of all or a portion of base salary and certain incentive compensation payments until a date or dates elected by the participating employee. This allows the employee to defer taxes on designated compensation amounts. In addition, the Company providesis obligated to pay a limited Company contribution to the plan for all eligible employees.
Supplemental Health and Welfare
We provide certain health and welfare benefits not generally available to other employees, including the payment of premiums for supplemental long-term disability insurance and Company-provided coverage in the amount of $1 million for both life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance for all NEOs. Until January 1, 2013, the Company also provided an executive medical, dental, and vision reimbursement program that reimbursed NEOs’ cost of medical, dental, and vision expenses in excess of the regular employee plans through the end of 2012.
We also provide post-retirement medical and dental insurance coverage for eligible former executive officers under our
Retiree Health Plans, subject to certain eligibility requirements. The program was closed to executive officers who joined the Company or became executive officers through promotion effective on or after January 1, 2013. We have an independent actuarial valuation of post-retirement benefits for eligible NEOs conducted annually in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The most recent valuation was conducted in June 20162019 and reflected the following retirement benefit obligation for the NEOs:NEOs as shown below.
Continues on next page u
Figure 27.33. NEO Post-Retirement Benefit Obligations
Named Executive Officer | As of June ($) | |||
Timothy M. Archer | 889,000 | |||
Douglas R. Bettinger(1) | — | |||
Richard A. Gottscho | 662,000 | |||
Patrick J. Lord(1) | — | |||
Vahid Vahedi | 932,000 | |||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan(1) | — | |||
Martin B. Anstice | — | |||
(1) | Mr. Bettinger, |
IV. TAX AND ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS
Deductibility of Executive Compensation
SectionPrior to 2018, and where applicable for grandfathered awards, section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the “Code,” imposesimposed limitations on the deductibility for federal income tax purposes of compensation in excess of $1 million paid to our chief executive officer, and any of our three other most highly compensated executive officers (other than our chief financial officer) in a single tax year. Generally,year unless the compensation in excess of $1 million may only be deducted if it is qualified as “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of the Code.
The committee monitorsconsiders a number of factors, including the application of section 162(m) and the associated Treasury regulations and considers the advisability of qualifying our executive compensation for deductibility of such compensation. The committee’s policy iscompensation when making compensation decisions and retains the discretion to qualify our executiveaward compensation for deductibility under applicable tax laws to the extent practicable and where the committee believeseven if it is in the best interests of the Company and the Company’s stockholders.
When we design our executive compensation programs, we take into account whether a particular form of compensation will qualify as “performance-based” for purposes of section 162(m).
To facilitate the deductibility of compensation payments under section 162(m):
The annual program awards to our NEOs are generally administrated under the AIP and intended to qualify for deductibility under section 162(m) to the extent practicable.
Consistent with the EIP or SIP, and the regulations under section 162(m), compensation income realized upon the exercise of stock options generally will be deductible because the awards are granted by a committee whose members are outside directors and the other conditions of the 162(m) are satisfied. However, compensation associated with RSUs may not be deductible unless vesting is based on specific performance goals (such as with the Market-based PRSUs) and the other conditions of the EIP or SIP (as applicable) are satisfied. Therefore, compensation income realized upon the vesting of service-based RSUs or upon the vesting of equity awards not meeting the conditions required by the EIP or SIP are not deductible to the Company to the extent that the 162(m) compensation threshold is exceeded.deductible.
Taxation of “Parachute” Payments
Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code provide that “disqualified individuals” within the meaning of the Code (which generally includes certain officers, directors and employees of the Company) may be subject to additional tax if they receive payments or benefits in connection with a change in control of the Company that exceed certain prescribed limits. The
Company or its successor may also forfeit a deduction on the amounts subject to this additional tax.
We did not provide any of our executive officers, any director, or any other service provider with a“gross-up” or other reimbursement payment for any tax liability that the individual might owe as a result of the application of sections 280G or 4999 during fiscal year 2017,2018, and we have not agreed and are not otherwise obligated to provide any individual with such a“gross-up” or other reimbursement as a result of the application of sections 280G and 4999.
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A
Section 409A of the Code imposes significant additional taxes on an executive officer, director, or service provider that
receivesnon-compliant “deferred compensation” that is within the scope of section 409A. Among other things, section 409A potentially applies to the cash awards under the LTIP, the Elective Deferred Compensation Plan, certain equity awards, and severance arrangements.
To assist our employees in avoiding additional taxes under section 409A, we have structured the LTIP, the Elective
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 33 |
Deferred Compensation Plan, and our equity awards in a manner intended to qualify them for exclusion from, or compliance with, section 409A.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
We follow Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification TopicASC 718 or “ASC 718,” for accounting for our stock options and other stock-based awards. ASC 718 requires companies to calculate the grant date “fair value” of their stock option grants and other equity awards using a variety of assumptions. This calculation is performed for accounting purposes. ASC 718 also requires companies to recognize the compensation cost of stock option grants and other stock-based awards in their income statements over the period that an employee is required to render service in exchange for the option or other equity award.
The compensation and human resources committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis
required by Item 402(b) of SEC RegulationS-K. Based on this review and discussion, the compensation and human resources committee has recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K.
This Compensation Committee Report shall not be deemed “filed” with the SEC for purposes of federal securities law, and it shall not, under any circumstances, be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s past or future SEC filings. The report shall not be deemed soliciting material.
MEMBERS OF THE COMPENSATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Youssef A.El-Mansy
Catherine P. Lego (Chair)
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
None of the compensation and human resources committee members has ever been an officer or employee of Lam Research. No interlocking relationship exists as of the date of this proxy statement or existed during fiscal year 20172019 between any member of our compensation and human resources committee and any member of any other company’s board of directors or compensation committee.
Continues on next page u
The following tables (Figures28-33) 34-39) show compensation information for our named executive officers:
Figure 28.34. Summary Compensation Table
Summary Compensation Table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name and Principal Position | Fiscal Year | Salary ($) | Bonus ($) | Stock Awards ($)(1) | Options Awards ($)(2) | Non-Equity ($)(3) | All Other ($)(4) | Total ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice President and Chief Executive Officer | 2017 | 969,808 | — | 7,023,914 | 758,314 | 2,396,304 | (6) | 10,541 | 11,158,881 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 937,789 | — | 6,175,315 | 1,224,848 | 2,207,558 | (7) | 10,521 | 10,556,031 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 906,646 | — | 5,849,027 | 558,635 | 3,839,904 | (8) | 10,527 | 11,164,739 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer Executive Vice President and | 2017 | 646,945 | — | 3,950,881 | 426,531 | 1,165,193 | (6) | 11,301 | 6,200,851 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 624,061 | — | 3,293,501 | 653,260 | 1,079,250 | (7) | 10,689 | 5,660,761 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 604,431 | — | 3,032,808 | 289,658 | 2,114,132 | (9) | 10,543 | 6,051,572 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger Executive Vice President and | 2017 | 572,561 | — | 2,414,365 | 260,640 | 849,190 | (6) | 7,983 | 4,104,739 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 548,827 | — | 2,264,175 | 449,109 | 771,574 | (7) | 8,080 | 4,041,765 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 528,692 | — | 2,166,214 | 206,870 | 1,450,547 | (10) | 8,017 | 4,360,340 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho Executive Vice President, | 2017 | 559,837 | 6,171 | (5) | 2,853,402 | 362,059 | 833,015 | (6) | 9,307 | 4,623,791 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 545,296 | 9,600 | (5) | 2,675,862 | 606,262 | 771,574 | (7) | 9,082 | 4,617,676 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 528,692 | 5,867 | (5) | 2,599,550 | 312,531 | 1,482,521 | (11) | 9,398 | 4,938,559 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd Senior Vice President, Chief | 2017 | 453,277 | — | 1,229,100 | 155,869 | 597,578 | (6) | 8,082 | 2,443,906 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 434,488 | — | 1,152,683 | 261,125 | 542,959 | (7) | 7,259 | 2,398,514 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 418,077 | — | 1,126,410 | 135,357 | 956,427 | (12) | 7,551 | 2,643,822 |
Summary Compensation Table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name and Principal Position
| Fiscal
| Salary
| Bonus
| Stock
| Option
| Non-Equity
| All Other
| Total
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer President and Chief Executive Officer |
| 2019 |
|
| 809,512 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,829,921 |
|
| 3,911,321 |
|
| 1,181,842 | (4) |
| 12,513 |
|
| 13,745,109 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| 674,922 |
|
| — |
|
| 4,180,920 |
|
| 600,122 |
|
| 1,599,068 | (5) |
| 9,856 |
|
| 7,064,888 |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| 646,945 |
|
| — |
|
| 3,950,881 |
|
| 426,531 |
|
| 1,165,193 | (6) |
| 11,301 |
|
| 6,200,851 |
| |||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger Executive Vice President and |
| 2019 |
|
| 620,518 |
|
| — |
|
| 9,856,919 |
|
| 529,186 |
|
| 739,421 | (4) |
| 9,073 |
|
| 11,755,117 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| 586,874 |
|
| — |
|
| 1,881,292 |
|
| 270,066 |
|
| 914,560 | (5) |
| 9,123 |
|
| 3,661,915 |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| 572,561 |
|
| — |
|
| 2,414,365 |
|
| 260,640 |
|
| 849,190 | (6) |
| 7,983 |
|
| 4,104,739 |
| |||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho Executive Vice President, |
| 2019 |
|
| 584,126 |
|
| 10,971 | (7) |
| 1,755,652 |
|
| 474,750 |
|
| 707,680 | (4) |
| 9,553 |
|
| 3,542,732 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| 567,324 |
|
| 5,867 | (7) |
| 2,090,283 |
|
| 316,208 |
|
| 1,072,242 | (5) |
| 9,384 |
|
| 4,061,308 |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| 559,837 |
|
| 6,171 | (7) |
| 2,853,402 |
|
| 362,059 |
|
| 833,015 | (6) |
| 9,307 |
|
| 4,623,791 |
| |||||||||
Patrick J. Lord Senior Vice President and |
| 2019 |
|
| 463,327 |
|
| — |
|
| 1,404,389 |
|
| 352,790 |
|
| 554,243 | (4) |
| 8,668 |
|
| 2,783,417 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
Vahid Vahedi Senior Vice President and General Manager, Etch Business Unit |
| 2019 |
|
| 453,031 |
|
| 4,171 | (7) |
| 1,229,006 |
|
| 308,609 |
|
| 494,802 | (4) |
| 8,755 |
|
| 2,498,374 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan Senior Vice President and General Manager, Deposition Business Unit |
| 2019 |
|
| 453,031 |
|
| — |
|
| 1,229,006 |
|
| 308,609 |
|
| 494,802 | (4) |
| 8,785 |
|
| 2,494,233 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| |||||||||
Martin B. Anstice Former Chief Executive Officer |
| 2019 |
|
| 465,192 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 465,192 |
| ||||||||
| 2018 |
|
| 1,001,442 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,526,050 |
|
| 1,080,493 |
|
| 3,229,875 | (5) |
| 10,785 |
|
| 12,848,645 |
| |||||||||
| 2017 |
|
| 969,808 |
|
| — |
|
| 7,023,914 |
|
| 758,314 |
|
| 2,396,304 | (6) |
| 10,541 |
|
| 11,158,881 |
|
(1) | The amounts shown in this column represent the value of service-based and market-based |
(2) | The amounts shown in this column represent the value of the stock option awards granted, under the LTIP, in accordance with ASC 718. However, pursuant to SEC rules, these values are not reduced by an estimate for the probability of forfeiture. The assumptions used to calculate the fair value of stock options in fiscal year |
(3) | Please refer to “FY2019 All Other Compensation Table” which |
(4) | Represents the amount earned by and subsequently paid under the calendar year 2018 AIP. |
(5) | Represents |
(6) | Represents the amount earned by and subsequently paid under the calendar year 2016 |
(7) | Represents |
Figure 29. FY2017 All Other Compensation Table
All Other Compensation Table for Fiscal Year 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Company Matching Contribution to the Company’s Section 401 (k) Plan ($) | Company ($) | Company Paid Life Insurance Premiums (2) ($) | Company Contribution to the Elective Deferred Compensation Plan ($) | Total ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 8,041 | — | — | 2,500 | 10,541 | |||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 8,801 | — | — | 2,500 | 11,301 | |||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 7,983 | — | — | — | 7,983 | |||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 8,133 | 1,174 | — | — | 9,307 | |||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 5,407 | — | 175 | 2,500 | 8,082 |
Figure 30. FY2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non- Equity Incentive Plan Awards | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock | All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying | Exercise or Base Price of Option | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Award Type | Grant Date | Approved Date | Target ($)(1) | Maximum ($)(1) | Target (#)(2) | Maximum (#)(2) | or Units (#) | Options (#) | Awards ($/Sh) | Awards ($)(3) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/8/17 | 1,485,000 | 3,341,250 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/8/17 | 34,539 | (4) | 51,808 | (4) | — | — | — | 3,859,733 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/8/17 | — | — | 27,631 | (5) | — | — | 3,164,181 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/17 | 2/8/17 | — | — | — | 27,628 | (6) | 119.67 | 758,314 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/7/17 | 735,204 | 1,654,208 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | 19,428 | (4) | 29,142 | (4) | — | — | — | 2,171,079 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | 15,542 | (5) | — | — | 1,779,802 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | — | 15,540 | (6) | 119,67 | 426,531 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/7/17 | 525,609 | 1,182,620 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | 11,872 | (4) | 17,808 | (4) | — | — | — | 1,326,696 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | 9,498 | (5) | — | — | 1,087,669 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | — | 9,496 | (6) | 119.67 | 260,640 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/7/17 | 510,592 | 1,148,831 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | 14,031 | (4) | 21,046 | (4) | — | — | — | 1,567,964 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | 11,225 | (5) | — | — | 1,285,438 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | — | 11,224 | (6) | 119.67 | 362,059 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/7/17 | 369,873 | 832,214 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | 6,044 | (4) | 9,066 | (4) | — | — | — | 675,417 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | 4,835 | (5) | — | — | 553,683 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/17 | 2/7/17 | — | — | — | 4,832 | (6) | 119.67 | 155,869 |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Figure 35. FY2019 All Other Compensation Table
