|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
| |||||||||
Eastman Kodak Company DEF 14A 2008 Documents found in this filing:SCHEDULE 14A (Rule 14a-101) INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section
14(a) of the Filed by the Registrant
[x] EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant) Payment of Filing Fee (Check the
appropriate box): 1) Title of each class of
securities to which transaction applies:
Date of Notice April 3, 2008
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Dear Shareholder: You are cordially invited to attend our Annual Meeting of Shareholders on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. at the Columbus Marriott, 800 Front Avenue, Columbus, GA. You will be asked to vote on management and shareholder proposals. Whether or not you attend the Annual Meeting, we hope you will vote as soon as possible. You may vote over the internet, as well as by telephone or by mailing a proxy card or voting instruction card. We encourage you to use the internet, as it is the most cost-effective way to vote. We look forward to seeing you at the Annual Meeting and would like to take this opportunity to remind you that your vote is very important.
1
In addition, shareholders may request to receive proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically by e-mail on an ongoing basis. Choosing to receive your future proxy materials by e-mail will save us the cost of printing and mailing documents to you and will reduce the impact of our annual shareholders’ meetings on the environment. 2
3
Beneficial Owner. If you are a beneficial owner of shares held in street name and do not provide your broker, trustee or nominee with specific voting instructions:
You may also complete a written ballot at the Annual Meeting. Beneficial Owner. If you are a beneficial owner, please follow the voting instructions sent to you by your broker, trustee or nominee. 4
5
Secretary For a shareholder proposal that is not intended to be included in Kodak’s proxy statement under Rule 14a-8, the shareholder must deliver a proxy statement and form of proxy to holders of a sufficient number of shares of Kodak common stock to approve that proposal, provide the information required by the By-laws of Kodak and give timely notice to the Secretary of Kodak in accordance with the By-laws of Kodak, which, in general, require that the notice be received by the Secretary of Kodak:
If the date of the shareholder meeting is moved more than 30 days before or 30 days after the anniversary of the 2008 Annual Meeting, then notice of a shareholder proposal that is not intended to be included in Kodak’s proxy statement under Rule 14a-8 must be received no earlier than the close of business 120 days prior to the meeting and no later than the close of business on the later of the following two dates:
You may contact our Secretary at our principal executive offices for a copy of the relevant by-law provisions regarding the requirements for making shareholder proposals. Our By-laws can also be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. 6
You may request printed copies of any of these documents by contacting: Coordinator, Shareholder Services The address of our principal executive office is: Eastman
Kodak Company AUDIO WEBCAST OF ANNUAL MEETING AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET Kodak’s Annual Meeting will be webcast live. If you have internet access, you can listen to the webcast by going to Kodak’s Investor Center webpage at www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/investorCenter/investorsCenterHome.shtml. This webcast is listen only. You will not be able to ask questions. The Annual Meeting audio webcast will remain available on our website for a short period of time after the Annual Meeting. Information included on our website, other than our Proxy Statement and proxy card, is not part of the proxy solicitation materials. 7
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS ITEM 1 — Election of Directors Kodak’s By-laws require us to have at least nine directors but no more than 18. The number of directors is set by the Board and is currently 12. Mr. Perez is the only director who is an employee of the Company. There are nine directors standing for re-election (Richard S. Braddock, Timothy M. Donahue, Michael J. Hawley, William H. Hernandez, Debra L. Lee, Delano E. Lewis, Antonio M. Perez, Hector de J. Ruiz and Laura D’Andrea Tyson) and three directors standing for election for the first time (Douglas R. Lebda, William G. Parrett and Dennis F. Strigl). All the nominees agree to serve a one-year term. Information about them is provided on pages 14 -16 of this Proxy Statement. If a nominee is unable to stand for election, the Board may reduce the number of directors or choose a substitute. If the Board chooses a substitute, the shares represented by proxies will be voted for the substitute. If a director retires, resigns, dies or is unable to serve for any reason, the Board may reduce the number of directors or elect a new director to fill the vacancy. The director nominees receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected. Under the Company’s majority voting policy for the election of directors, however, any director who receives a majority of “withhold” votes will be required to tender his or her resignation to the Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee, which will then consider the resignation and make a recommendation to the Board. More information about the Company’s majority voting policy can be found on page 9 of this Proxy Statement. The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of all the director nominees.