|
|
Library
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Timeframe
|
|
|
|
|
Category
|
|
|
| |
|
Sub-Category
|
|
|
|
| ** To make multiple selections, select the first criterion and then press and hold
the Ctrl Key **
|
|
| |
|
1- 1 of 1
Search Results for:
|
Ordering of Search Results
When searching across multiple libraries:
FAQs will appear in alphabetical order by category and sub-category
Listing Council Decisions will appear in reverse chronological order by year.
Staff Interpretations will appear in reverse chronological order by year
When searching using keywords:
Results are returned in order of term frequency (i.e., the number of times the keywords appear in the material).
|
|
Libraries:
Staff Interpretation Letters
|
|
Filters:
All Years; Board Composition/Committee Assignments; All
|
|
|
|
|
Identification Number
704
|
|
|
According to the information you provided, the Director and his wife own a construction company (the “Construction Company”). Pursuant to guidelines established by its audit committee, the company has selected the Construction Company to perform certain
construction-related services over the past several years. In performing these services, the Construction Company provides general contractor services, bids out work to subcontractors, and oversees the progress of the project. For each project, the payments
made by the company to the Construction Company (the “Payments”) equal the sum of subcontractor and material costs, labor expenses, and the Construction Company’s fee. The entire amount of the Payments is reflected as revenue on the books and records of the
Construction Company.
You stated that the Director personally spent only a nominal amount of time on the construction projects, consisting of a few inspections of the projects. For each project, other employees performed the overall supervision of the project, and the Construction
Company had both a project manager and a superintendent/foreman, each of whom was responsible for the construction activities. The Construction Company has approximately 45 employees.
Following our review of the information you provided, we have determined that the Payments are not compensation within the meaning of Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)(B). In that regard, we note that
IM-5605 states that in exceptional circumstances, such as where a director has direct, significant business holdings, it may be appropriate to apply the corporate measurements in Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)(D) instead of the individual measurements of Listing
Rule 5605(a)(2)(B). We believe that this is such a case, given that the Payments were made to the Construction Company, the Construction Company is a significant, bona fide business, and the Director had only minimal involvement in the projects. As such,
with respect to the Payments, the company’s board of directors is not precluded by Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)(B) from finding that the Director is independent. The total amount of the Payments, however, is considered to be payment for property or services for
purposes of Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)(D). Accordingly, under Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)(D), the Director’s eligibility to be considered independent would be determined by whether the total amount of the Payments in the current year or any of the last three fiscal
years exceeds 5% of the Construction Company’s revenues for that year, or $200,000, whichever is more.
Notwithstanding the Director’s eligibility under Rules 5605(a)(2)(B) and 5605(a)(2)(D), in order for the Director actually to be considered independent under NASDAQ’s rules, the company’s board must make an affirmative factual determination (as described
in IM-5605) that no relationship exists that would impair the Director’s independence. In that regard, we believe that in evaluating whether there are any relationships that may interfere with the Director’s independence, the board should specifically consider
the Payments and the ongoing relationship between the company and the Construction Company, particularly given that the company selected the Construction Company without a competitive bidding process, and all other facts and circumstances relating to this
relationship. For this reason, this letter is not, and should not be construed as, expressing a view that the Director is actually independent under the Rules.
|
Publication Date*:
7/31/2012
|
|
|
Identification Number:
704
|
|
|
|
|