All Other Compensation Table for Fiscal Year 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Company Matching Contribution to the Company’s Section 401(k) Plan ($) | Company Paid Long-Term Disability Insurance Premiums (1) ($) | Company Paid Life Insurance Premiums (2) ($) | Company Contribution to the Elective Deferred Compensation Plan ($) | Total ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer |
| 10,013 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 2,500 |
|
| 12,513 |
| |||||
Douglas R. Bettinger |
| 8,186 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 887 |
|
| 9,073 |
| |||||
Richard A. Gottscho |
| 8,477 |
|
| 1,076 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 9,553 |
| |||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 8,545 |
|
| — |
|
| 123 |
|
| — |
|
| 8,668 |
| |||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| 8,604 |
|
| — |
|
| 151 |
|
| — |
|
| 8,755 |
| |||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| 8,634 |
|
| — |
|
| 151 |
|
| — |
|
| 8,785 |
| |||||
Martin B. Anstice |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
(1) | Represents the portion of supplemental long-term disability insurance premiums paid by Lam. |
(2) | Represents the portion of life insurance premiums paid by Lam in excess of thenon-discriminatory life insurance benefits provided to all Company employees. |
Figure 36. FY2019 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Estimated Future Payouts UnderNon- Equity Incentive Plan Awards | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards | All Other of Shares of Stock or Units
| All Other
| Exercise
| Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Option
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
| Award Type
| Grant
| Approved
| Target
| Maximum
| Target
| Maximum
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/12/19 |
| 1,500,000 |
|
| 3,375,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/12/19 |
| 21,243 | (4) |
| 31,864 | (4) |
| 3,521,665 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/12/19 |
| 12,746 | (5) |
| 2,096,717 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/12/19 |
| 33,988 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 1,411,328 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Equity Award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 12/6/18 | 12/5/18 |
| 17,021 | (7) |
| 2,211,539 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 12/6/18 | 12/5/18 |
| 71,430 | (8) |
| 145.73 |
|
| 2,499,993 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/11/19 |
| 640,000 |
|
| 1,440,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 7,966 | (4) |
| 11,949 | (4) |
| 1,320,603 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 4,779 | (5) |
| 786,146 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 12,744 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 529,186 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Equity Award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 11/30/18 | 11/29/18 |
| 54,884 | (9) |
| 7,750,170 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/11/19 |
| 525,910 |
|
| 1,183,297 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 6,638 | (4) |
| 9,957 | (4) |
| 1,100,448 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 3,983 | (5) |
| 655,204 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 10,620 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 474,750 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/11/19 |
| 393,975 |
|
| 886,444 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 5,310 | (4) |
| 7,965 | (4) |
| 880,292 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 3,186 | (5) |
| 524,097 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 8,496 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 352,790 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/11/19 |
| 385,220 |
|
| 866,745 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 4,647 | (4) |
| 6,970 | (4) |
| 770,380 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 2,788 | (5) |
| 458,626 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 7,432 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 308,609 |
|
Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Estimated Future Payouts UnderNon- Equity Incentive Plan Awards | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards | All Other of Shares of Stock or Units
| All Other
| Exercise
| Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Option
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
| Award Type
| Grant
| Approved
| Target
| Maximum
| Target
| Maximum
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan | Annual Incentive Program | N/A | 2/11/19 |
| 385,220 |
|
| 866,745 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 4,647 | (4) |
| 6,970 | (4) |
| 770,380 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 2,788 | (5) |
| 458,626 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options | 3/1/19 | 2/11/19 |
| 7,432 | (6) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 308,609 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice(10) | Annual Incentive Program |
| — |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP-Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Market-based PRSUs |
| — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based RSUs |
| — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options |
| — |
|
(1) | The AIP target and maximum estimated future payouts reflected in this table were calculated using the base salary approved in February 2019, effective as of February 25, 2019. Awards payouts range from 0% to 225% of target. |
(2) | The amounts reported represent the target and maximum number of Market-based PRSUs that may vest on the terms described in “Executive Compensation and Other Information –Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above. The number of shares that may be earned is equal to from 0% to 150% of target. |
(3) | The amounts reported represent the fair value of Market-based PRSU, service-based RSU, and stock option awards granted during fiscal year |
(4) | The Market-based PRSUs will vest on March 1, |
(5) | The RSUs will vest in three equal installments on March 1 of each of |
(6) | The stock options will become exercisable in three equal installments on March 1 of each of 2020, 2021, and 2022, subject to continued employment. |
(7) | The RSUs will vest over four years (one quarter on theone-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment). The award is described in “Compensation Relating to Management Transition” above. |
(8) | The stock options will become exercisable over four years (one quarter on theone-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment). The award is described in “Compensation Relating to Management Transition” above. |
(9) | The RSUs will vest over four years(one-quarter of the RSUs on theone-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder of the RSUs on apro-rated basis on the last day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment). The award is described in “Compensation Relating to Management Transition” above. |
(10) | Mr. Anstice did not participate in the calendar year 2019 annual incentive program or the 2019/2021 LTIP program because he terminated his employment as of December 5, 2018. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 37 |
Figure 37. FYE2019 Outstanding Equity Awards
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2019 Fiscal Year-End | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (#) | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (#) | Option Exercise Price ($) | Option Expiration Date | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) | Market Value That Have Vested ($) (1) | Equity (#) | Equity Plan Awards: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer |
| — | (2) |
| 33,988 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 12,746 | (3) |
| 2,394,209 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21,243 | (4) |
| 3,990,285 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| — | (5) |
| 71,430 | (5) |
| 145.73 |
|
| 12/6/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 17,021 | (6) |
| 3,197,225 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,508 | (7) |
| 7,016 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 7,018 | (8) |
| 1,318,261 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13,159 | (9) |
| 2,471,787 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10,360 | (10) |
| 5,180 | (10) |
| 119.67 |
|
| 3/1/24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,181 | (11) |
| 973,199 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19,428 | (12) |
| 3,649,356 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23,148 | (13) |
| — | (13) |
| 75.57 |
|
| 3/1/23 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 13,026 | (14) |
| — | (14) |
| 80.60 |
|
| 2/11/22 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger |
| — | (2) |
| 12,744 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4,779 | (3) |
| 897,687 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7,966 | (4) |
| 1,496,333 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 54,884 | (15) |
| 10,309,411 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,578 | (7) |
| 3,158 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,158 | (8) |
| 593,199 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,921 | (9) |
| 1,112,201 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6,330 | (10) |
| 3,166 | (10) |
| 119.67 |
|
| 3/1/24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,166 | (11) |
| 594,701 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11,872 | (12) |
| 2,230,036 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23,871 | (13) |
| — | (13) |
| 75.57 |
|
| 3/1/23 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 9,303 | (14) |
| — | (14) |
| 80.60 |
|
| 2/11/22 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 7,242 | (16) |
| — | (16) |
| 51.76 |
|
| 2/18/21 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 9,658 | (16) |
| — | (16) |
| 51.76 |
|
| 2/18/21 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho |
| — | (2) |
| 10,620 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,983 | (3) |
| 748,167 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6,638 | (4) |
| 1,246,882 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,753 | (7) |
| 3,507 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,509 | (8) |
| 659,131 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6,579 | (9) |
| 1,235,799 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,741 | (10) |
| 3,742 | (10) |
| 119.67 |
|
| 3/1/24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,742 | (11) |
| 702,897 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14,031 | (12) |
| 2,635,583 |
|
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2019 Fiscal Year-End | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (#) | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (#) | Option Exercise Price ($) | Option Expiration Date | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) | Market Value That Have Vested ($) (1) | Equity (#) | Equity Plan Awards: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| — | (2) |
| 8,496 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3,186 | (3) |
| 598,458 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,310 | (4) |
| 997,430 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,333 | (7) |
| 2,667 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,667 | (8) |
| 500,969 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,000 | (9) |
| 939,200 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| — | (10) |
| 1,554 | (10) |
| 119.67 |
|
| 3/1/24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,554 | (11) |
| 291,903 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,828 | (12) |
| 1,094,732 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| — | (2) |
| 7,432 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,788 | (3) |
| 523,698 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4,647 | (4) |
| 872,892 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,192 | (7) |
| 2,384 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,386 | (8) |
| 448,186 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4,474 | (9) |
| 840,396 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,727 | (11) |
| 324,400 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,180 | (12) |
| 973,011 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| — | (2) |
| 7,432 | (2) |
| 176.75 |
|
| 3/1/26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,788 | (3) |
| 523,698 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4,647 | (4) |
| 872,892 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,192 | (7) |
| 2,384 | (7) |
| 190.07 |
|
| 3/1/25 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,386 | (8) |
| 448,186 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4,474 | (9) |
| 840,396 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,727 | (11) |
| 324,400 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5,180 | (12) |
| 973,011 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice (17) |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
(1) | Calculated by multiplying the number of unvested units by $187.84, the closing price of our common stock on June 28, 2019. |
(2) | The stock options were granted on March 1, 2019.One-third of the stock options will become exercisable on March 1 of each of |
Figure 31. FYE2017 Outstanding Equity Awards
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) | The RSUs were granted on March 1, |
(4) | The Market-based PRSUs were granted on March 1, 2019. The Market-based PRSUs will vest on March 1, 2022, subject to continued employment. The Market-based PRSUs are shown at their target amount. The actual conversion of the Market-based PRSUs into shares of Lam common stock following the conclusion of the three-year performance period will range from 0% to 150% of that target amount, depending upon Lam’s stock price performance compared to the market price performance of the SOX index over the applicable three-year performance period. |
(5) | The stock options were granted on December 6, 2018. The stock options will become exercisable over four years (one quarter on theone-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months, subject to continued employment). |
(6) | The RSUs were granted on December 6, 2018. The RSUs will vest over four years (one quarter on theone-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder on apro-rated basis on the sixth day of every month thereafter for the next 36 months). |
(7) | The stock options were granted on March 1, 2018.One-third of the stock options became exercisable on March 1, 2019 and will become exercisable on March 1 of each of 2020 and 2021, subject to continued employment. |
(8) | The RSUs were granted on March 1, 2018.One-third of the RSUs vested on March 1, 2019 and will vest on March 1 of each of 2020 and 2021, subject to continued employment. |
(9) | The Market-based PRSUs were granted on March 1, 2018. The Market-based PRSUs will vest on March 1, 2021, subject to continued employment. The Market-based PRSUs are shown at their target amount. The actual conversion of the Market-based PRSUs into shares of Lam common stock following the conclusion of the three-year performance period will range from 0% to 150% of that target amount, depending upon Lam’s stock price performance compared to the market price performance of the SOX index over the applicable three-year performance period. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 39 |
(10) | The stock options were granted on March 1, 2017.One-third of the stock options became exercisable on March 1 of each of 2018 and 2019 and will become exercisable on March 1, 2020, subject to continued employment. |
(11) | The RSUs were granted on March 1, 2017.One-third of the RSUs vested on March 1 of each of 2018 and 2019 and will vest on March 1, 2020, subject to continued employment. |
(12) | The Market-based PRSUs were granted on March 1, 2017. The Market-based PRSUs will vest on March 1, 2020, subject to continued employment. The Market-based PRSUs are shown at their target amount. The actual conversion of the Market-based PRSUs into shares of Lam common stock following the conclusion of the three-year performance period will range from 0% to 150% of that target amount, depending upon Lam’s stock price performance compared to the market price performance of the SOX index over the applicable three-year performance period. |
The stock options were granted on March 1, 2016. As of the |
The stock options were granted on February 11, 2015. As of the |
The RSUs were granted on |
The |
Continues on next page u
Mr. Anstice’s outstanding equity awards were |
December 5, 2018.