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has been the Company’s independent accountants for many years. The Audit Committee has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm to serve until the 2009 annual meeting. Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are expected to attend the Annual Meeting to respond to questions and, if they desire, make a statement. The ratification of the Audit Committee’s selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast by the holders of shares entitled to vote. The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR ratification of the Audit Committee’s selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL ITEM 3 — Shareholder Proposal on Majority Voting Requirement for Director Nominees United Association S&P 500 Index Fund, owner of over $2,000 in Company stock, submitted the following proposal: “Resolved: That the shareholders of Eastman Kodak Company (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s certificate of incorporation to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders, with a plurality vote standard retained for contested director elections, that is, when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of board seats. Supporting Statement: In order to provide shareholders a meaningful role in director elections, our Company’s director election vote standard should be changed to a majority vote standard. A majority vote standard would require that a nominee receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected. The standard is particularly well-suited for the vast majority of director elections in which only board nominated candidates are on the ballot. We believe that a majority vote standard in board elections would establish a challenging vote standard for board nominees and improve the performance of individual directors and entire boards. Our Company presently uses a plurality vote standard in all director elections. Under the plurality vote standard, a nominee for the board can be elected with a little as a single affirmative vote, even if a substantial majority of the votes cast are “withheld” from the nominee. 8 In response to strong shareholder support for a majority vote standard in director elections, an increasing number of companies, including Intel, General Electric, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Morgan Stanley, Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Safeway have adopted a majority vote standard in company bylaws or articles of incorporation. Additionally, these companies have adopted by laws or policies to address post-election issues related to the status of director nominees that fail to win election. Our Company has not established a majority vote standard in Company bylaws, opting only to establish a post-election director resignation governance policy. The Company’s director resignation policy simply addresses post-election issues, establishing a requirement for directors to tender their resignations for board consideration should they receive more “withhold” votes than “for” votes. We believe that these director resignation policies, coupled with the continued use of a plurality vote standard, are a wholly inadequate response to the call for the adoption of a majority vote standard. We believe the establishment of a meaningful majority vote policy requires the adoption of a majority vote standard in the Company’s governance documents, not the retention of the plurality vote standard. A majority vote standard combined with the Company’s current post-election director resignation policy would provide the board a framework to address the status of a director nominee who fails to be elected. The combination of a majority vote standard with a post-election policy establishes a meaningful right for shareholders to elect directors, while reserving for the board an important post-election role in determining the continued status of an unelected director.” BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ POSITION The Board of Directors favors a vote AGAINST the adoption of this proposal for the following reasons: This proposal requests Kodak to ask its shareholders to amend the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to adopt a majority voting standard for director elections so that shareholders have a meaningful role in the director election process. As noted in the proposal, Kodak, a New Jersey company, uses a plurality voting standard, the default under New Jersey law. The plurality voting standard provides that nominees who receive the most affirmative votes are elected to serve as Kodak directors. Most large public companies continue to use a plurality voting standard. Our Board of Directors has been mindful of the ongoing corporate governance developments and debates on the subject of majority voting in the election of directors and has examined this issue very closely. In fact, our Board agrees with many aspects of the majority voting concept and believes the fundamental principles of majority voting may potentially be beneficial to our shareholders. After careful consideration, however, our Board recommends a vote against this proposal for the following reasons:
