UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1)
(Mark One)
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
or
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number: 001-33500
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| |
| |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
011-353 -1 -634-7800
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
registrant’s principal executive offices)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
| Title of each class |
Trading Symbol(s) |
Name of each exchange on which registered | ||
| value $0.0001 per share |
|
LLC |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes
☒
No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No
☐
☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes
☒
No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation Yes
S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). ☒
No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated
filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act.| ☒ |
Accelerated filer ☐ | |
| Non-accelerated filer ☐ |
Smaller reporting company | |
| Emerging growth company |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule ☒
12b-2
of the Act). Yes ☐
No The aggregate market value of the voting and 7,869,781,340 based upon the last sale price reported for the registrant’s ordinary shares on such date on The Nasdaq Global Select Market. The calculation of the aggregate market value of voting and
non-voting
common equity held by non-affiliates
of the registrant, as of June 28, 2019, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $non-voting
common equity excludes 1,418,007 ordinary shares of the registrant held by executive officers, directors and shareholders that the registrant concluded were affiliates of the registrant on that date. Exclusion of such shares should not be construed to indicate that any such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the registrant or that such person is controlled by or under common control with the registrant.As of April 16, 2020, a total of 55,346,997 ordinary shares, nominal value $0.0001 per share, of the registrant were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
None.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The registrant is filing this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form
10-K/A,
or this Amendment (also referred to herein as this report), to amend the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (Commission File Number 001-33500),
or the 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K,
as filed by the registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, on February 25, 2020. The principal purpose of this Amendment is to include in Part III the information that was to be incorporated by reference from the proxy statement for the registrant’s 2020 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, as well as to update certain of the information included on the cover page of the 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K
and in the list of exhibits included in Item 15 and the Exhibit Index of this report. This Amendment hereby amends the cover page, Part III, Items 10 through 14, and Part IV, Item 15 of the 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
In addition, as required by Rule 12b-15
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, new certifications by the registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are filed as exhibits to this Amendment.No attempt has been made in this Amendment to modify or update the other disclosures presented in the 2019 Annual Report on Form
10-K.
This Amendment does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the original report (i.e., those events occurring after February 25, 2020) or modify or update those disclosures that may be affected by subsequent events. Accordingly, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with the 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K
and the registrant’s other filings with the SEC.In this report, unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, all references to “Jazz Pharmaceuticals,” “the registrant,” “the company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and its consolidated subsidiaries. On January 18, 2012, the businesses of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Azur Pharma Public Limited Company, or Azur Pharma, were combined in a merger transaction, or the Azur Merger, in connection with which Azur Pharma was renamed Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and we became the parent company of and successor to Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. becoming our wholly owned subsidiary.
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC
2019 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K
Amendment No. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Page |
||||||
| 2 |
||||||
| Item 10. |
2 |
|||||
| Item 11. |
11 |
|||||
| Item 12. |
55 |
|||||
| Item 13. |
59 |
|||||
| Item 14. |
60 |
|||||
| 61 |
||||||
| Item 15. |
61 |
|||||
| 72 |
||||||
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “propose,” “intend,” “continue,” “potential,” “possible,” “foreseeable,” “likely,” “unforeseen” and similar expressions intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance, time frames or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, time frames or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. We discuss many of these risks, uncertainties and other factors in greater detail under the heading “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of our 2019 Annual Report on Form
10-K,
as filed with the SEC on February 25, 2020. Given these risks, uncertainties and other factors, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, these forward-looking statements represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this filing. You should read this report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We hereby qualify our forward-looking statements by our cautionary statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update our forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons that actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future. 1
PART III
Item 10. |
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance |
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Our Board of Directors
Our board of directors is divided into three classes, designated Class I, Class II and Class III. The term of the Class I directors will expire on the date of our 2021 annual general meeting of shareholders; the term of the Class II directors will expire on the date of our 2022 annual general meeting of shareholders; and the term of the Class III directors will expire on the date of our 2020 annual general meeting of shareholders. At each annual general meeting of shareholders, successors to the directors whose terms expire at that annual general meeting are put forward for election for a three-year term.
The following is a brief biography of each member of our board of directors, including their respective ages as of April 24, 2020, with each biography including information regarding the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led the nominating and corporate governance committee and our board of directors to determine that each member of our board of directors should serve as a director.
Class I Directors Continuing in Office Until the 2021 Annual General Meeting
Peter Gray
non-profit
educational establishment. In September 2011, Mr. Gray retired from his position as Chief Executive Officer of ICON plc, a global provider of outsourced development services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industries, which he held since November 2002. At ICON plc, Mr. Gray previously served as Group Chief Operating Officer from June 2001 to November 2002 and Chief Financial Officer from June 1997 to June 2001. From November 1983 to November 1989, Mr. Gray served as senior financial officer at Elan Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company. Mr. Gray holds a degree in law from Trinity College Dublin and qualified as a chartered accountant in 1981. Given his experience as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of ICON plc, Mr. Gray brings to our board of directors and audit committee over 30 years of experience in financial and operational management within the pharmaceutical industry.Kenneth W. O’Keefe
co-founded.
From November 2015 to January 2018, he was Chief Executive Officer, from January 2011 to November 2015, he was Managing Partner, and from 1997 to January 2011, he was Managing Director, of Beecken Petty O’Keefe & Company. He serves on the boards of several privately-held healthcare companies. He received a B.A. from Northwestern University and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. As a member of Beecken Petty O’Keefe & Company, Mr. O’Keefe brings to our board of directors significant expertise in accounting and financial matters and in analyzing and evaluating financial statements, as well as substantial experience managing private equity investments. He serves or has served on the audit committee of several companies in the healthcare industry. As the former chairperson and current member of our audit committee, Mr. O’Keefe brings to our board of directors detailed knowledge of our financial position and financial statements.2
Elmar Schnee
non-executive
director of Cardiorentis Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company, where he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from October 2011 until November 2013. From 2003 to 2011, Mr. Schnee held various positions in senior management at Merck KGaA, a global pharmaceutical and chemical group. In November 2005, Mr. Schnee was appointed as Deputy Member of the Executive Board responsible for the global pharmaceuticals business. In 2006, he was appointed as a member of the Executive Board and General Partner of Merck KGaA, with responsibility for global pharmaceutical activities, and served in this position until 2011. Prior to Merck KGaA, Mr. Schnee held senior positions in strategy, business development and marketing at UCB SA, Sanofi-Synthélabo SA, Migliara/Kaplan Associates, Inc. and Fisons Pharmaceuticals PLC. From June 2016 until May 2019, he served on the board of directors of Stallergenes-Greer plc. Mr. Schnee holds both a bachelor’s degree in marketing and a master’s degree in marketing and general management from the Swiss Institute of Business Administration in Zurich. With his experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cardiorentis Ltd., his operational experience at Merck KGaA and other companies and his experience serving on the boards of directors of life sciences companies, including Gentium, Mr. Schnee brings to our board of directors significant experience in executive management, operational excellence and industry knowledge, having held diverse leadership positions at various global pharmaceutical companies.Catherine A. Sohn, Pharm.D.
3
Class II Directors Continuing in Office Until the 2022 Annual General Meeting
Paul L. Berns
Patrick G. Enright
co-led
the life sciences investment practice. Prior to Pequot, he was a Managing Member of the Delta Opportunity Fund at Diaz & Altschul Capital Management. Mr. Enright began his investment career at PaineWebber Development Corporation. Mr. Enright also has significant life sciences operations experience including senior executive positions at Valentis, Boehringer Mannheim (acquired by Roche) and Sandoz (now known as Novartis). Mr. Enright currently serves on the boards of two other public companies, Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. and Aptinyx Inc., as well as several private company boards. Selected prior public company board memberships include Codexis, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Horizon Pharma plc and Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mr. Enright received a B.S. in Biological Sciences from Stanford University and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Based on his experience as a venture capital investor focused on life sciences companies and his past work in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Enright brings to our board of directors over 30 years of operating experience and financial expertise in the life sciences industry.4
Seamus Mulligan
not be standing for reelection at the next annual meeting in May 2020. From 2006 until April 2017, Mr. Mulligan served as Executive Chairman of Circ Pharma Limited and its subsidiaries, a pharmaceutical development stage group. Mr. Mulligan served as our Chief Business Officer, International Business Development from the closing of the Azur Merger until February 2013. Mr. Mulligan served as Azur Pharma’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and as a member of its board of directors from 2005 until the closing of the Azur Merger. From 1984 until 2004, he held various positions with Elan Corporation, plc, a pharmaceutical company, most recently as Executive Vice President, Business and Corporate Development, and prior to that position, held the roles of President of Elan Pharmaceutical Technologies, the drug delivery division of Elan Corporation, plc, Executive Vice President, Pharmaceutical Operations, Vice President, U.S. Operations and Vice President, Product Development. He served as a member of the board of directors of the U.S. National Pharmaceutical Council until 2004. Mr. Mulligan received a B.Sc. (Pharm) and M.Sc. from Trinity College Dublin. As a founder of Azur Pharma and a pharmaceutical industry executive, Mr. Mulligan brings to our board of directors an expertise in business development and over 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry.
Norbert G. Riedel, Ph.D.