Figure 32. FY201738. FY2019 Option Exercises and Stock Vested
Option Exercises and Stock Vested for Fiscal Year 2017(1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option Exercises and Stock Vested for Fiscal Year 2019 (1) | Option Exercises and Stock Vested for Fiscal Year 2019 (1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Number of Shares | Value Exercise ($) | Number of Shares | Value Realized on Vesting ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) | Value Realized on Exercise ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) | Value Realized on Vesting ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | — | — | 132,943 | 15,339,076 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 93,303 | 7,267,322 | 62,773 | 7,246,533 |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 46,574 |
|
| 8,231,955 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | — | — | 50,776 | 5,857,645 |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 30,790 |
|
| 5,442,133 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | 75,098 | 4,297,581 | 52,327 | 6,040,206 |
| 9,403 |
|
| 1,256,511 |
|
| 36,276 |
|
| 6,411,783 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | — | — | 26,359 | 3,040,652 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| 1,553 |
|
| 101,457 |
|
| 14,366 |
|
| 2,539,191 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 14,399 |
|
| 2,545,023 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 14,399 |
|
| 2,545,023 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice |
| 52,611 |
|
| 4,269,526 |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
(1) | The table shows all stock options exercised and the value realized upon exercise, and all stock awards vested and the value realized upon vesting, by the NEOs during fiscal year |
Figure 33. FY201739. FY2019Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal Year 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal Year 2019 | Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal Year 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Executive Contributions in FY 2017 ($)(1) | Registrant Contributions in FY 2017 ($)(2) | Aggregate Earnings in FY 2017 ($)(3) | Aggregate Balance at FYE 2017 ($)(4) | Executive Contributions in FY 2019 ($) (1) | Registrant Contributions in FY 2019 ($) (2) | Aggregate Earnings in FY 2019 ($) (3) | Aggregate Balance at FYE 2019 ($) (4) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice | 446,676 | 2,500 | 648,568 | 5,710,357 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timothy M. Archer | 452,881 | 2,500 | 434,527 | 4,853,074 |
| 622,134 |
|
| 2,500 |
|
| 332,028 |
|
| 6,703,539 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Douglas R. Bettinger | 14,437 | — | 339,673 | 1,785,235 |
| 415,621 |
|
| 887 |
|
| 179,812 |
|
| 3,099,261 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Gottscho | — | — | 108,624 | 2,041,887 |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 74,231 |
|
| 2,201,949 |
| ||||||||||||||||
Sarah A. O’Dowd | 843,918 | 2,500 | 830,603 | 8,438,827 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patrick J. Lord |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Vahid Vahedi |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Seshasayee (Sesha) Varadarajan |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Martin B. Anstice |
| 43,641 |
|
| — |
|
| 309,661 |
|
| 6,709,603 |
|
(1) | The entire amount of each executive’s contributions in fiscal year |
(2) | Represents the amount that Lam credited to the Elective Deferred Compensation Plan |
(3) | The NEOs did not receive above-market or preferential earnings in fiscal year |
(4) | The fiscalyear-end balance includes |
Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control
The following is a summary of the employment agreements of our named executive officers.
Executive Employment Agreements
Martin B. Anstice.Timothy M. Archer.The Company and Mr. AnsticeArcher entered into an employment agreement, or the “agreement,“Mr. Archer’s agreement,” effective January 1, 2015,2018, for a term ending on December 31, 2017,2020, subject to the right of the Company or Mr. Anstice,Archer, under certain circumstances, to terminate the agreement prior to such time. The agreement was amended on March 16, 2018 to reflect his promotion to president and COO and on August 8, 2019 to reflect his promotion to, and new compensation as, president and CEO.
Under the terms of theMr. Archer’s agreement, Mr. AnsticeArcher receives a base salary, which is reviewed annually and potentially adjusted. It was initially set atin the beginning of the term oflatest amendment to the agreement at $900,000.$1,000,000. Mr. AnsticeArcher is also entitled to participate in any short-term or long-term variable compensation programs offered by the Company to its executive officers generally, subject to the applicable terms and conditions of those programs and the approval of the independent members of the Board, and to participate in the Company’s Elective Deferred Compensation Plan. Mr. AnsticeArcher receives other benefits, such as health insurance, paid time off (as his schedule permits), and eligible benefits under other plans and programs generally applicable to executive officers of the Company.
If an Involuntary Termination (as defined in Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement) of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s employment occurs, other than in connection with a Change in Control (as defined in Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement), Mr. AnsticeArcher will be entitled to: (1) alump-sum cash payment equal to 18 months of his then-current base salary, plus an amount equal to the average of the last five annual payments made to Mr. AnsticeArcher under the short term variable compensation program or any predecessor or successor programs (the “Short Term Program,” and such average, the “Five-Year Average Amount”), plus an amount equal to the pro-ratapro rata amount he would have earned under the Short Term Program for the calendar year in which his employment is terminated had his employment continued until the end of such calendar year, such pro-ratapro rata portion to be calculated based on the performance results achieved under the Short Term Program and the number of full months elapsed prior to the termination date; (2) payment of any amounts accrued as of the date of termination under any long-term, cash-based variable-compensation programs of the Company (the “Long Term Cash Programs”); (3) certain medical benefits; (4) a cash payment equal to a product of (x) a pro rata portion (based on time of service as of the date of termination) of the unvested Market-based PRSU/PRSU and/or
other performance-based RSU awards granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher, as adjusted for the Company’s performance (calculated as set forth in the award agreements) over the time of service and (y) the closing stock price on the date of termination; and (5) vesting, as of the date of termination, of a pro rata portion of the unvested stock option or RSU awards that are not performance basedperformance-based granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher at least 12 months prior to the termination date.
If a Change in Control of the Company (as defined in Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement) occurs during the period of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s employment, and if there is an Involuntary Termination of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s employment either in contemplation of or within the 18 months following the Change in Control, Mr. AnsticeArcher will be entitled to: alump-sum cash payment equal to 24 months of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s then-current base salary, plus an amount equal to two times the Five-Year Average Amount, plus an additional amount equal to a pro rata amount (based on the number of full months worked during the calendar year during which the termination occurs) of the Five-Year Average Amount; certain medical benefits; conversion of any Market-based PRSUs/PRSUs and/or other performance-based RSUs outstanding as of the Change in Control into a cash award payable at time of termination equal to the product of the closing stock price on the closing date of the Change in Control and the sum of: (x) a pro rata portion (based on time of service as of the date of termination) of the unvested Market-based PRSU/performance-based RSU awards granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher as adjusted for the Company’s performance (calculated as set forth in the award agreements) over the time of service and (y) the remainder of thepro-rata portion of unvested Market-based PRSU/performance-based RSU awards at target; vesting, as of the date of termination, of the unvested stock option or RSU awards that are not performance-based
granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher prior to the Change in Control; and payment of any amounts accrued as of the Change in Control under any then-existing Long Term Cash Programs, plus an amount equal to the remaining target amount under any then-existing Long Term Cash Programs.
If Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s employment is terminated due to disability or in the event of his death, Mr. AnsticeArcher (or his estate) will be entitled to: (1) the pro rata amount he would have earned under the Short Term Program for the calendar year in which his employment is terminated had his employment continued until the end of such calendar year, such pro rata portion to be calculated based on the performance results achieved under the Short Term Program and the number of full months elapsed prior to the termination date; (2) payment of any amounts accrued as of the date of termination under any then-existing Long Term Cash Programs; (3) certain medical benefits; (4) vesting, as of the date of termination, of 50% of the unvested stock option, and RSU awards, which are not performance based, granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher prior to the date of termination (or a pro rata amount, based on period of service, if greater than 50%); and (5) vesting, as of the date of
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 41 |
termination, of 50% of the Market-based PRSU/performance-based RSU awards (or a pro rata amount, based on period of service, if greater than 50%) as adjusted for the Company’s performance during the service period (in either case) granted to Mr. AnsticeArcher prior to the date of termination.
If Mr. AnsticeArcher voluntarily resigns, he will be entitled to no additional benefits (except as he may be eligible for under the Company’s Retiree Health Plans); stock options, RSUs and Market-based PRSUs/performance-based RSUs will cease to vest on the termination date; and stock options will be cancelledcanceled unless they are exercised within 90 days after the termination date. All RSUs and Market-based PRSUs/performance-based RSUs will be cancelledcanceled on the termination date.
Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement also subjects Mr. AnsticeArcher to customary confidentiality andnon-competition obligations during the term of the agreement, the application of the Company’s compensation recovery, or clawback, policy to any compensation, andnon-solicitation obligations for a period of six months following the termination of his employment. The agreement also requires Mr. AnsticeArcher to execute a release in favor of the Company to receive the payments described above.
Timothy M. Archer.Douglas R. Bettinger.The Company and Mr. ArcherBettinger entered into an employment agreement, or the “agreement,“Mr. Bettinger’s agreement,” effectivewith a term commencing on January 1, 2015, for a term2018 and ending on December 31, 2017,2020, subject to the right of the Company or Mr. Archer,Bettinger, under certain circumstances, to terminate the agreement prior to such time. Mr. Bettinger’s agreement was amended on November 30, 2018 to reflect his 2019 compensation and special equity award described in further detail in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Compensation Relating to Management Transition” above.The terms of Mr. Archer’sBettinger’s agreement are substantively similar to those of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement, except thatwith the following material difference: Mr. Archer’sBettinger’s initial base salary at the beginning of the term of the agreement was set at $600,000.$584,010, and then $640,000 as part of the November 30, 2018 amendment.
Continues on next page u
The severance terms of Mr. Archer’sBettinger’s agreement are generally similar to those of Mr. Anstice’sArcher’s agreement, providedexcept that (1) Mr. ArcherBettinger will receive12-months base salary instead of 18 months18-months in the event of his Involuntary Termination; and (2) instead of a payment of the Five-Year Average Amount, he will receive a payment of 50% of the Five-Year Average Amount. The Change in Control terms of Mr. Archer’s agreement are generally similar to those of Mr. Anstice’s agreement, provided that Mr. Archer will receive 18-months base salary instead of 24 months in the event of his Involuntary Termination.
Douglas R. Bettinger.The Company and Mr. Bettinger entered into an employment agreement, or the “agreement,” with a term commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2017, subject to the right of the Company or Mr. Bettinger, under certain circumstances, to terminate the agreement prior to such time. The terms of Mr. Bettinger’s agreement are substantively similar to those of Mr. Archer’s agreement, with the following material difference: Mr. Bettinger’s initial base salary at the beginning of the term of the agreement was set at $525,000.
The severance terms of Mr. Bettinger’s agreement are generally similar to those of Mr. Archer’s agreement, providedexcept that Mr. Bettinger will receive18-months base salary instead of24-monthsin computing the Five-Year Average Amount any partial year short-term plan payments in any year shall be annualized, and if employed for less than five years, then computed based on such fewer numberevent of years. The Change in Control terms of Mr. Bettinger’s agreement are generally similar to those of Mr. Archer’s agreement.his Involuntary Termination.
Richard A. Gottscho.Gottscho.The Company and Dr. Gottscho entered into an employment agreement, or the “agreement,“Dr. Gottscho’s agreement,” effective January 1, 2015,2018, for a term ending on December 31, 2017,2020, subject to the right of the Company or Dr. Gottscho, under certain circumstances, to terminate the
agreement prior to such time. The terms of Dr. Gottscho’s agreement are substantively similar to those of Mr. Archer’sBettinger’s agreement with the following material difference: under Dr. Gottscho’s agreement, his initial base salary at the beginning of the term of the agreement was set at $525,000.$567,324. The severance and Change in Control terms of Dr. Gottscho’s agreement are also generally similar to those of Mr. Bettinger’s agreement.
Martin B. Anstice. The Company and Mr. Anstice entered into an employment agreement, or “Mr. Anstice’s agreement,” effective January 1, 2018, for a term that would have ended on December 31, 2020 if not for Mr. Anstice’s termination of his employment and agreement on December 5, 2018. The terms of Mr. Anstice’s agreement were substantively similar to those of Mr. Archer’s agreement with the following material difference: under Mr. Anstice’s agreement, his initial base salary at the beginning of the term of the agreement was set at $990,000. The severance and Change in Control terms of Mr. Anstice’s agreement were also generally similar to those of Mr. Archer’s agreement.