The Company has already implemented a director election policy. Like a number of other large public companies facing this issue, in order to address the concerns relating to director candidates who do not receive a majority of the votes cast, the Company has adopted a Director Election Policy. This policy provides direct and effective consequences by requiring that any nominee who receives more votes "withheld'' from his or her election than votes "for'' his or her election must promptly tender an offer of resignation for consideration by our Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee. We believe that this policy at the present time is effective in giving shareholders a meaningful voice in the director election process and in removing a director opposed by shareholders. Under our policy, any nominee who receives a majority of withhold votes must tender his or her resignation and could be removed from the Board. By contrast, the majority voting standard requested by the proposal only addresses the voting requirement for being elected to the Board. It does not remove incumbent directors who have not received a majority vote because, under New Jersey law, a director who fails to receive a required vote continues in office as a "holdover'' director, generally until the next shareholder meeting. Therefore, even if the proposal were adopted, Kodak could not force a director who failed to receive a majority vote to leave the Board until the next annual meeting of shareholders. As explained below, given the practical difficulties and issues under current law surrounding the implementation of a majority voting standard, there continues to be considerable discussion and debate regarding this topic. Until the law becomes settled and a general consensus emerges as to best corporate governance practice in this area, we believe our policy is the most effective means of providing shareholders a meaningful role in the director election process. The Company’s current process elects highly qualified candidates. Given Kodak’s strong corporate governance practices and responsiveness to shareholder concerns, we believe the proposal is unnecessary. The Board already has in place a robust corporate governance process designed to identify and propose independent director nominees who are qualified to serve the best interests of the Company and our shareholders. The Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee, which is composed solely of independent directors, evaluates and recommends director nominees for election based on such factors as their business or professional experience, the diversity of their background and their talents and perspectives. Relying on this process, the Company’s shareholders have historically elected strong, highly qualified Boards, who consistently receive a substantial majority of votes cast. 9 The proposal is premature. New Jersey law requires the plurality voting standard in director elections, unless a company's certificate of incorporation provides otherwise. Our Board cannot adopt majority voting in our By-laws, an approach that other companies have recently taken. Kodak can adopt majority voting only through shareholder approval of an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation. We believe that it is premature to ask our shareholders to amend the Certificate of Incorporation to adopt majority voting in light of the on-going analyses and discussions in this developing area. The legal community, shareholder advocates, governance experts and other groups continue to evaluate the respective benefits, disadvantages and consequences of plurality voting and majority voting, the impact of the "holdover rule'' and whether some modified model of plurality voting might be preferable. Any change in voting standards should be undertaken with full understanding of the consequences. For this reason, we believe it is premature to ask shareholders to amend the Certificate of Incorporation to adopt majority voting until there is greater clarity and consensus on this issue. Summary. In summary, Kodak is not opposed to majority voting in uncontested elections, but we believe that it is both unnecessary and premature to ask the shareholders to amend the Certificate of Incorporation to adopt majority voting. The proposal is presently unnecessary because our Director Election Policy, along with our strong governance record and robust director election process, already serves and protects the interests of our shareholders. The proposal is premature given the continuing debate on majority voting standard. We do not believe that the proposal, at this point in time, is in the best interest of the Company or its shareholders. Nonetheless, the Board will continue to assess the developments in this area. For the reasons described above, the Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal. 10
Ethical business conduct and good corporate governance are not new practices at Kodak. The reputation of our Company and our brand has been built by more than a century of ethical business conduct. The Company and the Board have long practiced good corporate governance and believe it to be a prerequisite to providing sustained, long-term value to our shareholders. We continually monitor developments in the area of corporate governance and lead in developing and implementing best practices. This is a fundamental goal of our Board. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
GUIDELINES Our Corporate Governance Guidelines reflect the principles by which the Company operates. From time to time, the Board reviews and revises our Corporate Governance Guidelines in response to regulatory requirements and evolving best practices. In February 2004, our Board restated our Corporate Governance Guidelines to reflect changes in the New York Stock Exchange’s (NYSE) corporate governance listing standards. A copy of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is published on our website at www.kodak.com/go/governance. BUSINESS CONDUCT GUIDE AND DIRECTORS’ CODE OF CONDUCT All of our employees, including the CEO, the CFO, the Controller, all other senior financial officers and all other Section 16 executive officers, as defined under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (a Section 16 Executive Officer) are required to comply with our long-standing code of conduct, the “Business Conduct Guide.” The Business Conduct Guide requires our employees to maintain the highest ethical standards