Class III Directors Continuing in Office Until the 2020 Annual General Meeting
Bruce C. Cozadd
co-founded
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since April 2009. From 2003 until 2009, he served as Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Executive Chairman and as a member of its board of directors. From 1991 until 2001, he held various positions with ALZA Corporation, a pharmaceutical company acquired by Johnson & Johnson, most recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, with responsibility for research and development, manufacturing and sales and marketing. Previously at ALZA Corporation, he held the roles of Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Corporate Planning and Analysis. He serves on the boards of two non-profit
organizations, The Nueva School and SFJAZZ. Mr. Cozadd previously served on the boards of directors of Cerus Corporation from 2001 to January 2018 and Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2005 to August 2017. He received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.B.A. from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. As a co-founder
and our Chief Executive Officer of over 10 years, he brings to our board a deep and comprehensive knowledge of our business, as well as shareholder-focused insight into effectively executing the company’s strategy and business plans to maximize shareholder value.5
Heather Ann McSharry
non-executive
director on the boards of directors of several public and private companies, including CRH plc, an international building materials group, Greencore Group plc, an international manufacturer of convenience foods, where she also serves as Chairperson of its remuneration committee, and Uniphar plc, a diversified healthcare services company. From 2006 to 2009, Ms. McSharry was Managing Director Ireland of Reckitt Benckiser, a multinational health, home and hygiene consumer products company. From 1989 to 2006, she held various positions at Boots Healthcare, a leading global consumer healthcare company, most recently as Managing Director of Boots Healthcare Ireland Limited. From 2007 to 2011, Ms. McSharry served on the board of directors of the Bank of Ireland, where she was a member of its audit committee from 2009 to 2011. Ms. McSharry served on the board of the Industrial Development Agency in Ireland from 2010 to 2014, where she was Chair of the audit and finance committee. Ms. McSharry holds a Bachelor of Commerce and a Master of Business Studies degree from University College Dublin. Ms. McSharry brings to our board of directors over 30 years of experience in multiple international industries, including healthcare, consumer goods and financial services, as well as expertise in crisis management, cybersecurity and privacy issues relevant to our business.Anne O’Riordan
Rick E Winningham
spin-off
from Innoviva, Inc. in June 2014. From October 2001 to August 2014, Mr. Winningham served as Chief Executive Officer of Innoviva, Inc., where he also served as Chairman of the Board of Directors from April 2010 to October 2014. From 1997 to 2001, he served as President of Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology/Immunology/Oncology Therapeutics Network and, from 2000 to 2001, as President of Global Marketing. Mr. Winningham is a member of Biotechnology Industry Organization’s board of directors and serves on the Health Section Governing Board Standing Committee on Reimbursement. He previously served as a member of the board of directors of OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from June 2015 until the company’s merger with Mereo BioPharma Group plc in April 2019. He also served as a member of the board of directors of the California Healthcare Institute, or CHI, from November 2011 to March 2015 and served as its Chairman from January 2014 until CHI merged with Bay Area Bioscience Association to become the California Life Sciences Association, or CLSA, in March 2015. Mr. Winningham is on the board of directors of CLSA, and served as its Chairman from March 2015 until November 2015. Mr. Winningham holds an M.B.A. from Texas Christian University and a B.S. from Southern Illinois University. Mr. Winningham’s experience in senior management positions in the pharmaceutical industry provides significant industry knowledge and operational and management expertise to our board of directors.6
Committee Membership
The following table provides membership information for 2019 for each of the audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and corporate governance committee of our board of directors:
| Name |
Audit |
Compensation |
Nominating and Corporate Governance | |||
| Paul L. Berns |
l |
|||||
| Patrick G. Enright |
l |
l |
||||
| Peter Gray |
C |
|||||
| Heather Ann McSharry |
l |
C | ||||
| Kenneth W. O’Keefe |
l |
|||||
| Anne O’Riordan |
l |
|||||
| Norbert G. Riedel, Ph.D. |
C |
|||||
| Elmar Schnee |
l | |||||
| Catherine A. Sohn, Pharm.D. |
l |
l | ||||
| Rick E Winningham |
l |
C = committee chairperson = committee member
l
Our Executive Officers
The following table provides information regarding our executive officers as of April 24, 2020.
| Name |
Age |
Position | ||||
| Bruce C. Cozadd |
56 |
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | ||||
| Daniel N. Swisher, Jr. |
57 |
President and Chief Operating Officer | ||||
| Renée Galá |
48 |
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | ||||
| Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E |
53 |
Executive Vice President, Research and Development | ||||
| Michael P. Miller (1) |
63 |
Executive Vice President, U.S. Commercial | ||||
| Finbar Larkin, Ph.D. |
62 |
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations | ||||
| Neena M. Patil |
45 |
Senior Vice President and General Counsel | ||||
| Samantha Pearce |
54 |
Senior Vice President, Europe and Rest of World | ||||
| Patricia Carr |
49 |
Vice President, Finance and Principal Accounting Officer | ||||
(1) |
Mr. Miller will continue in his position as Executive Vice President, U.S. Commercial until May 31, 2020 (or as extended by mutual agreement with the company) and then transition into a project-based role as Executive Vice President, Special Projects for a three-month period, after which Mr. Miller will retire from the company. |
Bruce C. Cozadd
Our Board of Directors
Daniel N. Swisher, Jr.
7
Renée Galá
spin-out
from Innoviva, Inc. Ms. Galá joined Innoviva in 2006 and held various roles in the finance organization before leading the company’s spin-out
transaction. Prior to that, Ms. Galá served in various roles in global treasury, pharmaceutical sales and corporate strategy/business development at Eli Lilly and Company, from 2001 to 2006. Before joining Eli Lilly, Ms. Galá spent seven years in the energy industry in positions focused on corporate finance, project finance, and mergers and acquisitions. Ms. Galá serves on the board of directors of Gossamer Bio, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, where she also chairs the audit committee. Ms. Galá previously served on the board of directors of Corcept Therapeutics Inc. from June 2016 to June 2019. Ms. Galá holds a B.S. in Mathematics from Vanderbilt University and an M.B.A. from Columbia Business School.Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E.
science-led
biopharmaceutical company. From 2004 to 2017, Dr. Iannone served in management roles at Merck Co., Inc., a global biopharmaceutical company, culminating in his role as Executive Director and Section Head of Oncology Clinical Development. From 2001 to 2004, he served as Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and from 2004 to 2012 as Adjunct Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Iannone has been serving on the board of directors of Jounce Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy company, since January 2020 and on the Cancer Steering Committee of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health since 2011. Dr. Iannone received a B.S. from The Catholic University of America, an M.D. from Yale University and an M.S.C.E. from University of Pennsylvania and completed his residency in Pediatrics and fellowship in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology at Johns Hopkins University.Michael P. Miller
2006 to 2010, Mr. Miller served as Vice President, Sales and Marketing, leading the HER Family Oncology Franchise, of Genentech, Inc., a biotechnology company and wholly owned subsidiary of Roche Holding Ltd. From 2003 to 2005, Mr. Miller served as the Senior Vice President, Chief Commercial Officer of Connetics Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company acquired by Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. Previously, from 1997 to 2001, he served as Vice President of the Urology Business Unit of ALZA Corporation, a pharmaceutical company acquired by Johnson & Johnson. Prior to 1997, Mr. Miller served 13 years in various sales and marketing positions at Syntex Corporation, a pharmaceutical company acquired by Roche Holding Ltd. He currently serves as a director on the board of Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, and as a member of two
non-profit
Finbar Larkin, Ph.D.
.
8
Neena M. Patil
Samantha Pearce
Patricia Carr
9
CERTAIN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MATTERS
Audit Committee
We have a standing audit committee that is currently composed of five directors (Mr. Gray, Mr. Enright, Ms. McSharry, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. O’Riordan). Our board of directors has determined that each of Mr. Gray, Mr. Enright, Ms. McSharry, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. O’Riordan meets the independence requirements of Rule
10A-3
of the Exchange Act and the listing standards of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or Nasdaq, with respect to audit committee members. Our board of directors has also determined that each of Mr. Gray, Mr. Enright, Ms. McSharry and Mr. O’Keefe qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of SEC regulations. In making this determination, our board of directors considered the overall knowledge, experience and familiarity of each with accounting matters, analyzing and evaluating financial statements, and, in the case of Mr. O’Keefe, managing private equity investments, and, in the case of Mr. Enright, managing venture capital investments. Mr. Gray serves as chairperson of the audit committee.Code of Conduct
Our code of conduct applies to all of our employees, directors and officers, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, and those of our subsidiaries. The code of conduct is available on our website at www.jazzpharmaceuticals.com under the section entitled “About” under “Corporate Ethics.” We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirements under Item 5.05 of Form
8-K
regarding any amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of our code of conduct by posting such information on our website at the website address and location specified above.Director Nominations
No material changes have been made to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to our board of directors.
10
Item 11. |
Executive Compensation |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
(1) |
Following Mr. Young’s resignation from the company on October 25, 2019, Mr. Cozadd served as our interim principal financial officer until Renée Galá was appointed as our CFO and assumed the duties and responsibilities of principal financial officer from Mr. Cozadd as of March 16, 2020. For details regarding Ms. Galá’s compensatory arrangements with the company, please see the company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 25, 2020. |
11
Executive Summary
Our compensation policies and elements are intended to provide the necessary incentives to properly align our executive officers’ performance with the interests of our shareholders while maintaining equitable and competitive executive compensation practices that enable us to attract and retain the highest caliber of executive officers.
2019 Performance Highlights
In 2019, we delivered record total revenues and made substantial progress on our long-term growth strategy, with two product approvals (Sunosi U.S. and Defitelio Japan) and two product launches (Sunosi U.S. and pediatric Xyrem) as well as key research and development achievements. In furtherance of our goal of providing important new therapeutic options and improved patient outcomes in
difficult-to-treat
diseases, we enhanced and diversified our portfolio with four announced transactions that broadened our hematology and oncology therapeutic area into solid tumors and our sleep and neuroscience therapeutic area into movement disorders.
| (1) | For 2017, GAAP net income included a net tax benefit of $148.8 million resulting from provisional estimates based on our analysis of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the U.S. Tax Act. For 2019, GAAP net income included a one-time tax benefit of $112.3 million resulting from an intra-entity intellectual property asset transfer. Among other adjustments, the net tax benefits resulting from the U.S. Tax Act for 2017 and from the intra-entity intellectual property asset transfer for 2019 were excluded from non-GAAP adjusted net income. |
| (2) | See the section “Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliations between GAAP net income and non-GAAP adjusted net income (and the related per share measures). |
| (3) | Represents the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the period from 2016 through 2019. |
12
13
Key Features of Our Executive Compensation Program
| What We Do |
What We Don’t Do | |
| ✔ Design executive compensation to align pay with performance✔ Balance short-term and long-term incentive compensation, with the majority of executive compensation being “at-risk”✔ Align performance bonus plan for CEO with that of other executives and non-sales employees, with 100% of CEO’s bonus based on such corporate performance goals as approved by the Board✔ Establish threshold and maximum levels of achievement for payout with respect to financial metrics under performance bonus plan✔ Maintain share ownership guidelines✔ Provide “double-trigger” change in control benefits✔ Prohibit hedging and pledging by executive officers and directors✔ Have 100% independent directors on the compensation committee✔ Hire independent compensation consultant who reports directly to the compensation committee✔ Meet regularly in executive session without management present |
✘ No excessive change in control or severance payments✘ No “single-trigger” cash or equity change in control benefits✘ No repricing of underwater stock options without prior shareholder approval✘ No excessive perquisites✘ No tax gross ups on severance or change in control benefits✘ No post-termination retirement or pension benefits that are not available to employees generally✘ No guaranteed bonuses or base salary increases |
2019 Pay-for-Performance Overview
A significant portion of target total direct compensation for our CEO and other NEOs is structured in the form of “at-risk” compensation, consisting of annual performance bonus and equity incentive awards, with the performance bonus payouts and equity award values dependent upon our company performance. This aligns our executives’ interests with those of our shareholders for near- and long-term performance.