Other Executive Agreements
The Company entered into a change in control agreementagreements with Ms. O’DowdDr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi and Mr. Varadarajan effective January 1, 2015,2018, or the “agreement,“change in control agreement,” for a term ending on December 31, 2017,2020, subject to the right of
the Company or Ms. O’Dowd,Dr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi or Mr. Varadarajan, respectively, under certain circumstances, to terminate thetheir respective change in control agreement prior to such time. TheEach change in control agreement provides that if a Change in Control (as defined in Ms. O’Dowd’sDr. Lord’s, Dr. Vahedi’s or Mr. Varadarajan’s respective agreement) of the Company occurs during the period of her employment under the agreement, and there is an Involuntary Termination (as defined in herthe agreement) of her employment, Ms. O’DowdDr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi or Mr. Varadarajan will be entitled to payments and benefits substantively similar to those contained in the change in control provisions of Mr. Archer’sBettinger’s agreement.
The change in control agreement of Dr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi and Mr. Varadarajan each contains confidentiality,non-competition, andnon-solicitation terms that are substantively similar to those of Mr. Anstice’s, Mr. Archer’s, Mr. Bettinger’s and Dr. Gottscho’s agreements, and require Ms. O’DowdDr. Lord, Dr. Vahedi or Mr. Varadarajan to execute a release in favor of the Company to receive the payments described in the previous paragraph.
Equity Plans
In addition to the above, certain of our stock plans provide for accelerated benefits after certain events. While the applicable triggers under each plan vary, these events generally include: (1) a merger or consolidation in which the Company is not the surviving entity, (2) a sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets, including a liquidation or dissolution of the Company, or (3) a change in the ownership of more than 50% of our
outstanding securities by tender offer or similar transaction. After a designated event, the vesting of some or all of the awards granted under these plans may be immediately accelerated in full, or certain awards may be assumed, substituted, replaced, or settled in cash by a surviving corporation or its parent. The specific treatment of awards in a particular transaction will be determined by the Board and/or the terms of the applicable transaction documents.
Potential Payments to Named Executive Officers upon Termination or Change in Control
The tables below summarize the potential payments to our NEOs, assuming a change in control of the Company as of the
end of fiscal year 2017.2019. These amounts are calculated assuming that the employment termination or change in control occurs on the last day of fiscal year 2017,2019, June 25, 2017.30, 2019. The closing price per share of our common stock on June 23, 2017,28, 2019, which was the last trading day of fiscal year 2017,2019, was $151.78.$187.84. The short-term incentive program pro-ratapro rata amounts are calculated by multiplying the applicable pro-ratapro rata percentage by the target. Actual performance will not be known until after the end of calendar year 2017.2019. For Mr. Anstice, the table below sets forth the actual payments and benefits he received in connection with his resignation on December 5, 2018.
Figures 3440 – 38.46.
Potential Payments to NEOs upon Termination or Change in Control as of FYE2017FYE2019
Potential Payments to Mr. Anstice upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 25, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potential Payments to Mr. Archer upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | Potential Payments to Mr. Archer upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause [$) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | 1,485,000 | 1,980,000 |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 1,500,000 |
|
| 2,000,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (5-year average) | — | — | — | 1,647,767 | 3,295,533 |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 1,172,103 |
|
| 2,344,207 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | 618,750 | — | 618,750 | 686,569 |
| — |
|
| 625,000 |
|
| — |
|
| 625,000 |
|
| 488,376 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 1,469,171 | — | 612,145 | 4,790,863 |
| — |
|
| 1,780,702 |
|
| — |
|
| 88,280 |
|
| 3,737,965 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Service-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 3,485,324 | — | 976,666 | 9,182,538 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 17,589,862 | — | 14,377,029 | 24,601,953 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 3,368,582 |
|
| — |
|
| 408,082 |
|
| 7,882,893 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 7,212,509 |
|
| — |
|
| 5,407,329 |
|
| 10,878,356 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/COBRA Benefit | — | 21,543 | — | 21,543 | 21,543 |
| — |
|
| 37,164 |
|
| — |
|
| 37,164 |
|
| 37,164 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Total | — | 23,184,650 | — | 19,738,900 | 44,558,999 |
| — |
|
| 13,023,957 |
|
| — |
|
| 9,237,958 |
|
| 27,368,961 |
|
Potential Payments to Mr. Archer upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 25, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | 668,367 | 1,002,551 | ||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (5-year average) | — | — | 434,643 | 1,303,929 | ||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | 306,335 | — | 306,335 | 362,203 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 793,543 | — | 323,535 | 2,572,162 | |||||||||||||||
Service-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 1,911,593 | — | 512,523 | 4,994,473 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 9,379,428 | — | 7,584,386 | 13,151,331 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/COBRA Benefit | — | 32,314 | — | 32,314 | 32,314 | |||||||||||||||
Total | — | 12,423,213 | — | 9,862,103 | 23,418,963 |
Potential Payments to Mr. Bettinger upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | |||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 640,000 |
|
| 960,000 |
| |||||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 387,265 |
|
| 1,161,794 |
| |||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) |
| — |
|
| 266,667 |
|
| — |
|
| 266,667 |
|
| 322,721 |
| |||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 124,622 |
|
| — |
|
| 53,957 |
|
| 357,157 |
| |||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 5,900,524 |
|
| — |
|
| 222,825 |
|
| 12,394,998 |
| |||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 3,694,970 |
|
| — |
|
| 3,014,032 |
|
| 5,333,024 |
| |||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/COBRA Benefit |
| — |
|
| 25,509 |
|
| — |
|
| 25,509 |
|
| 25,509 |
| |||||
Total |
| — |
|
| 10,012,292 |
|
| — |
|
| 4,610,255 |
|
| 20,555,203 |
|
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Potential Payments to Dr. Gottscho upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | |||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 584,344 |
|
| 876,516 |
| |||||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) |
| — |
|
| — |
|
| — |
|
| 398,241 |
|
| 1,194,724 |
| |||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) |
| — |
|
| 219,129 |
|
| — |
|
| 219,129 |
|
| 331,868 |
| |||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 122,661 |
|
| — |
|
| 63,773 |
|
| 372,868 |
| |||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 714,590 |
|
| — |
|
| 258,116 |
|
| 2,110,195 |
| |||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) |
| — |
|
| 4,023,415 |
|
| — |
|
| 3,449,312 |
|
| 5,698,142 |
| |||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans |
| 662,000 |
|
| 662,000 |
|
| 662,000 |
|
| 662,000 |
|
| 662,000 |
| |||||
Total |
| 662,000 |
|
| 5,741,795 |
|
| 662,000 |
|
| 5,634,915 |
|
| 11,246,313 |
|
Potential Payments to Dr. Lord upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | — | 695,250 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) | — | — | — | — | 807,122 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | — | — | — | 224,201 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 200,157 | |||||||||||||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 1,391,331 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 3,229,538 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | — | — | — | — | 25,509 | |||||||||||||||
Total | — | — | — | — | 6,573,108 |
Potential Payments to Mr. Bettinger upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 25, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | 584,010 | 876,015 | ||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (5-year average) | — | — | 324,562 | 973,685 | ||||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | 219,004 | — | 219,004 | 270,468 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 529,236 | — | 225,177 | 1,738,452 | |||||||||||||||
Service-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 1,231,986 | — | 360,218 | 3,277,082 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 6,390,384 | — | 5,276,486 | 8,925,962 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/COBRA Benefit | — | 23,071 | — | 23,071 | 23,071 | |||||||||||||||
Total | — | 8,393,681 | — | 7,012,528 | 16,084,735 |
Potential Payments to Mr. Vahedi upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | — | 679,800 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) | — | — | — | — | 777,981 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | — | — | — | 216,106 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 82,421 | |||||||||||||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 1,296,284 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 2,861,307 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | — | — | — | — | 16,328 | |||||||||||||||
Total | — | — | — | — | 5,930,227 |
Potential Payments to Mr. Varadarajan upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 30, 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | — | 679,800 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) | — | — | — | — | 747,712 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | — | — | — | 207,698 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 82,421 | |||||||||||||||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 1,296,284 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 2,861,307 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | — | — | — | — | 23,967 | |||||||||||||||
Total | — | — | — | — | 5,899,189 |
Potential Payments to Dr. Gottscho upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 25, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | 567,324 | 850,986 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (5-year average) | — | — | — | 304,451 | 913,352 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | 212,747 | — | 212,747 | 253,709 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 626,813 | — | 267,461 | 2,058,540 | |||||||||||||||
Service-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 1,459,795 | — | 429,512 | 3,884,354 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | 7,603,676 | — | 6,287,212 | 10,608,953 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | 697,000 | 697,000 | 697,000 | 697,000 | 697,000 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 697,000 | 10,600,031 | 697,000 | 8,765,707 | 19,266,894 |
Potential Payments to Mr. Anstice upon Termination or Change in Control as of December 5, 2019 | ||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | ||||
Compensation | ||||
Severance | — | |||
Short-term Incentive(5-year average) | — | |||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | |||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | |||
Service-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | |||
Performance-based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | |||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | — | |||
Total | — |
Potential Payments to Ms. O’Dowd upon Termination or Change in Control as of June 25, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination | ||||||||||||||||||||
Voluntary Termination ($) | Disability or Death ($) | For Cause ($) | Not for Cause ($) | Change in Control ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Compensation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Severance | — | — | — | — | 693,512 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (5-year average) | — | — | — | — | 646,752 | |||||||||||||||
Short-term Incentive (pro rata) | — | — | — | — | 179,653 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term Incentives: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 887,199 | |||||||||||||||
Service-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 1,675,196 | |||||||||||||||
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units (Unvested and Accelerated) | — | — | — | — | 4,580,062 | |||||||||||||||
Benefits and Perquisites | ||||||||||||||||||||
Health Benefit Continuation/Retiree Health Plans | 558,000 | 558,000 | 558,000 | 558,000 | 558,000 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 558,000 | 558,000 | 558,000 | 558,000 | 9,220,374 |
In accordance with SEC rules, we are providing the ratio of the annual total compensation of our Chief Executive Officer, or the CEO, to the median of the annual total compensation of our employees (other than the CEO). The fiscal year 2019 annual total compensation of our CEO, Mr. Archer, was $13,745,109, the fiscal year 2019 annual total compensation of our median compensated employee (other than the CEO) was $95,689, and the ratio of these amounts was 144 to 1.
This pay ratio is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with SEC rules based on our human resources system of record and the methodology described below. Because the SEC rules for identifying the median compensated employee and calculating the pay ratio based on that employee’s annual total compensation allow companies to adopt a variety of methodologies, to apply certain exclusions, and to make reasonable estimates and
assumptions that reflect their compensation practices, the pay ratio reported by other companies may not be comparable to the pay ratio reported above, as other companies may have different employment and compensation practices and may utilize different methodologies, exclusions, estimates, and assumptions in calculating their own pay ratios.
As permitted under the SEC rules, we are using the same median employee identified for purposes of our fiscal year 2018 CEO pay ratio, as we believe the changes to our employee population and compensation have not significantly impacted our pay ratio. For purposes of identifying our median compensated employee in fiscal year 2018, we used our global employee population as of June 24, 2018, identified based on our human resources system of record. We used total direct compensation as our consistently applied compensation measure for such population. In this context, total direct compensation means the sum of the applicable
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 45 |
annual base salaries determined as of June 24, 2018, the incentive cash target amount payable for service in calendar year 2018, and the approved value of the annual equity awards granted during fiscal year 2018 for our global employee population. We annualized the annual base salary and incentive cash target amounts for all employees who did not work for the entire year. Given its global population, the Company used the foreign currency exchange rates in effect
at the end of fiscal year 2018 to determine the annual total direct compensation and therefore the median compensated employee. After identifying our median compensated employee, we then calculated the annual total direct compensation for our median compensated employee using the same methodology used for the Company’s CEO as set forth in the “Summary Compensation Table”of this proxy statement.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Underunder Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides information, as of June 25, 2017,30, 2019, regarding securities authorized for issuance under the Company’s equity compensation plans. The Company’s equity compensation plans include the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2011 Stock Incentive Plan, and the 2015 Stock Incentive Plan, each as amended and as may be amended. Since November 4, 2015, the Company has issued awards under the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2015 Stock Incentive Plan.Plan, each as amended. The 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan was amended and restated by the Board on August 29, 2018 and approved at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Please see “Proposal No. 3: Approval of the Adoption of the Lam Research Corporation 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as Amended and Restated” in the 2018 proxy statement for additional information.