The pie charts below provide the various regular components of target total direct compensation for 2019 for our CEO and other NEOs. These components include the following: (i) annual base salary rate for 2019; (ii) annual target performance bonus for 2019; and (iii) the grant date fair value of equity awards granted in 2019. The pie charts exclude the non-recurring cash signing bonuses Dr. Iannone and Ms. Patil received in connection with their respective appointments in 2019 to recruit them from their prior employers; such bonuses are not considered part of the target total direct compensation program.
| CEO |
Other NEO Average | |
 | ||
14
Compensation Philosophy and Objectives
Our executive compensation program is designed with the following objectives and philosophy:
| • | Attract, incentivize, reward and retain diverse, talented individuals with relevant experience in the life sciences industry through a competitive pay structure. |
| • | Deliver balanced total compensation packages to accomplish our business objectives and mission. total compensation |
| • | Align pay with our performance. pre-determined levels of performance are achieved against annual corporate objectives approved by our board of directors at the beginning of the year. Likewise, our stock option awards will not provide realizable value and our restricted stock unit, or RSU, awards will not provide increased value unless there is an increase in the value of our shares, which benefits all shareholders. We also have executive share ownership guidelines to further support our ownership culture and align the interests of executive officers and shareholders. |
How We Determine Executive Compensation
Role of Our Compensation Committee and Executive Officers
The compensation committee is (and was at all times during 2019) composed entirely of independent directors, as defined by Rule 5605(a)(2) of the Nasdaq listing standards. Our compensation committee meets as often as it determines necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities through regularly scheduled meetings and, if necessary, special meetings. Our compensation committee also has the authority to take certain actions by written consent of all members. The agenda for each compensation committee meeting is usually developed by members of our human resources department and our CEO, with input from members of our legal department, and is reviewed and finalized with the chairperson of the compensation committee. In 2019, the compensation committee met five times and did not act by unanimous written consent. As of the date of this report, in 2020, the compensation committee has met twice and has acted once by unanimous written consent.
The compensation committee reviews and oversees our compensation policies, plans and programs and reviews and generally determines the compensation to be paid to the executive officers, including the NEOs. Either the compensation committee or the independent members of our board of directors, upon recommendation from the compensation committee, who receives input and advice from its independent compensation consultant, approve the compensation of our CEO. References in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis to our board of directors approving our CEO’s compensation are to the independent members of our board of directors. The compensation committee does not delegate any of its functions to others in determining executive compensation.
In making other executive compensation determinations, the compensation committee considers recommendations from our CEO. In making his recommendations, our CEO receives input from our human resources department and from the individuals who manage or report directly to the other executive officers, and he reviews various sources of market compensation data provided by the independent compensation consultant to the compensation committee, as described below. While our CEO discusses his recommendations for the other executive officers with the compensation committee, he does not participate in the deliberations and recommendations to our board of directors concerning, or our board of directors’ determination of, his own compensation. Members of our human resources and legal departments also attend compensation committee meetings.
Below are the highlights of the annual cycle our compensation committee follows in reviewing and making decisions with respect to our executive compensation program.
15
Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant
The compensation committee engages an independent compensation consultant each year to provide a competitive compensation assessment with respect to the executive officers to assist the compensation committee in making annual compensation decisions. Since 2010, Radford, a business area within Aon plc, has been engaged by the compensation committee each year to provide peer company and industry compensation data, when requested, and provide the compensation committee with advice regarding executive officers’ compensation, including base salaries, performance-based bonuses and long-term equity compensation, and similar advice regarding
non-employee
directors’ compensation. The compensation committee has also consulted with Radford to update the peer company and industry compensation data on an annual basis and as needed with respect to specific questions that arise and on an advisory basis with respect to addressing other responsibilities arising under the compensation committee charter, including trends and best practices regarding executive compensation and compensation committees, in order to help inform the compensation committee’s decisions. Radford reports directly to the compensation committee, which maintains the authority to direct Radford’s work and engagement, and advises the compensation committee and our human resources department on projects from time to time. Radford interacts with management to gain access to company information that is required to perform services and to understand the culture and policies of the organization. Radford attends compensation committee meetings, and the compensation committee and Radford meet in executive session with no members of management present, as needed, to address various compensation matters, including deliberations regarding our CEO’s compensation.In assessing Radford’s independence from management in providing executive compensation services to the compensation committee, the compensation committee considered that Radford is only engaged by, takes direction from, and reports to, the compensation committee for such services and, accordingly, only the compensation committee has the right to terminate or replace Radford as its compensation consultant at any time. The compensation committee also analyzed whether the work of Radford as a compensation consultant with respect to executive and director compensation raised any conflict of interest, taking into consideration the following factors:
| ✔ |
the provision of other services to our company by Radford and its affiliates; |
✔ |
any business or personal relationship of the individual compensation advisors with any compensation committee member; | |||||
| ✔ |
the amount of fees we paid to Radford and its affiliates as a percentage of Radford’s total revenue; |
✔ |
Radford’s policies and procedures that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; and | |||||
| ✔ |
any business or personal relationship of Radford or the individual compensation advisors employed by it with any executive officer of our company; |
✔ |
any ordinary shares of our company owned by Radford or the individual compensation advisors employed by it. |
The compensation committee has determined, based on its analysis of the above factors, that the work of Radford and the individual compensation advisors employed by Radford as compensation consultants to our company has not created any conflict of interest.
16
Competitive Assessment of Compensation – Peer Companies and Market Data
Because we aim to attract and retain the most highly qualified executive officers in an extremely competitive market, the compensation committee believes that it is important when making its compensation decisions to be informed as to the current practices of comparable public companies with which we compete for top talent. To this end, the compensation committee reviews market data for each executive officer’s position, compiled by Radford as described below, including information relating to the mix and levels of compensation for executive officers in the life sciences industry, with a focus on target total direct compensation in line with the compensation committee’s holistic approach to executive compensation.
2019 Peer Group
re-examined
our compensation philosophy and peer group criteria and companies to recommend changes to our 2018 peer group company list to reflect our growth, the increase in our revenues and market capitalization and the consolidation in our industry.
The following charts illustrate a comparison of Jazz to the 2019 peer group based on the assessment criteria of revenue and market capitalization. The Jazz percentile ranks reflect trailing 12 months’ revenue and
30-day
average market capitalization for our company and the median of each peer group, measured as of the time Radford prepared its final recommendations regarding each peer group for the compensation committee.Peer Group Comparison
17
2019 Market Data
Use of 2019 Market Data
company-to-company
variations among actual roles with similar titles or the specific performance of the executive officers.2020 Peer Group
Factors Used in Determining Executive Compensation
Our compensation committee sets the compensation of our executive officers at levels that the compensation committee determines to be competitive and appropriate for each NEO, using the compensation committee’s professional experience and judgment. The compensation committee’s pay decisions are not driven by a particular target level of compensation to market data, and the compensation committee does not otherwise use a formulaic approach to setting executive pay. Instead, the compensation committee believes that executive pay decisions require consideration of multiple relevant factors, which may vary from year to year. The figure below reflects the factors the compensation committee considers in determining and approving the amount, form and mix of pay for our NEOs.
18
2019 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation and Shareholder Engagement
At our 2019 annual meeting, the shareholders approved, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the NEOs, as disclosed in the proxy statement for that meeting pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC. The compensation committee reviewed the final vote results for the proposal, and, given the significant level of shareholder support (90% of total votes cast with respect to the advisory proposal), concluded that our compensation program continues to provide a competitive
pay-for-performance
package that effectively incentivizes the NEOs and encourages long-term retention. Accordingly, the compensation committee and, with respect to our CEO’s compensation, our board of directors, determined not to make any significant changes to our executive compensation policies or decisions as a result of the vote. Our compensation committee and, with respect to our CEO’s compensation, our board of directors, will continue to consider the outcome of our say-on-pay
votes and our shareholders’ views when making future compensation decisions for the NEOs.We also engage with our shareholders when they have topics of particular concern, which may include issues related to executive compensation. Shareholder feedback is reported to our compensation committee (and our nominating and corporate governance committee, as applicable) throughout the year.
The following graphic describes our typical shareholder outreach and engagement cycle.
Key Components and Design of the Executive Compensation Program
Total Direct Compensation
Our compensation program focuses on target total direct compensation, which consists of base salary, target bonus opportunity (which, together with base salary, we refer to as target total cash compensation), and long-term equity awards (valued based on an approximation of grant date fair value).
19
We also offer our executive officers severance benefits upon certain types of involuntary terminations in connection with a change in control. The table below captioned “” provides an explanation of key features of each of the primary components of our executive compensation program and why we provide the particular compensation component.
Components of Total Direct Compensation
The compensation committee takes a holistic approach to compensation and seeks to ensure that the aggregate level of pay across all of the pay elements is meeting the company’s desired objectives for each executive officer. The compensation committee does not have any formal policies for allocating compensation among salary, performance bonus opportunity and equity grants. Instead, the compensation committee uses its experience and business judgment to establish a total compensation program for each NEO that is a mix of current, short-term and long-term incentive compensation, and cash and
non-cash
compensation, which it believes appropriate to achieve the goals of our executive compensation program and our corporate goals.Because we believe it is important to our success to pursue long-term corporate objectives, to avoid excessive risk-taking, and to preserve our cash resources, a significant portion of the NEOs’ total direct compensation is comprised of
“at-risk”
compensation, consisting of performance-based bonus opportunities and long-term equity awards, which align the executive officers’ incentives with the interests of our shareholders. This allocation between “at-risk”
and fixed compensation is consistent with our pay-for-performance
philosophy.Components of Total Direct Compensation
| Component |
Key Features |
Purpose |
||||||||||||||||||
| Base Salary |
◆ Fixed level of cash compensation◆ No amount is contractually guaranteed◆ Amounts reviewed and determined annually, and are generally effective by March 1 each year |
◆ Provides fixed level of compensation that is competitive within our industry and geographic areas |
||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Bonus Award |
◆ Cash compensation under the performance bonus plan, which is “at-risk” because it is dependent upon achievement of pre-established corporate performance objectives◆ Target bonuses reviewed and determined annually◆ Actual bonuses paid shortly after the end of each year, based on the extent corporate goals are attained as determined by the compensation committee, and for executive officers other than our CEO, their individual contributions toward such achievements |
◆ Provides financial incentives to achieve key corporate objectives that are aligned with our business strategy◆ Rewards individual NEO for contributions aligned with our corporate achievements |
||||||||||||||||||
| Long-Term Incentive Compensation |
◆ “At-risk” long-term incentives that only realize value based on performance and is dependent upon our share price◆ Awards reviewed and generally granted annually, early in the year, at time of hire or promotion or in other rare circumstances such as recognition of outstanding performance◆ Awards to executive officers granted shortly after annual or quarterly financial results released to public◆ Stock options and RSUs generally vest over a 4-year period subject to executive officer’s continued service with us; stock option exercise price is set equal to fair market value on date of grant (i.e., closing price on Nasdaq Global Select Market)◆ Executive share ownership guidelines to further support our ownership culture and align the interests of executive officers and shareholders |
◆ Fosters ownership culture◆ Links compensation to long-term success◆ Stock options are a key aspect of our pay-for-performance culture, by providing a return to our executive officers only if the market price of our ordinary shares appreciates over the stock option term◆ RSU awards deliver fewer shares than the stock options therefore helping to manage dilution, while reinforcing the importance of shareholder value creation◆ RSU awards provide a return based on the market price of our ordinary shares; if our share price declines, RSU awards correspondingly decline in value but still maintain value, and therefore, a mix of RSU awards and stock options aligns executive officers’ interests with those of shareholders by minimizing incentive for short-term risk-taking at the expense of realizing long-term value |
20
Other Benefits
Description of Compensation Arrangements–401(k) Plan
pre-tax
funds to pay for qualified healthcare expenses and qualified childcare expenses not reimbursed by insurance. We do not currently offer pension or other retirement benefits in the United States; outside the US consistent with local regulations, we offer pension or other retirement benefits as required.Severance Benefits upon Change in Control
Additional Compensation Information
Change in Control Plan
Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control
Amended and Restated Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan
Clawback Requirement
2019 Performance Bonus Program
The corporate objectives and relative weightings established by the board of directors for the 2019 performance bonus program that were communicated to the NEOs in early 2019 are described in the chart below. The total revenue objective described below included stretch goals with the opportunity to earn up to an additional 15% bonus pool funding.
21
Following the end of the year, after adding together the resulting bonus pool funding percentages for the quantitative and qualitative objectives based on their relative weightings of 70% and 30%, respectively, and considering achievement of stretch goals, the compensation committee approved an overall bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6% of the target bonus pool for the 2019 plan year, as further described below.
The compensation committee did not set specific objectives for individual executive officers. Each executive officer is responsible for contributing to the corporate objectives, individually and as part of the leadership team, with each objective deemed to be important in determining the level of the company’s performance during the year. In approving individual bonus awards, the compensation committee considers the individual contribution towards the company’s achievement of the corporate objectives by each executive officer (other than our CEO). The actual bonus payments approved for each of the NEOs for 2019 are described below under “”
2019 Compensation Decisions for Our Named Executive Officers.
Quantitative Objectives
Each of the three main quantitative, or objectively measurable, objectives for 2019, with a total relative overall weighting of 70%, is described in the table and accompanying footnotes below, including each objective’s weighting, actual results and performance multipliers, as well as the total bonus pool funding percentage resulting from the level of achievement of the quantitative objectives.
The compensation committee approved an algorithm with respect to each main quantitative objective (as well as the total revenue stretch goals discussed below) for calculating the bonus pool funding attributable to the extent of achievement for each such objective. With respect to the total revenue objective, the compensation committee approved three related additional, or stretch, goals, each with its own individual weighting. The compensation committee set specific threshold and maximum levels of achievement for the total revenue objective and the related stretch goals, which are described in the footnotes to the table below. For the quantitative product development objectives, the compensation committee established various objectively measurable target goals within these objectives but did not set a threshold performance level; rather, an overall achievement of between 0% and 200%, measured against the multiple targets as described in more detail below, was determined by the compensation committee and used to calculate the applicable bonus pool funding percentage attributable to the product development objectives.
| Quantitative Objectives |
Weighting |
Actual Results |
Multiplier |
Bonus Pool Funding (3) |
||||||||||||||
| 1. |
Total Revenue Objective (1) |
30% |
Above target: total revenue of $2,173 million (2) |
114% |
34.2% |
|||||||||||||
| • Stretch goal: Exceed specified Xyrem year-over-year revenue bottle volume growth(4) |
5% |
Above target |
100% |
5.0% |
||||||||||||||
| • Stretch goal: Exceed budgeted Sunosi prescription volume(5) |
5% |
Below threshold |
0% |
0% |
||||||||||||||
| • Stretch goal: Exceed budgeted shipment of Vyxeos worldwide vials(6) |
5% |
Below threshold |
0% |
0% |
||||||||||||||
| 2. |
Adjusted Net Income Objective non-GAAP adjusted net income*(1) |
15% |
Above target: non-GAAP adjusted net income* |
146% (7) |
21.9% |
|||||||||||||
| 3. |
Product Development Objectives (8) |
25% |
Achieved at 130% level (8) |
130% |
32.5% |
|||||||||||||
| Total |
93.6% |
|||||||||||||||||
(1) |
If the specified threshold annual performance level was met (90% of target for the total revenue objective and the adjusted net income objective), then a pre-established scaled performance multiplier (ranging from 50% to 150% for the total revenue objective and 50% to 200% for the adjusted net income objective) would be used to calculate the applicable bonus pool funding percentage attributable to such quantitative objective. The performance multiplier would be zero if performance was below the threshold level, 50% if performance was at the threshold level, and then scaled for performance above 50% up to the applicable maximum level. The performance multiplier was capped for performance above the specified maximum performance level (110% of target for the total revenue objective and 120% of target for the adjusted net income objective). |
22
(2) |
To calculate the threshold performance achievement level and performance multiplier, the reported revenue of $2,162 million was increased by approximately $11.1 million to adjust for changes in foreign currency exchange rates. |
(3) |
The percentages in this column represent, for each quantitative corporate objective, the weight of the quantitative objective multiplied by the performance multiplier that corresponds to the actual achievement of such quantitative objective. |
(4) |
With respect to the Xyrem revenue bottle growth stretch goal, the performance threshold was set at 3.7% bottle volume growth, below which no addition to the total bonus pool funding would be made. Between 3.7% and 5.2% bottle volume growth, the amount added to the total bonus pool funding percentage would increase from 0% to 5%. Actual achievement of 5.5% bottle volume growth for 2019 was above 5.2% resulting in 5% being added to the total bonus pool funding percentage. |
(5) |
With respect to the Sunosi prescription volume stretch goal, the threshold performance level was set at achievement of 20% above the budgeted Sunosi prescription volume, adjusted for the actual launch date. This stretch goal was inherently difficult to achieve from the outset given that Sunosi had not yet been approved at the start of 2019, and the prospect of a successful mid-year launch was uncertain, particularly in light of market access challenges and the competitive marketplace for Sunosi, including as a result of another new market entrant, pitolisant, expected to launch in 2019. Exceeding the prescription volume budget by between 20% and 50% would have resulted in 0% to 5% (scaled linearly) being added to the total bonus pool funding percentage. Actual Sunosi prescription volume for 2019 was below the threshold level of achievement for prescription volume. |
(6) |
With respect to the Vyxeos worldwide vial shipment volume stretch goal, threshold performance level was set at achievement 15% above the budgeted shipment volume. This stretch goal was inherently difficult to achieve from the outset due to the increasingly competitive marketplace for AML. Exceeding the shipment budget by between 15% and 45% would have resulted in 0% to 5% (scaled linearly) being added to the total bonus pool funding percentage. Actual Vyxeos worldwide vial shipment volume for 2019 was below the threshold level of achievement for shipment volume. |
(7) |
To calculate the threshold performance achievement level and performance multiplier, the reported non-GAAP adjusted net income was increased by $11.1 million to adjust for the impact of business development activities in 2019, including our acquisition of Cavion, Inc. and our purchase of the pan-RAF inhibitor program from Redx Pharma. |
(8) |
With respect to the product development objectives, the compensation committee determined that the actual achievement by the company was 130%, resulting in a performance multiplier of 130%, and therefore, a 32.5% bonus pool funding percentage, based on achievement with respect to the target goals as described below: |
| |
Performance Category |
Target Goals and Results | ||
| Submissions/Approvals |
This performance category consisted of the following goals: (i) FDA approval of Sunosi (solriamfetol) by the first quarter of 2019; (ii) achieving NDA submission readiness for JZP-258 by the end of 2019; (iii) conducting a Type B meeting with FDA to support filing a supplemental NDA, or sNDA, for Vyxeos for relapsed and refractory AML by the fourth quarter of 2019; (iv) European approval of Sunosi by the fourth quarter of 2019; and (v) global expansion of defibrotide through regulatory submissions in various countries and regulatory approval in Brazil by the first quarter 2019. The compensation committee determined that we had met each of the performance goals for this category except for the European approval of Sunosi by the fourth quarter of 2019. The compensation committee noted the achievement of a positive opinion from the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for the marketing authorization of Sunosi in the fourth quarter 2019, which led to European approval in January 2020. | |||
| Significant Clinical Advancements |
This performance category consisted of the following goals: (i) first patient enrolled in a Vyxeos X-FAST Phase 1b study for first-line fit AML by the fourth quarter of 2019; and (ii) 50% enrollment of patients in a Phase 3 study of oxybate in the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia by the end of 2019. The compensation committee determined that we had met both of the performance goals for this category. | |||
| Early Stage Development |
This performance category consisted of the following goals: (i) first subject dosed in a Phase 1 JZP-458 study by the first quarter of 2019; (ii) a strategic go/no-go decision for first subject dosed in the Phase 1 JZP-458 study by the second quarter 2019; (iii) first patient enrolled in a pivotal Phase 2/3 JZP-458 study by the fourth quarter 2019; and (iv) a strategic go/no-go decision to advance one or more new candidates for investigational new drug enabling activities for a new CombiPlex product candidate by the end of 2019. The compensation committee determined that we had met each of these performance goals for this category, except for the goal regarding making a strategic go/no-go decision to advance a new CombiPlex product candidate. |
23
With respect to the product development objectives, each of the three “top priority” goals – approval of Sunosi in the U.S. and Europe,
JZP-258
NDA readiness, and JZP-458
clinical and regulatory goals – carried a 20% weight. The two “high priority” goals – those relating to progress on the Vyxeos sNDA and the Vxyeos X-FAST
Phase 1b study – collectively carried a 20% weight. All other goals collectively carried a 20% weight.In determining that the actual achievement by the company was 130% for the product development objective, the compensation committee employed a holistic analysis that took into account the compensation committee’s weighting of the product development objectives described above and the degree to which they were met as a whole against the backdrop of competing development priorities. In this regard, the compensation committee took into account the fact that the company had multiple planned milestones in 2019 and that the U.S. and European regulatory submissions and launch preparation for Sunosi in particular required dedication of significant development resources that made achieving the established performance criteria more difficult. In addition, certain of the 2019 development criteria were aggressive and set at challenging levels, particularly the three “top priority” goals, with respect to which the compensation committee determined that the company had outperformed. By the end of 2019, the
JZP-258
NDA was ready for submission and ultimately submitted in January 2020 with the redemption of our priority review voucher. In addition, the company’s progress made on JZP-458,
which was in preclinical development at the start of 2019, enabled the company to be in a position to potentially submit a biologics license application as early as the end of 2020. After considering the extent to which the performance criteria had been met as a whole against the backdrop of competing priorities, and after factoring in the difficulty of achievement of the performance criteria that were met and that were not met, the compensation committee determined that, on balance, the achievement by the company was at the 130% level.| * | Non-GAAP adjusted net income is a non-GAAP financial measure that both excludes certain items from our GAAP reported net income and includes certain tax-related adjustments. For more information on our presentation and calculation of non-GAAP adjusted net income, and a reconciliation of non-GAAP adjusted net income to GAAP net income, see “Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below. In addition, solely for purposes of calculating the performance multiplier for 2019, non-GAAP adjusted net income and the performance objective included additional adjustment as set forth in footnote (7) to this table. |
Qualitative Objectives
The qualitative corporate objectives approved by the board of directors fell into two categories: (1) progress on corporate development activities, with a relative weighting of 20%, and (2) a demonstrated commitment to and progress on certain organizational goals, with a relative weighting of 10%. Achievement of the qualitative objectives is inherently less objectively measurable than the quantitative objectives.