Figure 39. FYE201747. FYE2019 Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans
Plan Category | Number of Securities to be | Weighted-Average ($) (b) | Number of Securities (c) | Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants, and Rights (a) | Weighted-Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants, and Rights (1) ($) (b) | Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a)) (c) | ||||||||||||||||||
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders | 3,803,137 | (2) | 66.51 | 17,565,909 | (3) |
| 2,860,328 | (2) |
| 129.64 |
|
| 16,308,432 | (3) | ||||||||||
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders | 340,983 | (4) | 80.60 | — |
| 83,601 | (4) |
| 48.16 |
|
| — |
| |||||||||||
Total | 4,144,120 | 66.69 | 17,565,909 |
| 2,943,929 |
|
| 115.96 |
|
| 16,308,432 |
|
(1) | Does not include RSUs. |
(2) | Includes |
(3) | Includes |
(4) | Includes |
Continues on next page u
|
The audit committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board that outlines its purpose and responsibilities. The audit committee reviews and assesses the adequacy of its charter at least annually and, when appropriate, recommends to the Board changes to its charter to reflect the evolving role of the audit committee. The charter of the audit committee is available on the Investors section of our website athttps://investor.lamresearch.com/corporate-governance.
The audit committee is composed entirely of directors who meet the independence requirements of Nasdaq and the SEC, and who otherwise satisfy the requirements for audit committee service imposed by the Exchange Act. The Board has designated four out of five audit committee members as “audit committee financial experts” under the SEC rules.
The Company’s management, audit committee, and independent registered public accounting firm (Ernst & Young LLP) have specific but different responsibilities relating to Lam’s financial reporting. Lam’s management is responsible for the preparation, presentation and integrity of financial statements and for the system of internal control and the financial reporting process. Ernst & Young LLP, or “EY,” has the responsibility to express an opinion on the financial statements and the system of internal control over financial reporting, based on the audit they conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (U.S.). The audit committee is responsible for monitoring and overseeing these processes. The audit committee relies on the expertise and knowledge of management, the internal audit department, and the independent auditor in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
In accordance with applicable law, the audit committee has ultimate authority and responsibility for selecting, compensating, evaluating, and, when appropriate, replacing the Company’s independent audit firm, and evaluates its independence. The audit committee has the authority to
engage its own outside advisors, including experts as the committee considers necessary to carry out its responsibilities, apart from counsel or advisors hired by management.
In this context and in connection with the audited financial statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2017,30, 2019, the audit committee took the following actions:
This Audit Committee Report shall not be deemed “filed” with the SEC for purposes of federal securities law, and it shall not, under any circumstances, be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s past or future SEC filings. The report shall not be deemed soliciting material.
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Eric K. Brandt (Chair)
Michael R. Cannon
Christine A. Heckart
Bethany J. Mayer
Leslie F. Varon
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 47 |
Relationship with Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
EY has audited the Company’s consolidated financial statements since the Company’s inception.
Annual Evaluation and Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The audit committee annually evaluates the performance of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, including the senior audit engagement team, and determines whether to reengage the current accounting firm or consider other audit firms. Factors considered by the audit committee in deciding whether to retain EY include: (1) EY’s global
capabilities to handle the breadth and complexity of the
Company’s global operations; (2) EY’s technical expertise and knowledge of the Company’s industry and global operations; (3) the quality and candor of EY’s communications with the audit committee and management; (4) EY’s independence; (5) the quality and efficiency of the services provided by EY, including input from management on EY’s performance and how effectively EY demonstrated its independent judgment, objectivity and professional skepticism; (6) the appropriateness of EY’s fees; and (7) EY’s tenure as our independent auditor, including the benefits of that tenure, and the controls and processes in place (such as rotation of key partners) that help ensure EY’s continued independence in the facelight of such tenure.
Figure 40.48. Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Evaluation and Selection Highlights
Independence Controls |
Audit Committee Oversight– Oversight includes regular private sessions with EY, discussions with EY about the scope of its audit and business imperatives, a comprehensive annual evaluation when determining whether to engage EY, and direct involvement by the audit committee and its chair in the selection of a new lead assurance engagement partner and new global coordinating partner in connection with the mandated rotation of these positions. |
Limits onNon-Audit Services– The audit committee preapproves audit and permissiblenon-audit services provided by EY in accordance with itspre-approval policy. |
EY’s Internal Independence Process– EY conducts periodic internal reviews of its audit and other work, assesses the adequacy of partners and other personnel working on the Company’s account, and rotates the lead assurance engagement partner, the global coordinating partner, and other partners on the engagement consistent with independence and rotation requirements established by the PCAOB and SEC. |
Strong Regulatory Framework– EY, as an independent registered public accounting firm, is subject to PCAOB inspections, “Big 4” peer reviews and PCAOB and SEC oversight. |
Benefits of Longer Tenure |
Enhanced Audit Quality – EY’s significant institutional knowledge of, and deep expertise |
Competitive Fees – Because of EY’s familiarity with the Company and the industry, audit and other fees are competitive with peer independent registered public accounting firms. |
Avoid Costs Associated with New Auditor– Bringing on a new independent registered public accounting firm would be costly and require a significant time commitment, which could lead to management distractions. |
Fees Billed by Ernst & Young LLP
The table below shows the fees billed by EY for audit and other services provided to the Company in fiscal years 20172019 and 2016.2018.
Figure 41. FY2017/201648. FY2019/2018 Fees Billed by Ernst & Young LLP
Fiscal Year 2019 ($) | Fiscal Year 2018 ($) | |||||||||||||||
Fiscal Year 2017 ($) | Fiscal Year 2016 ($) | |||||||||||||||
Audit Fees(1) | 4,176,990 | 4,697,837 | 4,703,830 | 4,605,495 | ||||||||||||
Audit-Related Fees(2) | 135,684 | 373,721 | 27,000 | 90,500 | ||||||||||||
Tax Fees(3) | 71,673 | 265,527 | 194,170 | 34,888 | ||||||||||||
All Other Fees | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||
TOTAL | 4,384,347 | 5,337,085 | 4,925,000 | 4,730,883 |
(1) | Audit Fees represent fees for professional services provided in connection with the audits of annual financial statements. Audit Fees also include reviews of quarterly financial statements, audit services related to other statutory or regulatory filings or engagements, and fees related to EY’s audit of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting pursuant to section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. |
(2) | Audit-Related Fees represent fees for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements and are not reported above under “Audit Fees”. These fees principally include due diligence and accounting |
(3) | Tax Fees represent fees for professional services for tax planning, tax compliance and review services related to foreign tax compliance and assistance with tax audits and appeals. |
Continues on next page u
The audit committee reviewed summaries of the services provided by EY and the related fees during fiscal year 20172019 and has determined that the provision ofnon-audit services was compatible with maintaining the independence of EY as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The audit committee or its delegate approved 100% of the services and related fee amounts for services provided by EY during fiscal year 2017.2019.
Policy on Audit CommitteePre-Approval of Audit andNon-Audit Services
It is the responsibility of the audit committee to approve, in accordance with sections 10A(h) and (i) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC, all professional services to be provided to us by our independent registered public accounting firm, provided that the audit committee shallmay not approve anynon-audit services proscribed by section 10A(g) of the Exchange Act in the absence of an applicable exemption.
It is our policy that the audit committeepre-approves all audit and permissiblenon-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, consistent with the criteria set forth in the audit committee charter and applicable laws and regulations. The audit committee has delegated to the chair of the audit committee the authority topre-approve such services, provided that the chair shall report any decisions topre-approve such services to the full audit committee at its next regular meeting. These services may include audit services, audit-related services, tax services, and other services. Our independent registered public accounting firm and our management are required to periodically report to the audit committee regarding the extent of services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to any suchpre-approval.
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions
The audit committee is responsible for the review and oversight of all related party transactions required to be disclosed to the public under SEC rules pursuant to its written charter. In addition, the Company maintains a written code of ethics that requires all employees, officers and directors to act ethically when handling any actual or apparent conflicts of interest in personal and professional relationships and to promptly report any such issues to the Company’s legal department.
No family relationships exist as of the date of this proxy statement or existed during fiscal year 20172019 among any of our directors and executive officers. There waswere only onetwo related party transactiontransactions (including employment and compensation associated therewith) that occurred since the beginning of
fiscal year 2017.2019. The son of Stephen G. Newberry, the chairman of our Board, Ryan Newberry, is employed by the Company as a manager of security. In addition, thedaughter-in-law of Stephen G. Newberry, Meghan Newberry, is employed by the Company as a manager of materials in the supply chain
operations group. In fiscal year 2017,2019, the aggregate compensation paid to Ryan Newberry and Meghan Newberry, including salary, incentive compensation, the grant date value of long-term incentive awards and the value of any other health and benefits contributed to or paid for by the Company, was less than $200,000 each. The aggregate compensation for each is similar to the aggregate compensation of other employees holding equivalent positions.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 49 |
|
Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors
This first proposal relates to the election to our Board of ten10 nominees who are directors of the Company as of the date of this proxy statement. In general, the ten10 nominees identified in this proposal who receive the highest number of “for” votes will be elected. However, any nominee who fails to receive affirmative approval from holders of a majority of the votes cast in such nominee’s election at the annual meeting, either by proxy or in person, will not be elected to the Board, even if he or she is among the top ten10 nominees in total “for” votes. This requirement reflects the majority vote provisions implemented by the Company in November 2009. The term of office of each person elected as a director will be until the next annual meeting of stockholders, and until his or her successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier resignation or removal.
Unless otherwise instructed, the Proxypeople named on the proxy card as proxy holders, the “Proxy Holders, (as defined in “Voting and Meeting Information – Information Concerning Solicitation and Voting – Voting Instructions” below) will vote the proxies received by them for the ten10 nominees named below, each of whom is currently a director of the Company. The proxies cannot be voted for more than ten10 nominees, whether or not there are additional nominees. If any nominee of the Company should decline or be unable to serve as a director as of the time of the annual meeting, andthen unless otherwise instructed, the proxies will be voted for any substitute nominee designated by the present Board to fill the vacancy. The Company is not aware of any nominee who will be unable, or will decline, to serve as a director.
The below nominees for election or reelection have been nominated for election to the Board in accordance with the criteria and procedures discussed above in “Governance Matters -–Corporate Governance.”
Appointment of new director.New Directors.As part of the Board’s self-evaluation process,its Board refreshment planning and continued focus on diversity, the Board identified the desirability of having additional representation by former executivesaugmenting its skills and experiences in three areas: operational leadership with technology industry experience including outside of the Company’ssemiconductor ecosystem, an audit committee financial expert, and a former executive of a major customerscustomer.
The Board retained a third-party search firm in connection with the first two areas and from executives of global businesses, especially ones headquartered in countries whereselected Ms. Mayer as having operational leadership with technology industry experience including outside the Company conducts significant business. The Boardsemiconductor ecosystem, and Ms. Varon as an audit committee financial expert.
believed that its members would be able to identify qualified candidatesThe Board identified Mr. Ahmed as a candidate without the involvement of a recruiting firm. After considering a number of individuals, Young Bum (YB) Koh, Ph.D.Mr. Ahmed was identifiedintroduced by Mr. Archer and selected as a potential candidate by Mr. Ansticedirector because of his leadership positions at Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, his substantial high-technology operations knowledge and expertise, his understandingexperience as a former executive of one of the semiconductor equipment business, his international leadershipCompany’s major customers, who had significant experience in research, developmentworking with the Company.
Over the course of several months, Mses. Mayer and manufacturingVaron and his distinguished career. See “2017 Nominees for Director” below for additional information regarding Dr. Koh’s qualifications. Dr. KohMr. Ahmed met with most of our directors, including our chairman, lead independent director/nominating and governance committee chair, compensationmembers of the nominating and auditgovernance committee, chairsadditional board members, and our president and CEO, as well as representatives of the Company’s executive team. Following those meetings, the nominating and governance committee recommended Dr. Koh’sall of these candidates for appointment to the full Board. The Board, discussedafter discussing the recommendation and increasing the size of the Board, approved the recommendation of the committee and appointed the candidates to the Board.
Board Size.The 10 directors to be elected in this recommendation.proposal are fewer than the 12 members of the Board as of the date of mailing. As previously disclosed in a current report on Form8-K, Mr. Newberry is retiring from and Ms. Heckart is resigning from the Board effective as of November 4, 2019, just before the date of the 2019 annual meeting, at which time the size of the Board will be reduced to 10.
Information regarding each nominee.Regarding Each Nominee.In addition to the biographical information concerning each nominee’s specific experience, attributes, positions and qualifications and age as of September 11, 2017,6, 2019, we believe that each of our nominees, while serving as a director and/or officer of the Company, has devoted adequate time to the Board and performed his or her duties with critical attributes such as honesty, integrity, wisdom, and an adherence to high ethical standards. Each nominee has demonstrated strong business acumen, an ability to make independent analytical inquiries, to understand the Company’s business environment and to exercise sound judgment, as well as a commitment to the Company and its core values. We believe the nominees have an appropriate diversity and interplay ofdiverse viewpoints, skills, backgrounds, and experiences that will encourage a robust decision-making process for the Board.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE TEN10 DIRECTOR NOMINEES SET FORTH BELOW.
Sohail U. Ahmed Director since 2019 Age 61 | Mr. Ahmed is the former Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Technology and Manufacturing Group at Intel Corporation, a leading producer of microchips, computing and communications products, where he was responsible for overseeing the research and development and deployment of next-generation silicon logic technologies for production of future Intel microprocessors. He held that position from January 2015 to October 2018. Immediately prior to that, he was Corporate Vice President and General Manager, Logic Technology Department at Intel from 2004 to January 2015. Mr. Ahmed joined Intel in 1984, working as a process engineer, and held progressive technical and management positions in logic process development. Mr. Ahmed earned an M.S. degree in chemical engineering from the University of California, Davis, and a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Southern California. The Board has concluded that Mr. Ahmed should serve as a director of the Company because of his extensive knowledge and experience acquired as an executive of a major semiconductor manufacturer focused on next-generation silicon logic technologies, his deep knowledge and understanding of semiconductor processing equipment technologies, and his experience as a senior executive of a major Company customer. | |
Timothy M. Archer Director since 2018 Age 52 | Timothy M. Archer has served as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer since December 5, 2018. Mr. Archer joined the Company in June 2012 as our executive vice president, chief operating officer; and was promoted to president and chief operating officer in January 2018. Prior to joining us, he spent 18 years at Novellus Systems, Inc. in various technology development and business leadership roles, including most recently as chief operating officer from January 2011 to June 2012; executive vice president of Worldwide Sales, Marketing, and Customer Satisfaction from September 2009 to January 2011; and executive vice president of the PECVD and Electrofill Business Units from November 2008 to September 2009. His tenure at Novellus also included assignments as senior director of technology for Novellus Systems Japan from 1999 to 2001 and senior director of technology for the Electrofill Business Unit from April 2001 to April 2002. He started his career in 1989 at Tektronix, where he was responsible for process development for high-speed bipolar integrated circuits. Mr. Archer completed the Program for Management Development at the Harvard Graduate School of Business and earned a B.S. degree in applied physics from the California Institute of Technology. The Board has concluded that Mr. Archer should serve as a director of the Company because of his strong leadership; his knowledge and experience acquired from his current service as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company, and his past service as President and Chief Operating Officer, and as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company; his deep knowledge and understanding of semiconductor processing equipment technologies; his understanding of our customers’ markets and needs; and his mergers and acquisitions experience. |
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
|
| |
Eric K. Brandt Director since 2010 Age
Board Committees: • Audit ° Chair since 2014 ° Member: 2010-2014 • Nominating and Governance ° Recently appointed member
Public company • Altaba Inc. (formerly • Dentsply Sirona Inc. • The Macerich Company • Yahoo! Inc. (former) |
Eric K. Brandt is the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Broadcom Corporation, a global supplier of semiconductor devices, a position he held from March 2007 until its merger with Avago Technologies Limited in February 2016. From September 2005 to March 2007, Mr. Brandt served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company. Prior to Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Brandt was Executive Vice President-Finance and Technical Operations and Chief Financial Officer of Allergan Inc., a global specialty pharmaceutical company, where he also held a number of other senior positions following his arrival there in May 1999.
Mr. Brandt has served as a member of the board of directors of: The Macerich Company, a real estate investment trust focused on regional malls, since June 2018, where he is a member of the compensation committee; Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo! Inc.), a management investment company that remained and was subsequently renamed following the completion of Yahoo!’s sale of its operating businesses in June 2017, since its inception, where he has served as chairman of the board, chair of the audit committee and nominating and governance committee, and a member of the compensation committee;
He previously served on the board of directors of: MC10, Inc., a privately-held medical device Internet of Things (IoT) company, from March 2016 until February 2018, where he was chair of the compensation committee and governance committee; Yahoo! Inc., a digital information discovery company, since March 2016 to June 2017, where he
Mr. Brandt earned an M.B.A. degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Business and a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Board has concluded that Mr. Brandt
|
Michael R. Cannon Director since 2011 Age
Board Committees: • Audit ° Member since 2011
• Nominating and Governance ° Member since 2011
Public company • Dialog Semiconductor • Seagate Technology Public Limited
• Adobe Systems Inc. (former) |
Michael R. Cannon is the General Partner of MRC & LBC Partners, LLC, a private management consulting company. From February 2007 until his retirement in January 2009, Mr. Cannon served as President of Global Operations of Dell Inc., a computer systems manufacturer and services provider; and from January 2009 to January 2011, he served as a consultant to Dell. Prior to joining Dell, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of Solectron Corporation, an electronic manufacturing services company, from January 2003 to February 2007. From July 1996 to January 2003, Mr. Cannon served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Maxtor Corporation, a disk drive and storage systems manufacturer. Prior to joining Maxtor, Mr. Cannon held senior management positions at International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), a global services, software and systems company.
Mr. Cannon has served as a member of the board of directors of: Seagate Technology Public Limited, a disk drive and storage solutions company, since February 2011, where he became lead independent director in October 2016 and has been a chair of the nominations and governance committee and a member of the compensation committee and was a member of the audit and finance committees; and Dialog Semiconductor, a mixed signal integrated circuits company, since February 2013, where he has been a chair of the remuneration committee and a member of the nomination committee.
He previously served on the board of directors of Adobe Systems Inc., a diversified software company, from December 2003 to April 2016, where he had been a member of the audit committee and chair of the compensation committee; Elster Group SE, a precision metering and smart grid technology company, from October 2010 until the company was acquired in August 2012; Solectron Corporation, an electronic manufacturing services company, from January 2003 to January 2007; and Maxtor Corporation, a disk drive and storage solutions company, from July 1996 until Seagate acquired Maxtor in May 2006.
Mr. Cannon studied mechanical engineering at Michigan State University and completed the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Business.
The Board has concluded that Mr. Cannon
|
Continues on next page u
Youssef A.El-Mansy Director since 2012 Age
Board Committees: • Compensation and Human Resources ° Member since 2012
|
Youssef A.El-Mansy is the retired Vice President, Director of Logic Technology Development, at Intel Corporation, a leading producer of microchips, computing and communications products, where he was responsible for managing technology development, the processor design center for Intel’s Technology and Manufacturing Group and two wafer manufacturing facilities. Dr.
Dr.
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or “IEEE,” and has been awarded the 2004 IEEE Frederik Philips Award for leadership in developingstate-of-the-art logic technologies and the 2013 IEEE Robert Noyce Medal for establishing a highly effective Research-Development-Manufacturing methodology that led to industry leadership in logic technology.
Dr.
The Board has concluded that Dr.
| |
|
|
|
|
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Catherine P. Lego Director since 2006 Age
Board Committees: • Audit ° Chair: 2009 – 2014 ° Member: 2006 – 2015 • Compensation and Human Resources ° Chair since 2015 • Nominating and Governance ° Member since 2014
Public company • Cypress Semiconductor Corp. • Guidewire Software, Inc. • IPG Photonics Corporation • Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc. (former) • SanDisk Corporation (former) |
Catherine P. Lego is the founder of Lego Ventures LLC, a consulting services firm for early stage electronics companies,
Ms. Lego has served as a member of the board of directors of Guidewire Software, Inc., an industry platform provider for property and casualty insurers, since September 2019; Cypress Semiconductor Corp., an advanced embedded solutions company for automotive and other products, since September 2017, where she is chair of the audit committee and a member of the
She previously served on the board of directors of the following public companies: Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc., a fabricator of power management devices, from August 2013 to September 2016, where she was a member of the compensation committee and nominating and governance committee; SanDisk Corporation, a global developer of flash memory storage solutions from 1989 to 2016, where she was the chair of the audit committee; ETEC Corporation, a producer of electron beam lithography tools, from 1991 through 1997; Uniphase Corporation (presently JDS Uniphase Corporation), a designer and manufacturer of components and modules for the fiber optic based telecommunications industry and laser-based semiconductor defect examination and analysis equipment, from 1994 until 1999, when it merged with JDS Fitel; Zitel Corporation, an information technology company, from 1995 to 2000; WJ Communications, Inc., a broadband communications company, from October 2004 to May 2008; and Micro Linear Corporation, a fabless analog semiconductor company. Ms. Lego also served as a member of the board of directors of other technology companies that are privately-held.
Ms. Lego earned an M.S. degree in accounting from the New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business and a B.A. degree in economics and biology from Williams College.
The Board has concluded that Ms. Lego
|
Director since Age
Board Committees: • Audit ° Recently appointed member Public company • • • Delphi Automotive PLC • Ixia (former) |
Ms. Mayer previously served on the boards of directors of SnapRoute, Inc., a privately-held developer of open source network stacks for enterprises, from
The Board has concluded that
|
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar Lead Independent Director Director since 2011 Age
Board Committees: • Compensation and Human Resources ° Chair: 2012 – 2015 ° Member since 2015 • Nominating and Governance ° Chair since 2015 ° Member: 2015-2015
Public company • Advanced Micro Devices Inc. • iRhythm Technologies Inc. • TE Connectivity Ltd.
• LSI Corporation (former) |
Abhijit Y. Talwalkar is the former President and Chief Executive Officer of LSI Corporation, a leading provider of silicon, systems and software technologies for the storage and networking markets, a position he held from May 2005 until the completion of LSI’s merger with Avago Technologies in May 2014. From 1993 to 2005, Mr. Talwalkar was employed by Intel Corporation, a leading producer of microchips, computing and communications products. At Intel, he held a number of senior management positions, including as Corporate Vice President andCo-General Manager of the Digital Enterprise Group, which was comprised of Intel’s business client, server, storage and communications business, and as Vice President and General Manager for the Intel Enterprise Platform Group, where he focused on developing, marketing, and supporting Intel business strategies for enterprise computing. Prior to joining Intel, Mr. Talwalkar held senior engineering and marketing positions at Sequent Computer Systems, a multiprocessing computer systems design and manufacturer that later became a part of IBM; Bipolar Integrated Technology, Inc., a
Mr. Talwalkar has served as a member of the board of directors of: Advanced Micro Devices Inc., a developer of high performance computing, graphics and visualization technologies, since June 2017, where he serves as a member of the compensation and leadership resources committee and the nominating and corporate governance committee; TE Connectivity Ltd, a connectivity and sensor solutions company, since March
He previously served as a member of the board of directors of LSI from May 2005 to May 2014 and the U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association
Mr. Talwalkar earned a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Oregon State University.
The Board has concluded that Mr. Talwalkar
|
Lih Shyng (Rick L.) Tsai Director since 2016 Age
Board Committees: • Compensation and ° Recently appointed Public company • MediaTek Inc. • • NXP Semiconductors N.V. •
|
Rick L. Tsai has served as the
Dr. Tsai has served as a member of the board of directors
He previously served on the board of directors of: USI Corporation, a Taiwanese-listed polyethylene manufacturer, from June 2014 until March 2019; NXP Semiconductors N.V., from July 2014 until June 2017; Chunghwa Telecom from January 2014 until December 2016, where he served as chairman; TSMC from 2003 to 2013; TSMC Solar and TSMC SSL from August 2011 to January 2014, where he served as their chairman; and Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association (TSIA) from June 2009 to March 2013, where he served as chairman.
Dr. Tsai earned a Ph.D. degree in material science and engineering from Cornell University and a B.S. degree in physics from the National Taiwan University in Taipei, Taiwan.
The Board has concluded that Dr. Tsai
|
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
Leslie F. Varon Director since 2019 Age 62 Board Committees: • Audit ° Recently appointed member Public company director- ships in last five years: • Dentsply Sirona Inc. • Hamilton Lane | Ms. Varon is the former Chief Financial Officer of Xerox Corporation, a document solutions company, a position she held from November 2015 until December 2016. From January 2017 until March 2017, when she retired from the company, she was a Special Advisor to the then new Xerox Chief Executive Officer. Her previous leadership roles during her tenure at Xerox include: Vice President, Investor Relations from March 2015 until October 2015; Vice President, Finance and Corporate Controller from July 2006 until February 2015, where she oversaw global financial operating executives and had responsibility for corporate financial planning and analysis, accounting, internal audit, risk management, global real estate and worldwide shared services centers; Vice President, North America Finance and Operational Support from October 2004 until June 2006; Vice President, Investor Relations and Corporate Secretary from 1997 until September 2004; and Director of Corporate Audit from 1993 until 1997. Ms. Varon has served as a member of the boards of directors of: Dentsply Sirona, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of dental product solutions, since January 2018, where she chairs the audit and finance committee; and Hamilton Lane, a private markets investment company, since May 2017, where she is the chair of the audit committee. She previously served on the board of directors of Xerox International Partners, a joint venture of Xerox and Fuji Xerox, from July 2006 until March 2017. Ms. Varon earned an M.B.A. degree from Virginia Tech, and a B.S. degree in Psychology from Binghamton University. The Board has concluded that Ms. Varon should serve as a director of the Company because of her substantial finance experience; her qualifications as an audit committee financial expert; her leadership experience as a former chief financial officer; her board governance experience on other public company boards, including her service as a current chair of two other public company audit committees; and her mergers and acquisitions experience. |
Proposal No. 2: Advisory Vote to Approve Our Named Executive Officer Compensation, or “Say on Pay”
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 orand section 14A of the “Dodd-FrankExchange Act” enables enable the Company’s stockholders to vote to approve, on an advisory ornon-binding basis, our named executive officer compensation, as disclosed in this proxy statement in accordance with SEC rules. Although the vote is advisory and is not binding on us or on our Board, our compensation and human resources committee and, as appropriate, our Board, will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation decisions and will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address stockholder concerns.