Corporate Development Objective
.
The objective relating to progress on corporate development activities consisted of expanding our development and commercial portfolio of innovative products through a range of strategic and partnering transactions with a focus on sleep/neuroscience and hematology/oncology and the identification of additional therapeutic area opportunities. The multiplier applied to the corporate development objective ranged from 0% to 200%, based on the compensation committee’s determination of the extent to which the corporate development objective was achieved during the year. In considering the company’s corporate development accomplishments in 2019, the compensation committee noted that we completed four important corporate development transactions that could potentially provide for revenue diversification over the longer term, and we also entered into an exclusive license agreement pursuant to which we obtained U.S. development and commercialization rights to lurbinectedin, a potential new treatment for relapsed SCLC which had been submitted for accelerated approval to FDA in December 2019, which, if approved on an accelerated approval basis, could potentially contribute significant near-term revenue. We believe these transactions will allow us to potentially develop a pipeline of multiple innovative therapies and expand our business as we seek to add long-term value for patients and shareholders. The compensation committee weighed heavily our success in executing these transactions and their potential to meaningfully diversify and add future revenue-generating products to our portfolio, our overall deal readiness, and our active and thoughtful corporate development process that led to the evaluation of several other opportunities during the year, and the compensation committee determined that, as a whole, our achievement resulted in a multiplier of 125% and, therefore, a 25% bonus pool funding percentage for the 2019 corporate development objective.
24
Organizational Objective
sub-goals.
Because the sub-goals
are not objectively measurable, they were not assigned individual weightings. The multiplier applied to the organizational corporate objective ranged from 0% to 200%, based on the compensation committee’s determination of the extent to which the aggregate organizational corporate objective, including sub-goals,
were achieved, as a whole, during the year. The organizational corporate objective sub-goals
were:| • | embedding and rewarding inclusive leadership and management behaviors across the company; |
| • | continuing to attract and retain talent to drive execution of initiatives in line with the company’s strategy, mission and values; and |
| • | building and strengthening the company’s differentiating capabilities and driving organizational efficiencies. |
In evaluating the organizational objective, the compensation committee determined that, among other things, the following organizational and operational accomplishments were relevant: implementation of a launch strategy for Sunosi in the U.S.; clarification of the structure and role of our franchise teams, and the definition, alignment and advancement of global franchise strategies; target hiring quality scores and voluntary turnover rates at or below certain thresholds; improvement across operations to generate cost reduction/avoidance, scalability and/or risk mitigation; and advancement toward a global operating model and continued geographic expansion efforts. After taking into consideration both our accomplishments and challenges with respect to these
sub-goals,
the compensation committee determined that as a whole, our overall achievement resulted in a multiplier of 100% and therefore, a 10% bonus pool funding percentage for the 2019 organizational objective. 25
2019 Compensation Decisions for Our Named Executive Officers
General Approach
In making compensation decisions for 2019, the compensation committee considered the factors discussed in “” above and the compensation committee’s specific compensation objectives for 2019. Our compensation committee did not use a formula or assign a particular weight to any one factor in determining each NEO’s target total direct compensation. Rather, our compensation committee’s determination of the target total direct compensation, mix of cash and equity and fixed and
Factors Used in Determining Executive Compensation
“at-risk”
pay opportunities was a subjective, individualized decision for each NEO. The compensation committee reviewed and considered each element of pay in the context of the overall target total direct compensation for each NEO. When the compensation committee made changes to one element of pay, those changes were made in the context of the levels of the other elements of pay, and the resulting target total direct compensation for each NEO. As a result, the 2019 pay decisions for each NEO are presented holistically in this section.The compensation committee also had access to market data with respect to target total cash compensation and target equity award grants. However, as described above, the compensation committee believes that over-reliance on benchmarking can result in compensation that is unrelated to the value delivered by our executive officers because compensation benchmarking does not take into account
company-by-company
variations among actual roles with similar titles or the specific performance of our executive officers.Summary of 2019 Compensation Decisions
Target Total Cash Compensation
Target Equity Compensation and Impact on Target Total Direct Compensation
Equity Grant Timing and Equity Plan Information
Form and Mix of Equity Awards and Share Amount Determinations
90-day
average share price (as of December 31, 2018) to the grant date fair value of the award, which the compensation committee and, in the case of Mr. Cozadd, the board of directors, intended to deliver (dividing such value by the average share price, in the case of RSUs, and applying a Black-Scholes option pricing model calculation using the average share price, in the case of stock options). A 90-day
average share price was used, rather than a single day share price, in order to provide a more stabilized share value less susceptible to possible swings in the market. The exercise price of each stock option is equal to our closing share price on Nasdaq Global Select Market on the date of grant. The compensation committee understands that this process can result in the actual reported grant date value of an award being higher or lower than the intended value approved by the compensation committee, but has considered, in consultation with Radford, various approaches to granting equity awards, each of which have advantages and disadvantages, and determined that the process described above, which has been used historically by the compensation committee, is the most appropriate for the company at this time. The shares subject to the option awards vest over four years, with 25% vesting on the one-year
anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting in equal monthly installments thereafter over the remaining 36 months. The RSUs vest over four years in equal annual installments.26
On an annual basis, the compensation committee reviews market trends, including market peer use of performance-based vesting for equity awards, which are often favored by proxy advisory firms and certain institutional investors. For 2019, the compensation committee determined that equity awards vesting over time continued to be the most appropriate incentive structure for our executive officers to reward performance over time and achieve our retention objectives. Our time-based vesting schedules deliver retention incentives for the company over the long-term and, unlike awards that vest based on ”
pre-determined
operational or market goals, do not create incentives for inappropriate short-term risk-taking at the expense of realizing long-term value or the potential incentive for unethical conduct. In addition, we deliver a meaningful portion of compensation in the form of annual incentive compensation that is directly tied to, and incentivizes our executives to work towards, achievement of our key corporate goals. The key purposes served by time-vesting options and RSUs for 2019 are discussed above in the chart captioned “Components of Total Direct Compensation.
Individual NEO Compensation Decisions
Below are summaries, for each NEO individually, of the compensation committee’s decisions about 2019 target total direct compensation and the changes from each NEO’s 2018 target total direct compensation. As described above, when making the 2019 compensation decisions, the compensation committee focused primarily on the target total direct compensation for each NEO while considering the factors set forth in the section titled “” and the compensation committee’s specific compensation objectives for 2019. The footnotes to the tables also include the actual performance bonus paid to each of the NEOs for 2019 and how that actual bonus compared to each NEO’s target bonus.
Factors Used in Determining Executive Compensation
27
Bruce C. Cozadd, Chairman and CEO
| 2018 Pay ($) |
2019 Pay ($) |
Change (%) |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Cash Compensation |
1,962,985 |
2,034,415 |
3.6% |
||||||||||
| Base Salary (1) |
983,700 |
1,020,000 |
|||||||||||
| Target Performance Bonus (2) |
979,285 |
1,014,415 |
|||||||||||
| Target Equity Compensation (3) |
9,470,396 |
12,381,420 |
30.7% |
||||||||||
| Options |
4,265,610 |
5,379,925 |
|||||||||||
| RSUs |
5,204,786 |
7,001,495 |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Direct Compensation (4) |
11,433,381 |
14,415,835 |
26.1% |
||||||||||
(1) |
Represents annual base salary rate for the applicable year. 2019 base salary became effective February 16, 2019. |
(2) |
Target amounts are as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2018 and 2019, respectively, and reflect the target percentage of base salary earned for each fiscal year. The 2019 amount reflects a target performance bonus of 100% of base salary earned, unchanged from the target performance bonus percentage for 2018. The actual 2019 performance bonus paid was $1,304,500, reflecting 128.6% of the target performance bonus, based entirely on the overall 2019 bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6%. The compensation committee (with approval from the board of directors) determined that the overall 2019 bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6% was applicable to Mr. Cozadd, because, as CEO, Mr. Cozadd is responsible for the company meeting all of its objectives. |
(3) |
The target equity compensation delivered (as presented in the chart) reflects the fair value of the awards as of the grant date, in accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation |
(4) |
The compensation committee and board of directors designed Mr. Cozadd’s target total direct compensation to be competitive compared to the market data, appropriate from an internal equity perspective and more heavily weighted towards equity compensation, in line with our pay-for-performance philosophy. The compensation committee believed it was appropriate to provide a modest increase to his base salary in 2019 in recognition of his individual performance, the performance of the company under his leadership and to remain in line with general market increases. As described above, Mr. Cozadd’s target bonus percentage remained the same as in 2018, but the increase in his base salary resulted in a higher target performance bonus opportunity. The compensation committee increased Mr. Cozadd’s target equity compensation for 2019, which resulted in an increase in his target total direct compensation, in recognition of his criticality to the business as a long-tenured CEO and founder, particularly at a point in the company’s life cycle when its executive leadership was undergoing evolution and refreshment. The compensation committee’s recognition of Mr. Cozadd’s criticality to the business was subsequently substantiated and reinforced by the fact that Mr. Cozadd (a former public company CFO) was willing and able to step into the role of interim principal financial officer after Mr. Young’s resignation in the fourth quarter of 2019. |
28
Daniel N. Swisher, Jr., President and COO
| 2018 Pay ($) |
2019 Pay ($) |
Change (%) |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Cash Compensation |
1,084,495 |
1,108,750 |
2.2% |
||||||||||
| Base Salary (1) |
625,000 |
675,000 |
|||||||||||
| Target Performance Bonus (2) |
334,495 |
433,750 |
|||||||||||
| Signing Bonus (3) |
125,000 |
— |
|||||||||||
| Target Equity Compensation (4) |
4,607,220 |
3,466,798 |
(24.8) |
||||||||||
| Options |
2,075,162 |
1,506,379 |
|||||||||||
| RSUs |
2,532,058 |
1,960,419 |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Direct Compensation (5) |
5,691,715 |
4,575,548 |
(19.6) |
||||||||||
(1) |
Represents annual base salary rate for the applicable year. 2019 base salary became effective February 16, 2019. |
(2) |
Target amounts are as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2018 and 2019, respectively, and reflect the target percentage of base salary earned for 2019. The 2019 amount reflects a target performance bonus of 65% of base salary earned, increased from a target performance bonus of 55% in 2018. The compensation committee increased Mr. Swisher’s target performance bonus percentage in consideration of the market data and impact of Mr. Swisher’s position. The actual 2019 performance bonus paid was $560,000, reflecting 129.1% of target performance bonus, based on the overall 2019 bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6% and Mr. Swisher’s individual contributions to achieving both our quantitative and qualitative objectives for 2019. The compensation committee also considered Mr. Swisher’s responsibility for a large and complex function, as well as his significant impact on the company meeting its corporate objectives in 2019. |
(3) |
Represents the cash signing bonus Mr. Swisher received in connection with his appointment as President and COO. To the extent Mr. Swisher had voluntarily resigned within one year of his employment start date, he would have been required to repay the full amount of the signing bonus on or within 30 days of the later of his resignation or termination date. |
(4) |
The target equity compensation delivered (as presented in the chart) reflects the fair value of the awards as of the grant date, in accordance with ASC 718, which was modestly higher than the target equity compensation value approved by the compensation committee as a result of the timing of the grant and an increase in our share price as of the grant date, as described above. Target equity compensation dollar amounts represent the grant date fair value of each stock option and RSU award, as applicable, and have been calculated in accordance with ASC 718 as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2019. See the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for the number of shares subject to each award. As a result of the timing of Mr. Swisher’s new hire equity awards, he was not eligible to receive regular annual equity awards during 2019. The decrease in target equity compensation from 2018 to 2019 was attributable to Mr. Swisher receiving a larger initial hire grant in 2018 compared to the typical, continuing annual grant received in 2019. |
(5) |
The compensation committee designed Mr. Swisher’s target total direct compensation to be competitive compared to the market data, appropriate from an internal equity perspective and more heavily weighted towards equity compensation, in line with our pay-for-performance philosophy. The compensation committee determined it was appropriate to increase Mr. Swisher’s base salary in an amount necessary to reflect his scope of responsibility and oversight of significant functions within the organization, as well as to maintain competitive positioning relative to the market data and the other NEOs. |
29
Matthew P. Young, Former Executive Vice President and CFO
| 2018 Pay ($) |
2019 Pay ($) |
Change (%) |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Cash Compensation |
896,462 |
985,752 |
10.0% |
||||||||||
| Base Salary (1) |
580,000 |
625,000 |
|||||||||||
| Target Performance Bonus (2) |
316,462 |
360,752 |
|||||||||||
| Target Equity Compensation (3) |
2,405,992 |
2,971,541 |
23.5% |
||||||||||
| Options |
1,083,695 |
1,291,182 |
|||||||||||
| RSUs |
1,322,297 |
1,680,359 |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Direct Compensation (4) |
3,302,454 |
3,957,292 |
19.8% |
||||||||||
(1) |
Represents annual base salary rate for the applicable year. 2019 base salary became effective February 16, 2019. |
(2) |
Target amounts are as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2018 and 2019, respectively, and reflect the target percentage of base salary earned for each fiscal year. The 2019 amount reflects a target performance bonus of 60% of base salary earned. Mr. Young’s target bonus percentage was increased from 55% in 2018 to 60% in 2019 in consideration of the scope of his responsibility and his contributions to achieving strategic initiatives in line with corporate objectives. Mr. Young resigned from the company in October 2019 and therefore was not eligible to receive a 2019 performance bonus. |
(3) |
The target equity compensation delivered (as presented in the chart) reflects the fair value of the awards as of the grant date, in accordance with ASC 718, which was modestly higher than the target equity compensation value approved by the compensation committee as a result of the timing of the grant and an increase in our share price as of the grant date, as described above. Target equity compensation dollar amounts represent the grant date fair value of each stock option and RSU award, as applicable, and have been calculated in accordance with ASC 718 as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2018 and 2019, respectively. See the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for the number of shares subject to each award. |
(4) |
The compensation committee designed Mr. Young’s target total direct compensation to be competitive compared to the market data, appropriate from an internal equity perspective and more heavily weighted towards equity compensation, in line with our pay-for-performance philosophy. Consistent with the approach for 2019 equity award grants described above, the compensation committee generally aimed to deliver equity awards to the executive vice presidents of a similar grant date value to those delivered to executive vice presidents in 2018. Mr. Young’s target equity award grant date value and resulting target total direct compensation for 2019 were comparable to 2018. The compensation committee determined it was appropriate to increase Mr. Young’s base salary from an internal pay equity perspective, in an amount that reflects his knowledge and expertise in the role and the criticality of Mr. Young’s role as our CFO. In addition, the compensation committee considered the retention value of his compensation given Mr. Young’s criticality to the company’s business development strategy and the breadth of his impact on the business. As described above, Mr. Young’s higher target performance bonus opportunity shown above resulted from both an increase in Mr. Young’s target bonus percentage to 60% and an increase in his base salary in 2019. |
30
Robert Iannone, Executive Vice President, Research and Development
| 2018 Pay ($) |
2019 Pay ($) |
Change (%)(1) |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Cash Compensation |
— |
927,192 |
— |
||||||||||
| Base Salary (2) |
550,000 |
||||||||||||
| Target Performance Bonus (3) |
172,192 |
||||||||||||
| Signing Bonus (4) |
205,000 |
||||||||||||
| Target Equity Compensation (5) |
— |
2,922,079 |
— |
||||||||||
| Options |
1,249,216 |
||||||||||||
| RSUs |
1,672,863 |
||||||||||||
| Target Total Direct Compensation (6) |
— |
3,849,271 |
— |
||||||||||
(1) |
In April 2019, we entered into an employment offer letter with Dr. Iannone pursuant to which he agreed to serve as our Executive Vice President, Research and Development effective May 29, 2019. |
(2) |
Represents annual base salary rate for 2019. Dr. Iannone’s actual salary earned was lower due to him joining the company mid-2019. |
(3) |
The target amount is as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2019 and reflects the target percentage of 55% of base salary earned for 2019, taking into account that Dr. Iannone was not employed the entire year. The actual 2019 performance bonus paid was $245,000, reflecting 142.3% of target performance bonus, based on the overall 2019 bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6% and Dr. Iannone’s significant individual contributions to such achievement and outperformance of his research and development organization with respect to the corporate objectives. Specifically, the compensation committee considered Dr. Iannone’s leadership in progressing a multitude of development programs, achievement of regulatory approvals, submissions and progress toward future submissions, and support of scientific diligence in executing corporate development objectives. The compensation committee also noted Dr. Iannone’s short tenure with the company and the immediate impact Dr. Iannone nonetheless had on driving performance with respect to the company’s corporate objectives. |
(4) |
Represents the cash signing bonus received by Dr. Iannone in connection with his appointment as Executive Vice President, Research and Development. In determining the amount of the bonus, the compensation committee considered the inducement value in recruiting Dr. Iannone from his prior employer and the compensatory value of cash and equity forfeited by Dr. Iannone in leaving his prior employer. To the extent Dr. Iannone voluntarily resigns within one year of his employment start date, he would be required to repay the full amount of the signing bonus. To the extent Dr. Iannone’s resignation or termination date is between 12 and 24 months after his employment start date, he would be required to repay $125,000 of the signing bonus paid to him. Such payment would be due on or within 30 days of the later of his resignation or termination date. |
(5) |
Target equity compensation dollar amounts represent the grant date fair value of each stock option and RSU award, as applicable, and have been calculated in accordance with ASC 718 as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2019. See the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for the number of shares subject to each award. |
(6) |
The compensation committee designed Dr. Iannone’s target total direct compensation to be competitive compared to the market data, appropriate from an internal equity perspective and more heavily weighted towards equity compensation, in line with our pay-for-performance philosophy. In determining his compensation package, the compensation committee considered the company’s executive compensation program and received advice from Radford to design a competitive, market-based compensation package appropriate for a senior executive with Dr. Iannone’s skills and experience and his overall expected contribution to our business. |
31
Neena M. Patil, Senior Vice President and GC
| 2018 Pay ($) |
2019 Pay ($) |
Change (%)(1) |
|||||||||||
| Target Total Cash Compensation |
— |
647,529 |
— |
||||||||||
| Base Salary (2) |
510,000 |
||||||||||||
| Target Performance Bonus (3) |
75,029 |
||||||||||||
| Signing Bonus (4) |
62,500 |
||||||||||||
| Target Equity Compensation (5) |
— |
2,874,176 |
— |
||||||||||
| Options |
1,228,737 |
||||||||||||
| RSUs |
1,645,439 |
||||||||||||
| Target Total Direct Compensation (6) |
— |
3,521,705 |
— |
||||||||||
(1) |
In July 2019, we entered into an employment offer letter with Ms. Patil pursuant to which she agreed to serve as our Senior Vice President and GC effective July 29, 2019. |
(2) |
Represents annual base salary rate for 2019. Ms. Patil’s actual salary earned was lower due to her joining the company mid-2019. |
(3) |
The target amount is as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2019 and reflects the target percentage of 45% of base salary earned for 2019, taking into account that Ms. Patil was not employed the entire year. The actual 2019 performance bonus paid was $100,000, reflecting 133.3% of target performance bonus, based on the overall 2019 bonus pool funding percentage of 128.6% and Ms. Patil’s significant individual contributions to such achievement. Specifically, the compensation committee considered Ms. Patil’s oversight of complex strategic matters and corporate priorities, such as planning and execution of product launches, her performance with respect to supporting the execution of corporate development priorities and her overall criticality to our business, particularly in light of executive officer departures during 2019. |
(4) |
Represents the cash signing bonus received by Ms. Patil in 2019 in connection with her appointment as Senior Vice President and GC. In determining the amount of the bonus, the compensation committee considered the inducement value in recruiting Ms. Patil from her prior employer and compensatory value of cash and equity forfeited by Ms. Patil in leaving her prior employer. The full signing bonus is in the amount of $125,000 paid in two equal installments with the first payment of $62,500 payable on the first regular pay date following Ms. Patil’s employment start date, and the second payment of $62,500 on the first regular pay date occurring 180 days after Ms. Patil’s employment start date. To the extent Ms. Patil voluntarily resigns within one year of her employment start date, she would be required to repay the full amount of the signing bonus on or within 30 days of the later of her resignation or termination date. |
(5) |
Target equity compensation dollar amounts represent the grant date fair value of each stock option and RSU award, as applicable, and have been calculated in accordance with ASC 718 as reported in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for 2019. See the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for the number of shares subject to each award. |
(6) |
The compensation committee designed Ms. Patil’s target total direct compensation to be competitive compared to the market data, appropriate from an internal equity perspective, in line with our pay-for-performance philosophy. In determining her compensation package, the compensation committee considered the company’s executive compensation program and received advice from Radford to design a competitive, market-based compensation package appropriate for a senior executive with Ms. Patil’s skills and experience and her overall expected contribution to our business. |
32
Additional Compensation Information
Ownership Guidelines for Executive Officers
We maintain share ownership guidelines for our CEO and certain other employees who serve on our executive committee, including our NEOs. Under the guidelines, which were amended in May 2018, these individuals are expected to own a number of the company’s ordinary shares with a value equal to six times base salary (increased from three times base salary) for the company’s Chief Executive Officer, two times base salary (increased from one times base salary) for each other member of the company’s executive committee who is an officer for purposes of Section 16 of the Exchange Act, and one times base salary for each other member of the company’s executive committee. The guidelines provide that the officers are expected to establish the minimum ownership levels within five years of first becoming subject to the guidelines (and, with respect to the increased amounts established by the amended guidelines, by the last day of 2021 for officers who were subject to the guidelines as of January 1, 2018). As described in the table below, Mr. Cozadd was in compliance with the guidelines as of March 31, 2020, while each of our other continuing NEOs has five years from the date of his or her appointment to comply with the guidelines.