We believe that our compensation philosophy has allowed us to attract, retain, and motivate qualified executive officers who have contributed to our success. For more information regarding the compensation of our named executive officers, our compensation philosophy, our 20162018 Say on Pay results and our response, we encourage you to read the section of this proxy statement entitled “Compensation Matters– Executive Compensation and Other Information – Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the compensation tables, and the narrative following the compensation tables for a more detailed discussion of our compensation policies and practices.
We are asking for stockholder approval, on an advisory ornon-binding basis, of the following resolution:
‘RESOLVED, that the stockholders of Lam Research Corporation (the Company) hereby approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of SEC RegulationS-K, including the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the compensation tables and any related narrative disclosure included in the proxy statement.’
Each proxy received by the Proxy Holders will be voted “FOR” the advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, unless the stockholder provides other instructions.
This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the policies and practices described in this proxy statement.
We provide for annual advisory votes to approve the compensation of our named executive officers. Unless stockholders approve a different frequency for the advisory vote in Proposal No. 3,modified, the next advisory vote to approve our named executive officer compensation will be at the 20182020 annual meeting.
Stockholder approval of Proposal No. 2 requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock having voting power present, in person or by proxy, at the annual meeting.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL, ON AN ADVISORY ORNON-BINDING BASIS, OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION.
Proposal No. 3: Advisory Vote to Approve the Frequency of Holding Future Stockholder Advisory Votes on Our Named Executive Officer Compensation, or “Say on Frequency”
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and Section 14A of the Exchange Act enables our stockholders to indicate, at least once every six years, how frequently we should seek a non-binding advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation. By voting on this Proposal No. 3, stockholders may indicate whether they would prefer to hold a non-binding advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation once every one, two, or three years.
After careful consideration, our compensation committee and Board have determined that a non-binding advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation that occurs annually is the most appropriate alternative for the Company and our stockholders, and therefore our Board recommends that you vote for a one-year interval for the non-binding advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation, or “Say on Frequency.”
We believe that an annual vote will continue to allow our stockholders the ability to frequently communicate to us their position on the compensation of our named executive officers
through a non-binding advisory vote on named executive officer compensation. An annual vote further aligns to our annual cash program and the metric that guides that program as well as to our annual granting of long-term equity compensation to the NEOs.
The frequency option (once every “one year”, “two years”, or “three years”) that receives the highest number of votes cast by stockholders will be the frequency for the advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation that has been selected by stockholders. However, because this vote is advisory and not binding on the Company, the compensation committee or the Board, the Board may decide that it is in the best interests of our stockholders and the Company to hold an advisory vote on our named executive officer compensation more or less frequently than the option approved by our stockholders.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE APPROVAL, ON AN ADVISORY OR NON-BINDING BASIS, OF HOLDING EVERY “ONE YEAR” ADVISORY VOTES ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation 2019 Proxy Statement | 59 |
Proposal No. 4:3: Ratification of the Appointment of theErnst & Young LLP as our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for Fiscal Year 20182020
Stockholders are being asked to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP, or “EY,”EY as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2018.2020. Although the audit committee has the sole authority to appoint the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, as a matter of good corporate governance, the Board submits its selection to our stockholders for ratification. If the stockholders shoulddo not ratify the appointment of EY, the audit committee will contemplate whether to reconsider the appointment. EY has been the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm (independent auditor) since fiscal year 1981.
Each proxy received by the Proxy Holders will be voted “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of EY, unless the stockholder provides other instructions.
Our audit committee meets periodically with EY to review both audit andnon-audit services performed by EY, as well as the fees charged for those services. Among other things, the committee examines the effect that the performance ofnon-audit services, if any, may have upon the independence of the
independent registered public accounting firm. All
professional services provided by EY, includingnon-audit services, if any, are subject to approval by the audit committee in accordance with applicable securities laws, rules, and regulations. For more information, see “Audit Matters – -Audit Committee Report” and “Audit Matters – Relationship with Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” above.
A representative of EY is expected to be present at the annual meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement if he or she so desires. The representative will also be available to respond to appropriate questions from the stockholders.
Stockholder approval of Proposal No. 43 requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock having voting power present, in person or by proxy, at the annual meeting.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018.2020.
Continues on next page u
Proposal No. 5: Stockholder Proposal, If Properly Presented at the Annual Meeting, Regarding Annual Disclosure of EEO-1 Data
Representatives of the New York City Comptroller (the “Proponent”), on behalf of the New York City Pension Funds, 1 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, have advised that the New York City Pension Funds are the beneficial owner of 263,858 shares of the Company’s common stock and that the Proponent intends to introduce a proposal for the consideration of stockholders at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the text of which reads as follows.
RESOLVED:Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt and enforce a policy requiring Lam Research Corporation (the “Company”) to disclose annually its EEO-1 data — a comprehensive breakdown of its workforce by race and gender according to 10 employment categories — on its website or in its corporate social responsibility report, beginning in 2017.
Supporting Statement from Proponent
Diversity matters. Numerous studies suggest that companies with comprehensive diversity policies and programs, and strong leadership commitment to implement and fully integrate diversity into their culture and practices, enhance long-term shareholder value. A McKinsey & Company global study (Diversity Matters, February 2015), for example, found that “companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry median.”
Workplace diversity provides competitive advantage by generating diverse, valuable perspectives, creativity, innovation and adaptation, increased productivity and morale, while eliminating the limitations of “groupthink.” It also reduces potential legal and reputational risks associated with workplace discrimination and builds corporate reputations as fair employers.
The high tech industry of which the company is a part, is characterized by persistent and pervasive underrepresentation of minorities and women, particularly in senior positions.
Based on 2014 EEO-1 filings, the EEOC Commission estimates that the high tech industry is over 64% male and over 68% white. Blacks, Hispanics and women are under-represented in high tech compared to their representation in all private industries. Black and Hispanic representation at the
executive, managerial and professional levels is between one and five percent, and women representation at these levels is between 20% and 30%. All three groups’ representation at these levels in high tech is lower than for all private industries (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/upload/diversity-in-high-tech-report.pdf).
Lam Research provides no information on the gender and racial makeup of its total workforce. This does not allow investors to fully evaluate the company’s diversity initiatives and their impact, especially across job categories and particularly in more senior roles. Without more detailed quantitative information on a comparable basis, shareholders have no way to evaluate and benchmark the effectiveness of these efforts over time and relative to peers.
Federal law requires companies with 100 or more employees to annually submit an EEO-1 Report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The report profiles a company’s workforce by race and gender in 10 job categories, including senior management.
Over two-thirds of S&P 100 companies now disclose EEO-1 data, including companies in the technology industry such as Apple, Alphabet, Salesforce and Ingram Micro.
The proposal does not limit the company from providing more detailed quantitative and qualitative disclosures where appropriate. We also encourage the company to describe the steps it is taking and the challenges it faces in moving forward to achieve its diversity plans and goals.
Board of Directors’ Voting Recommendation and Statement in Opposition to Stockholder Proposal
The Board has considered the stockholder proposal, believes it is not in the best interests of stockholders and recommends a vote AGAINST the proposal because:
Lam Research believes that workforce diversity and inclusion contributes to the Company’s success by enhancing creativity, innovation, and speed to the right solutions and is committed to fostering and celebrating diversity and inclusion in our workforce. However, the Board has concluded that adoption of the proposal and disclosure of the EEO-1 data would not assist our stockholders in evaluating and benchmarking the effectiveness of our diversity and inclusion efforts over time and relative to our peers, or provide an appropriate platform for a meaningful discussion about diversity and inclusion.
Our commitment to diversity and inclusion in our workforce. Lam has been and continues to be committed to fostering diversity and inclusion, and we strive to maintain a culture and adherence to core values that attract and celebrate workforce diversity on a global basis. We believe that diversity promotes creativity, innovation, and mutual respect, which are all core to our values. We recognize that the unique viewpoints and experiences of every employee are important to achieving our mission to be a world-class provider of innovative technology and productivity solutions to the semiconductor industry.
Because of this, we invest in initiatives and practices to attract, engage, retain and promote employees with diverse perspectives, talents, and experiences from all around the world. Our diversity and inclusion activities include community outreach, targeted programs, and other activities intended to increase the diverse culture and experiences of our global workforce. We are active in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education for girls and women from elementary school through university level, we provide diversity-targeted scholarships, offer leadership training on diversity and inclusion, participate in sponsored presentations and programs, and offer job procurement skills training. We target the hiring and placement of veterans through our Military Hiring program. We provide opportunities for our employees to participate in cross-functional global teams, where our employees’ backgrounds and different perspectives from the global communities where we work can be reflected through the exchange and promotion of new ideas, interactions, and learnings. We also support employee-directed groups focused on diversity and inclusion and professional networking events for our employees.
Recognizing that maintaining a commitment to diversity and inclusion requires continual leadership, focus, and effort, we are committed to building on our ongoing efforts to maintain and enhance our inclusive and diverse workforce.
EEO-1 data is not reflective of Lam’s diversity and could be misinterpreted in ways that could hinder our efforts for greater diversity and inclusion.In our view, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) data does not fully reflect the job-role structure of a manufacturing company in the technology sector. The Form EEO-1, which is a government-mandated form filed annually with the EEOC on a confidential basis, requires a company to categorize its U.S. workforce by gender and race according to certain generic EEOC-mandated job categories, without allowing for company- or industry-specific factors or context. In certain circumstances, the format of the form has required Lam to categorize employees into the pre-defined job categories in ways that do not fully reflect our employees’ actual job roles or descriptions. As a result, the data could be misleading or vulnerable to misinterpretation. For these reasons, publication of the EEO-1 data would not meaningfully reflect Lam’s specific circumstances in context and would not be materially helpful for investors to understand our diversity relative to peers.
Furthermore, the EEO-1 data does not offer any insight into our actual global initiatives and practices promoting diversity and inclusion, and therefore is not a meaningful indicator of Lam’s commitment to diversity and equal employment opportunity.
Unlike the proposal’s proponents, we do not believe that disclosure of the EEO-1 data would provide an appropriate platform for a meaningful discussion about diversity and inclusion. On the contrary, disclosure of such information could hinder our efforts to attract, engage, retain and promote diverse employment candidates and employees if it is misconstrued, including by such candidates and employees. Public disclosure of the EEO-1 data also could negatively impact the Company’s interest in protecting the confidential nature of the EEOC-mandated report and data.
The Board’s recommendation against the proposal. For the reasons described above, the Board believes that public disclosure of Lam’s EEO-1 data would not be in the best interests of our stockholders.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL, IF PROPERLY PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, REGARDING ANNUAL DISCLOSURE OF EEO-1 DATA.
Continues on next page u
We are not aware of any other matters to be submitted at the annual meeting. If any other matters properly come before the annual meeting, the Proxy Holders intend to vote the shares they represent as the Board may recommend or, if the Board does not make a recommendation, as the Proxy Holders decide in their reasonable judgment. It is important that your
your stock holdings be represented at the meeting, regardless of the number of shares you hold. We urge you to complete and return the accompanying proxy card in the enclosed envelope, or vote your shares by telephone or internet, as described in the materials accompanying this proxy statement.
Voting and Meeting Information
|
Information Concerning Solicitation and Voting
Our Board solicits your proxy for the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and any adjournment or postponement of the meeting, for the purposes described in the “Notice“Notice of 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.” The sections below show important details about the annual meeting and voting.
Record Date
Only stockholders of record at the close of business on September 11, 2017,6, 2019, the “Record Date,” are entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the annual meeting.
Shares Outstanding
As of the Record Date, 162,496,503144,834,045 shares of common stock were outstanding.
Quorum
Stockholders who hold shares representing a majority of our shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote on the Record Date must be present in person or represented by proxy to constitute a quorum. A quorum is required to transact business at the annual meeting.
Inspector of Elections
The Company will appoint an inspector of elections to determine whether a quorum is present. The inspector will also tabulate the votes cast by proxy or at the annual meeting.