Ownership Guidelines and Compliance
| Name |
Ownership Requirement |
Actual Ownership(1) |
||||||
| Bruce C. Cozadd |
6.0x |
27.5x |
||||||
| Daniel N. Swisher, Jr. (2) |
2.0x |
1.5x |
||||||
| Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E (3) |
2.0x |
0x |
||||||
| Neena M. Patil (4) |
2.0x |
0x |
||||||
(1) |
Actual ownership calculated based on (a) value of shares owned as of March 31, 2020, using a 90-day trailing average price of $129.29 as of March 31, 2020, divided by (b) 2020 base salary. Under the guidelines, once an officer has reached his or her compliance deadline, such officer’s share ownership will be assessed annually at the end of each fiscal year using the average closing price of the company’s ordinary shares over the 90-day period ending on the last day of the company’s immediately preceding fiscal year. |
(2) |
Mr. Swisher was appointed our President and COO as of January 3, 2018 and, accordingly, has five years from his appointment, or until 2023, to comply with the guidelines. |
(3) |
Dr. Iannone was appointed our Executive Vice President, Research and Development as of May 29, 2019 and, accordingly, has five years from his appointment, or until 2024, to comply with the guidelines. |
(4) |
Ms. Patil was appointed our Senior Vice President and GC as of July 29, 2019 and, accordingly, has five years from her appointment, or until 2024, to comply with the guidelines. |
Shares that count toward satisfaction of these guidelines include: shares owned outright by the individual (including RSUs that have vested but not yet settled, net of taxes); shares retained after an option exercise or issuance under another type of equity award granted under the company’s equity incentive plans; shares retained after purchase under the ESPP; and shares held in trust for the benefit of the individual. The compensation committee has discretion to develop an alternative individual guideline or an alternative method of complying with the applicable individual guideline for an individual covered by the guidelines if compliance would place a significant hardship on such individual.
Change in Control Plan
Our compensation committee periodically reviews the terms of our change in control plan, including its “double-trigger” structure and benefits, against market data to ensure that the benefits we offer remain appropriate.
The compensation committee made refinements to the program in July 2019 to reflect updates in applicable law. Only our executive officers who are employees of our U.S. affiliates are eligible to participate in the change in control plan, which includes all of our NEOs. Certain executive officers who are not employed by our U.S. affiliates receive comparable change in control benefits pursuant to their employment agreements. The compensation committee believes that the change in control benefits we provide are representative of market practice, both in terms of design and cost, and are sufficient to retain our current executive team and to recruit talented executive officers in the future. The terms of the change in control plan are described below under the heading “.”
Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control—Amended and Restated Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan
33
Equity Grant Timing and Equity Plan Information
Our equity incentive grant policy, which was initially approved by our board of directors after the Azur Merger and amended and restated most recently in November 2017, provides that all equity grants that are approved for executive officers will be granted on the second trading day following the filing date of our next quarterly or annual report filed under the Exchange Act that occurs after the date on which such grants are approved by our board of directors or compensation committee, as applicable. Accordingly, our equity incentive grant policy requires that grants to our executive officers, if any, be made shortly after we have released information about our financial performance to the public for the applicable annual or quarterly period, so that the market will have an opportunity to absorb the financial and other information included in our annual and periodic reports before such grants are awarded. As a result, the timing of equity awards is not coordinated in a manner that intentionally benefits our executive officers; rather, the policy is designed with the objective that the market price of our ordinary shares at the time of grant can generally be expected to reflect our then-current results and prospects.
We currently grant equity awards to the NEOs, including stock options and RSUs, under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2011 Plan. The 2011 Plan was adopted by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s board of directors and approved by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s stockholders in connection with their approval of the Azur Merger in December 2011 and was assumed by us upon the completion of the Azur Merger. Before the 2011 Plan was adopted, we granted stock options under our 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2007 Plan, which was adopted by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s board of directors and approved by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s stockholders in connection with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s initial public offering. Awards granted under the 2007 Plan continue to be governed by the terms of the 2007 Plan, but subsequent equity awards have been, and continue to be, awarded under the 2011 Plan. The 2011 Plan affords the compensation committee the flexibility to utilize a broad array of equity incentives and performance cash incentives in order to secure and retain the services of employees of our company and its subsidiaries and to provide long-term incentives that align the interests of employees with the interests of our shareholders.
Additional long-term equity incentives are provided through the ESPP, which we assumed upon the completion of the Azur Merger. Pursuant to the ESPP, all eligible employees, including the NEOs, may allocate up to 15% of their base salary to purchase our stock at a 15% discount to the market price, subject to specified limits.
Accounting and Tax Considerations
Under ASC 718, the company is required to estimate and record an expense for each award of equity compensation (including stock options and RSUs) over the vesting period of the award. We record share-based compensation expense on an ongoing basis according to ASC 718. The compensation committee has considered, and may in the future consider, the grant of performance-based or other types of stock awards to executive officers in lieu of or in addition to stock option and time-based RSU grants in light of the accounting impact of ASC 718 and other considerations.
Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, or Section 162(m), compensation paid to any publicly held corporation’s “covered employees” that exceeds $1 million per taxable year for any covered employee is generally
non-deductible
for tax purposes.Prior to the enactment of the U.S. Tax Act, Section 162(m) provided a performance-based compensation exception, pursuant to which the deduction limit under Section 162(m) did not apply to any compensation that qualified as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m). Pursuant to the U.S. Tax Act, the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) was repealed with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, except that certain transition relief is provided for compensation paid pursuant to a written binding contract which was in effect on November 2, 2017 and which is not modified in any material respect on or after such date.
Compensation paid to each of the company’s “covered employees” in excess of $1 million per taxable year generally will not be deductible unless it qualifies for the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) pursuant to the transition relief described above. Because of certain ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m), as well as other factors beyond the control of the compensation committee, no assurance can be given that any compensation paid by the company will be eligible for such transition relief and be deductible by the company in the future. Although the compensation committee will continue to consider tax implications as one factor in determining executive compensation, the compensation committee also looks at other factors in making its decisions and retains the flexibility to provide compensation for the company’s named executive officers in a manner consistent with the goals of the company’s executive compensation program and the best interests of the company and its stockholders, which may include providing for compensation that is not deductible by the company due to the deduction limit under Section 162(m). The compensation committee also retains the flexibility to modify compensation that was initially intended to be exempt from the deduction limit under Section 162(m) if it determines that such modifications are consistent with the company’s business needs.
34
Risk Assessment Concerning Compensation Practices and Policies
The compensation committee annually reviews the company’s compensation policies and practices to assess whether they encourage employees to take inappropriate risks. After reviewing each of the company’s compensation plans, and the checks and balances built into, and oversight of, each plan, in February 2020, the compensation committee determined that any risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for our employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company as a whole. In addition, the compensation committee believes that the mix and design of the elements of executive compensation do not encourage management to assume excessive risks, and significant compensation decisions, as well as decisions concerning the compensation of the company’s executive officers, include subjective considerations by the compensation committee or the board of directors, which restrain the influence of formulae or objective factors on excessive risk-taking. Finally, the mix of short-term compensation (in the form of salary and annual bonus, if any), and long-term compensation (in the form of stock options and RSUs) also prevents undue focus on short-term results and helps align the interests of the company’s executive officers with the interests of our shareholders.