Effect of Abstentions and BrokerNon-Votes
Shares voted “abstain” and brokernon-votes (shares held by brokers that do not receive voting instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares, and do not have discretionary authority to vote on a matter) will be counted as present for purposes of determining whether we have a quorum. For purposes of voting results, abstentions will not be counted with respect to the election of directors but will have the effect of “no” votes with respect to other proposals, and brokernon-votes will not be counted with respect to any proposal.
Voting by Proxy
Stockholders may vote by internet, telephone, or mail, per the instructions on the accompanying proxy card.
Voting at the Meeting
Stockholders can vote in person during the meeting. Stockholders of record will be on a list held by the inspector of elections. Each beneficial owner (an owner who is not the record holder of their shares) must obtain a proxy from the beneficial owner’s brokerage firm, bank, or the stockholder of record holding such shares for the beneficial owner, and present it to the inspector of elections with a ballot. Voting in person by a stockholder as described here will replace any previous votes of that stockholder submitted by proxy.
Changing Your Vote
Stockholders of record may change their votes by revoking their proxies at any time before the polls close by (1) submitting a later-dated proxy by the internet, telephone or mail, or (2) submitting a vote in person at the annual meeting. Before the annual meeting, stockholders of record may also deliver voting instructions to: Lam Research Corporation, Attention: Secretary, 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538. If a beneficial owner holds shares through a bank or brokerage firm, or another stockholder of record, the beneficial owner must contact the stockholder of record in order to revoke any prior voting instructions.
Voting Instructions
If a stockholder completes and submits proxy voting instructions, the people named on the proxy card as proxy holders, the “ProxyProxy Holders” will follow the stockholder’s instructions. If a stockholder submits proxy voting instructions but does not include voting instructions for each item, the Proxy Holders will vote as the Board recommends on each item for which the stockholder did not include an instruction. The Proxy Holders will vote on any other matters properly presented at the annual meeting in accordance with their best judgment.
Voting Results
We will announce preliminary results at the annual meeting. We will report final voting results athttp:https://investor.lamresearch.com and in a Form8-K to be filed shortly after the annual meeting.
Availability of Proxy Materials
Beginning on September 28, 2017,25, 2019, this proxy statement and the accompanying proxy card and 20172018 Annual Report on Form10-K to Stockholders will be mailed to stockholders entitled to vote at the annual meeting who have designated a
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
the annual meeting who have designated a preference for a printed copy. Stockholders who previously chose to receive proxy materials electronically were sent an email with instructions on how to access this year’s proxy materials and the proxy voting site.
We have also provided our stockholders access to our proxy materials over the internet in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the SEC. These materials are available on our website athttp:https://investor.lamresearch.comand at www.proxyvote.com. We will furnish, without charge, a printed copy of these materials and our 20172018 Annual Report (including exhibits) on request by telephone(510-572-1615), by mail (to Investor Relations, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538), or by email (toinvestor.relations@lamresearch.com).
A Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials will be mailed beginning on September 28, 201725, 2019 to all stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting. The notice will have instructions for stockholders on how to access our proxy materials through the internet and how to request that a printed copy of the proxy materials be mailed to them. The
notice will also have instructions on how to elect to receive all
future proxy materials electronically or in printed form. If you choose to receive future proxy materials electronically, you will receive an email each year with instructions on how to access the proxy materials and proxy voting site.
Proxy Solicitation Costs
The Company will bear the cost of all proxy solicitation activities. Our directors, officers and other employees may solicit proxies personally or by telephone, email or other communication means, without any cost to Lam Research. In addition, we have retained D.F. King & Co., Inc. to assist in obtaining proxies by mail, facsimile or email from brokers, bank nominees and other institutions for the annual meeting. The estimated cost of such services is $12,000 plusout-of-pocket expenses. D.F. King & Co, Inc. may be contacted at 48 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005. We are required to request that brokers and nominees who hold stock in their names furnish our proxy materials to the beneficial owners of the stock, and we must reimburse these brokers and nominees for the expenses of doing so in accordance with statutory fee schedules.
Annual Meeting Admission
All stockholders entitled to vote as of the Record Date are entitled to attend the annual meeting. Admission of stockholders will begin at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on November 8, 2017.5, 2019. Any stockholders interested in attending the annual meeting should be prepared to present government-issued photo identification, such as a valid driver’s license or passport, and verification of ownership of Company common stock or proxy status as of the Record Date for admittance. For stockholders of record as of the Record Date, proof of ownership as of the Record Date will be verified prior to admittance into the annual meeting. For stockholders who were not stockholders as of the Record Date but hold shares through a bank, broker or other nominee holder, proof of beneficial ownership as of the Record Date, such as an account statement or similar evidence of ownership, will be verified prior to admittance into the annual meeting. For proxy holders, proof of valid proxy status will also be verified prior to admittance into the annual meeting. Stockholders and proxy holders will be admitted to the annual meeting if they comply with these procedures. Information on how to obtain directions to attend the annual meeting and vote in person is available on our website athttp:https://investor.lamresearch.com.
Voting on Proposals
Pursuant to Proposal No. 1, Board members will be elected at the annual meeting to fill ten10 seats on the Board to serve until
the next annual meeting of stockholders, and until their respective successors are elected and qualified, under a “majority vote” standard. The majority voting standard means that, even though there are ten10 nominees in total for the ten10 Board seats, a nominee will be elected only if he or she receives an affirmative “for” vote from stockholders owning, as of the Record Date, at least a majority of the shares present and voted at the meeting in such nominee’s election by proxy or in person. If an incumbent fails to receive the required majority, his or her previously submitted resignation will be promptly considered by the Board. Each stockholder may cast one vote (“for” or “withhold”), per share held, for each of the ten nominees. Stockholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors.
Each share is entitled to one vote on Proposals No. 2 3, 4 and 5.3. Votes may be cast “for,” “against” or “abstain” on Proposals No. 2 4 and 5. Votes may be cast for “one year”, “two years”, “three years” or “abstain” on Proposal 3. Approval of each of Proposals No. 2 – 5and 3 requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock present or represented by proxy and cast at the meeting.
If a stockholder votes by means of the proxy solicited by this proxy statement and does not instruct the Proxy Holders how to vote, the Proxy Holders will vote: “FOR” all individuals nominated by the Board; “FOR” approval, on an advisory basis, of our named executive officer compensation; for “ONE YEAR” approval, on an advisory basis, of the frequency of
holding future advisory votes on our named executive officer compensation;and “FOR” the ratification of EY as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2018; and “AGAINST” the stockholder proposal, if properly presented at the annual meeting, regarding annual disclosure of EEO-1 data.2020.
If you choose to vote in person, you will have an opportunity to do so at the annual meeting. You may either bring your proxy card to the annual meeting, or if you do not bring your proxy card, the Company will pass out written ballots to anyone who was a stockholder as of the Record Date. As noted above, if you are a beneficial owner (an owner who is not the record holder of their shares), you will need to obtain a proxy from your brokerage firm, bank, or the stockholder of record holding shares on your behalf.
Voting by 401(k) Plan Participants
Participants in Lam’s Savings Plus Plan, Lam Research 401(k), or the “401(k) Plan,” who held Lam common stock in their personal 401(k) Plan accounts as of the Record Date will receive this proxy statement, so that each participant may vote, by proxy, his or her interest in Lam’s common stock as held by the 401(k) Plan. The 401(k) Plan trustee will aggregate and vote proxies in accordance with the instructions in the proxies of employee participants that it receives.
Stockholder Accounts Sharing the Same Last Name and Address; Stockholders Holding Multiple Accounts
To reduce the expense of delivering duplicate proxy materials to stockholders who may have more than one account holding Lam Research stock but who share the same address, we have adopted a procedure approved by the SEC called “householding.” Under this procedure, stockholders of record who have the same address and last name will receive only one copy of our proxy statement and annual report unless one of the stockholders notifies our investor relations department that one or more of them want to receive separate copies. This procedure reduces duplicate mailings and therefore saves printing and mailing costs, as well as natural resources. Stockholders who participate in householding will continue to have access to all proxy materials athttp:https://investor.lamresearch.com, as well as the ability to submit separate proxy voting instructions for each account through the internet or by telephone.
Stockholders holding multiple accounts of Lam common stock may request separate copies of the proxy materials by contacting us by telephone(510-572-1615), by mail (to Investor Relations, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538) or by email (toinvestor.relations@lamresearch.com). Stockholders may also contact us by telephone, mail or email to request consolidation
of proxy materials mailed to multiple accounts at the same address.
Stockholder-Initiated Proposals and Nominations for 20182020 Annual Meeting
Proposals submitted under SEC rules for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement.Stockholder-initiated proposals (other
(other than director nominations) may be eligible for inclusion in our proxy statement for next year’s 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders (in accordance with SECRule 14a-8) and for consideration at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders. The Company must receive a stockholder proposal no later than May 31, 201828, 2020 for the proposal to be eligible for inclusion. Any stockholder interested in submitting a proposal or nomination is advised to contact legal counsel familiar with the detailed securities law requirements for submitting proposals or nominations for inclusion in a company’s proxy statement.
Proposed nominations of directors under Company bylaws for Proxy Access.Our bylaws provide for “Proxy Access.” Pursuant to the Proxy Access provisions of our bylaws, a stockholder, or a group of up to 20 stockholders, owning at least 3% of our outstanding common stock continuously for at least three years can nominate and include in our proxy materials director nominees constituting up to the greater of two individuals or 20% of the Board, provided that the stockholders and the nominees satisfy the requirements specified in our bylaws. If a stockholder or group of stockholders wishes to nominate one or more director candidates to be included in our proxy statement for the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders pursuant to Proxy Access, all of the information required by our bylaws must be received by the Secretary of the Company no earlier than May 1, 2018,April 28, 2020, and no later than May 31, 2018.28, 2020.
Proposals and nominations under Company bylaws for presentation at the annual meeting but for which the proponent does not seek to include materials in our proxy statement.Stockholders may also submit proposals for consideration and nominations of director candidates for election at the annual meeting by following certain requirements set forth in our bylaws. These proposals will not be eligible for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement for the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders unless they are submitted in compliance with then applicable SEC rules or pursuant to the Proxy Access described above; however, they will be presented for consideration at the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders if the requirements established by our bylaws for stockholder proposals and nominations have been satisfied.
Our bylaws establish requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations not included in our proxy statement to be considered at the annual meeting. Assuming that the 20182020 annual meeting of stockholders takes place at roughly the same date next year as the 20172019 annual meeting (and subject to any change in our bylaws – which would be publicly disclosed by the Company – and to any provisions of then-applicable SEC rules), a stockholder of record must submit the proposal or nomination in writing and it must be received by the Secretary of the Company no earlier than July 12, 2020, and no later than August 11, 2020.
Continues on next page u
Lam Research Corporation |
|
For a full description of the requirements for submitting a proposal or nomination, see the Company’s bylaws. Submissions or questions should be sent to: Secretary, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California 94538.
By Order of the Board of Directors,
Sarah A. O’Dowd
Secretary
Fremont, California
Dated: September 28, 201725, 2019
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION ATTN: INVESTOR RELATIONS 4650 CUSHING PARKWAY FREMONT, | VOTE BY INTERNET -www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time the day before the cut-off date or meeting date. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.
ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.
VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903 Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time the day before the cut-off date or meeting date. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.
VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, |
TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS: | ||||
| KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS |
DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY |
THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION |
For All |
Withhold All |
For All Except |
To withhold authority to vote for any individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Board of Directors recommends you vote FOR all ten of the nominees listed in proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Election of Directors | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nominees: 01) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
03) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
04)
05) Youssef A. El-Mansy 10) Leslie F. Varon | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Board of Directors recommends you vote FOR proposals 2 and | For | Against | Abstain | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. Advisory vote to approve the compensation of the named executive officers of Lam Research, or “Say on Pay.” | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. |
|
|
☐ |
☐ |
☐ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE:Other business that may properly come before the annual meeting (including any adjournment or postponement thereof) will be voted as the proxy holders deem advisable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For address change/comments, mark here. (see reverse for instructions) |
☐ |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting. | ☐
Yes | ☐
No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) in this card. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title. Joint owners should each sign personally. For a Corporation, an authorized officer must sign. For a partnership, an authorized person must sign.
|
Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] | Date
| Signature (Joint Owners)
| Date |
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting:
The Notice and Proxy Statement and Annual Report Combined Document are available atwww.proxyvote.com.
|
E32538-P95722-Z70509E84663-P28350-Z75551
THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER
The undersigned stockholder of LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby (a) acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement, each dated September
This proxy will be voted as directed. If no contrary direction is indicated, the proxy will be voted FOR all ten of the director nominees listed in proposal
| ||||||||||||||
Address change/comments: |
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
(If you noted any address change/comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.)
Continued and to be signed on reverse side
|