Reconciliations of
Non-GAAP
Financial Measures To supplement our financial results presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), we use certain
non-GAAP
(also referred to as non-GAAP
adjusted) financial measures in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. In particular, we present non-GAAP
adjusted net income (and the related per share measure), which exclude from reported GAAP net income (and the related per share measure) certain items, as detailed in the reconciliation table that follows, adjust for the income tax effect of the non-GAAP
adjustments and, as applicable, the income tax benefit related to an intra-entity intellectual property asset transfer and the impact of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Job Act (U.S. Tax Act).We believe that each of these
non-GAAP
financial measures provides useful supplementary information to, and facilitates additional analysis by, investors and analysts. In particular, we believe that each of these non-GAAP
financial measures, when considered together with our financial information prepared in accordance with GAAP, can enhance investors’ and analysts’ ability to meaningfully compare our results from period to period, and to identify operating trends in our business. In addition, these non-GAAP
financial measures are regularly used by investors and analysts to model and track our financial performance. Our management also regularly uses these non-GAAP
financial measures internally to understand, manage and evaluate our business and to make operating decisions, and compensation of our executive officers is based in part on certain of these non-GAAP
financial measures, as discussed elsewhere in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Because these non-GAAP
financial measures are important internal measurements for our management, we also believe that these non-GAAP
financial measures are useful to investors and analysts since these measures allow for greater transparency with respect to key financial metrics we use in assessing our own operating performance and making operating decisions.These
non-GAAP
financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures; should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP; have no standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP; and are not prepared under any comprehensive set of accounting rules or principles. In addition, from time to time in the future there may be other items that we may exclude for purposes of our non-GAAP
financial measures; and we have ceased, and may in the future cease, to exclude items that we have historically excluded for purposes of our non-GAAP
financial measures. For example, commencing with the presentation of our financial guidance for 2020, we will no longer exclude upfront and milestone payments from non-GAAP
adjusted net income (and the related per share measure). Accordingly, while certain of such payments are excluded to arrive at historical non-GAAP
adjusted net income (and the related per share measure), as detailed in the reconciliation table that follows, such presentation is made solely for comparability and transition purposes and will not be continued going forward. Likewise, we may determine to modify the nature of our adjustments to arrive at our non-GAAP
financial measures. Because of the non-standardized
definitions of non-GAAP
financial measures, the non-GAAP
financial measures as used by us in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis have limits in their usefulness to investors and may be calculated differently from, and therefore may not be directly comparable to, similarly titled measures used by other companies.35
Reconciliations of GAAP reported net income to
non-GAAP
adjusted net income (and the related per share measures) for the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 annual periods are as follows (in millions, except percentages and per share amounts): | 2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2016-2019 CAGR |
||||||||||||||||
| GAAP reported net income |
$ |
396.8 |
$ |
487.8 |
$ |
447.1 |
$ |
523.4 |
||||||||||||
| Intangible asset amortization |
102.0 |
152.1 |
201.5 |
354.8 |
||||||||||||||||
| Impairment charges and disposal costs |
— |
— |
44.0 |
— |
||||||||||||||||
| Share-based compensation expense |
98.8 |
106.9 |
102.4 |
110.6 |
||||||||||||||||
| Loss contingency |
— |
— |
57.0 |
— |
||||||||||||||||
| Upfront and milestone payments |
23.7 |
101.5 |
11.0 |
104.3 |
||||||||||||||||
| Transaction and integration related costs |
13.6 |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||
| Expenses related to certain legal proceedings and restructuring |
6.1 |
6.0 |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||
| Non-cash interest expense |
22.1 |
30.0 |
44.0 |
46.4 |
||||||||||||||||
| Loss on extinguishment and modification of debt |
0.6 |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||
| Income tax effect of above adjustments |
(36.7 |
) | (58.8 |
) | (60.9 |
) | (92.9 |
) | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Tax Act impact |
— |
(148.8 |
) | (7.5 |
) | — |
||||||||||||||
| Income tax benefit related to intra-entity intellectual property asset transfer |
— |
— |
— |
(112.3 |
) | |||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP adjusted net income |
$ | 627.2 |
$ | 676.7 |
$ | 838.6 |
$ | 934.2 |
||||||||||||
| GAAP reported net income per diluted share |
$ |
6.41 |
$ |
7.96 |
$ |
7.30 |
$ |
9.09 |
12% |
|||||||||||
| Non-GAAP adjusted net income per diluted share |
$ | 10.14 |
$ | 11.04 |
$ | 13.70 |
$ | 16.23 |
17% |
|||||||||||
| Weighted-average ordinary shares used in diluted per share calculations |
61.9 |
61.3 |
61.2 |
57.6 |
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
36
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
Summary of Compensation
The following table sets forth certain summary information for the years indicated with respect to the compensation earned by the NEOs during fiscal years 2019, 2018 and 2017, as applicable.
| Name and Principal Position |
Year |
Salary ($)(1) |
Bonus ($)(2) |
Stock Awards ($)(3) |
Option Awards ($)(4) |
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)(5) |
All Other Compensation ($)(6) |
Total ($) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bruce C. Cozadd (7) |
2019 |
1,014,415 |
— |
7,001,495 |
5,379,925 |
1,304,500 |
13,302 |
14,713,637 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chairman and CEO |
2018 |
979,285 |
— |
5,204,786 |
4,265,610 |
980,300 |
13,152 |
11,443,133 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 |
950,385 |
— |
4,711,828 |
3,669,875 |
961,800 |
10,722 |
10,304,610 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Daniel N. Swisher, Jr. (8) |
2019 |
667,308 |
— |
1,960,419 |
1,506,379 |
560,000 |
13,302 |
4,707,407 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| President and COO |
2018 |
608,173 |
125,000 |
2,532,058 |
2,075,162 |
400,000 |
12,948 |
5,753,341 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Matthew P. Young (9) |
2019 |
601,253 |
— |
1,680,359 |
1,291,182 |
— |
10,585 |
3,583,378 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Former Executive Vice President |
2018 |
575,385 |
— |
1,322,297 |
1,083,695 |
365,000 |
9,960 |
3,356,337 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| and CFO |
2017 |
545,385 |
— |
1,361,800 |
1,060,658 |
315,000 |
9,810 |
3,292,653 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Robert Iannone (10) |
2019 |
313,077 |
205,000 |
1,672,863 |
1,249,216 |
245,000 |
8,405 |
3,693,560 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Executive Vice President, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Research and Development |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Neena M. Patil (11) |
2019 |
166,731 |
62,500 |
1,645,439 |
1,228,737 |
100,000 |
2,375 |
3,205,781 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Senior Vice President and GC |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) |
The dollar amounts in this column represent base salary earned during the indicated fiscal year. 2019 base salary rates were effective February 16, 2019. For more information on salaries in 2019, see “ Compensation Discussion and Analysis—2019 Compensation Decisions for Our Named Executive Officers—Individual NEO Compensation Decisions |
(2) |
The dollar amounts in this column represent cash signing bonuses paid to Mr. Swisher in 2018 and each of Dr. Iannone and Ms. Patil in 2019. |
(3) |
The dollar amounts in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of all RSU awards granted during the indicated fiscal year computed in accordance with ASC 718, excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures. The grant date fair value of each RSU award is measured based on the closing price of our ordinary shares on the date of grant. These amounts do not necessarily correspond to the actual value recognized or that may be recognized by the NEOs. |
(4) |
The dollar amounts in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of all stock option awards granted during the indicated fiscal year. These amounts have been calculated in accordance with ASC 718, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in the notes to our audited consolidated financial statements included in the company’s 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K. These amounts do not necessarily correspond to the actual value recognized or that may be recognized by the NEOs. |
(5) |
The dollar amounts in this column represent the cash bonus awarded under the performance bonus plan for the indicated fiscal year. For more information on the cash bonus awards for 2019, see “ Compensation Discussion and Analysis—2019 Performance Bonus Program” and “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—2019 Compensation Decisions for Our Named Executive Officers |
(6) |
The dollar amounts in this column for 2019 include group term life insurance premiums paid and matching contributions under the 401(k) Plan. |
(7) |
Mr. Cozadd served as our interim principal financial officer from October 25, 2019 through March 16, 2020. |
(8) |
Mr. Swisher was appointed our President and COO as of January 3, 2018. |
(9) |
Mr. Young resigned from his position as Executive Vice President and CFO, effective as of October 25, 2019. |
(10) |
Dr. Iannone was appointed our Executive Vice President, Research and Development as of May 29, 2019. |
(11) |
Ms. Patil was appointed our Senior Vice President and GC as of July 29, 2019. |
37
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table shows, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, certain information regarding grants of plan-based awards to the NEOs.
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN FISCAL 2019
| Name |
Award Type |
Grant Date |
Approval Date |
Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non- Equity Incentive Plan Awards Target ($)(1) |
All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(2) |
All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#)(2) |
Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/Sh)(3) |
Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($)(4) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bruce C. Cozadd |
Annual Cash |
— |
— |
1,014,415 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual Option |
2/28/2019 |
2/14/2019 |
— |
— |
125,000 |
140.03 |
5,379,925 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual RSU |
2/28/2019 |
2/14/2019 |
— |
50,000 |
— |
— |
7,001,495 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Daniel N. Swisher, Jr. |
Annual Cash |
— |
— |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual Option |
2/28/2019 |
2/13/2019 |
— |
— |
35,000 |
140.03 |
1,506,379 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual RSU |
2/28/2019 |
2/13/2019 |
— |
14,000 |
— |
— |
1,960,419 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Matthew P. Young |
Annual Cash |
— |
— |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual Option |
2/28/2019 |
2/13/2019 |
— |
— |
30,000 |
140.03 |
1,291,182 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual RSU |
2/28/2019 |
2/13/2019 |
— |
12,000 |
— |
— |
1,680,359 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Robert Iannone, M.D., M.S.C.E |
Annual Cash |
— |
— |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Initial Option |
8/8/2019 |
5/1/2019 |
— |
— |
30,500 |
137.12 |
1,249,216 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Initial RSU |
8/8/2019 |
5/1/2019 |
— |
12,200 |
— |
— |
1,672,863 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Neena M. Patil |
Annual Cash |
— |
— |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Initial Option |
8/8/2019 |
7/31/2019 |
— |
— |
30,000 |
137.12 |
1,228,737 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Initial RSU |
8/8/2019 |
7/31/2019 |
— |
12,000 |
— |
— |
1,645,439 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) |
This column sets forth the target bonus amount for each NEO for the year ended December 31, 2019 under the performance bonus plan. There are no thresholds or maximum bonus amounts for each individual officer established under the performance bonus plan. Target bonuses were set as a percentage of each NEO’s base salary earned for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 and were 100% for Mr. Cozadd, 65% for Mr. Swisher, 60% for Mr. Young, 55% for Dr. Iannone and 45% for Ms. Patil. The dollar value of the actual bonus award earned for the year ended December 31, 2019 for each NEO is set forth in the Summary Compensation Table above. As such, the amounts set forth in this column do not represent either additional or actual compensation earned by the NEOs for the year ended December 31, 2019. For a description of the performance bonus plan, see “ Compensation Discussion and Analysis—2019 Performance Bonus Program |
(2) |
Annual stock options and RSU awards were granted under the 2011 Plan. Each of the annual stock option awards listed in the table above vest or vested as to 25% of the ordinary shares underlying the stock options upon the one year anniversary of the grant date and vest as to the remainder of the shares in 36 equal monthly installments thereafter. Each of the annual RSU awards vest in four equal annual installments on the anniversary of the vesting commencement date of March 5, 2019. In May 2019, Dr. Iannone was appointed as Executive Vice President, Research and Development and in July 2019, Ms. Patil was appointed as Senior Vice President and GC, in connection with which they each received new hire grants of stock option and RSU awards, which were granted under the 2011 Plan. The initial stock option awards granted to Dr. Iannone and Ms. Patil vest as to 25% of the ordinary shares underlying the stock options upon the one year anniversary of their respective hire dates of May 29, 2019 for Dr. Iannone and July 29, 2019 for Ms. Patil and vest as to the remainder of the shares in 36 equal monthly installments thereafter. Each of the initial RSU awards granted to Dr. Iannone and Ms. Patil vest in four equal annual installments on the anniversary of the vesting commencement date of June 5, 2019 for Dr. Iannone and August 5, 2019 for Ms. Patil. As a general matter, the vested portion of stock options granted to the NEOs will expire three months after each NEO’s last day of service, subject to extension upon certain termination situations, such as death or disability, and RSUs will cease vesting upon each NEO’s last day of service. Stock option and RSU awards are subject to potential vesting acceleration as described below under the headings “ Description of Compensation Arrangements—Equity Compensation Arrangements—2011 Equity Incentive Plan Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control—Amended and Restated Executive Change in Control Plan and Severance Benefit Plan Description of Compensation Arrangements—Equity Compensation Arrangements—2011 Equity Incentive Plan |