in the conduct of company business so that they and the Company are always above reproach. In 2004, our Board adopted a Directors’ Code of Conduct. Both our Business Conduct Guide and our Directors’ Code of Conduct are published on our website at www.kodak.com/go/governance. We will post on this website any amendments to the Business Conduct Guide or Directors Code of Conduct and any waivers of either code for directors or the Company’s CEO, CFO or Controller. Our directors annually certify in writing that they understand and are in compliance with the Directors’ Code of Conduct. For a number of years, a substantial majority of our Board has been comprised of independent directors. In February 2004, the Board adopted Director Independence Standards to aid it in determining whether a director is independent. These Director Independence Standards, which are in compliance with the director independence requirements of the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards, are attached as Exhibit I to this Proxy Statement. The Board has determined that each of the following former and current directors has no material relationship with the Company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company) and is independent under the Company’s Director Independence Standards and, therefore, is independent within the meaning of the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards and the rules of the SEC: Richard S. Braddock, Martha Layne Collins, Timothy M. Donahue, Michael J. Hawley, William H. Hernandez, Durk I. Jager, Douglas R. Lebda, Debra L. Lee, Delano E. Lewis, William G. Parrett, Hector de J. Ruiz, Dennis F. Strigl and Laura D’Andrea Tyson. The remaining director, Antonio M. Perez, Chairman of the Board and CEO, is an employee of the Company and, therefore, is not independent. In the course of the Board’s determination regarding the independence of each non-employee director, it considered any transactions, relationships and arrangements as required by the Company’s Independence Standards. In particular, with respect to the most recent completed fiscal year, the Board considered:
11
AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS The Board has determined that all members of its Audit Committee (Richard S. Braddock, William H. Hernandez, Debra L. Lee, Delano E. Lewis, William G. Parrett and Dennis F. Strigl) are independent and are financially literate as required by the NYSE, and that Richard S. Braddock, William H. Hernandez and William G. Parrett possess the qualifications of an Audit Committee Financial Expert, as defined by SEC rules, and have accounting or related financial management expertise, as required by the NYSE. REVIEW, APPROVAL OR RATIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS In February 2007, our Board, based on the recommendation of the Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee, adopted written policies and procedures relating to approval or ratification of “interested transactions” with “related parties.” Under these policies and procedures, which are posted on our website at www.kodak.com/go/governance, our Governance Committee is to review the material facts of all interested transactions that require the Governance Committee’s approval. The Governance Committee will approve or disapprove of the interested transactions, subject to certain exceptions, by taking into account, among other factors it deems appropriate, whether the interested transaction is on terms no less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third-party under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction. No director may participate in any discussion or approval of an interested transaction for which he or she is a related party. If an interested transaction will be ongoing, the Governance Committee may establish guidelines for our management to follow in its ongoing dealings with the related party and then at least annually must review and assess ongoing relationships with the related party. Under the policies and procedures, an “interested transaction” is any transaction, arrangement or relationship, or series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships (including any indebtedness or guarantee of indebtedness), in which the aggregate amount involved will or may be expected to exceed $100,000 in any calendar year, the Company is a participant and any related party has or will have a direct or indirect interest (other than solely as a result of being a director or a less than 10% beneficial owner of another entity). A “related party” is any person who is or was since the beginning of the last fiscal year for which we have filed a Form 10-K and proxy statement, a Section 16 Executive Officer, director or nominee for election as a director (even if they presently do not serve in that role), any greater than 5% beneficial owner of the Company’s common stock or any immediate family member of any of the foregoing. Immediate family member includes a person’s spouse, parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, siblings, mothers- and fathers-in-law, sons- and daughters-in-law, brothers- and sisters-in-law and anyone residing in such person’s home (other than a tenant or employee). The Governance Committee has reviewed and pre-approved certain types of interested transactions described below. In addition, our Board has delegated to the chair of the Governance Committee the authority to pre-approve or ratify (as applicable) any interested transaction with a related party in which the aggregate amount involved is expected to be less than $500,000. Pre-approved interested transactions include:
12
The Governance Committee reviewed one interested transaction with a related party occurring in 2007 that did not fall within any of the pre-approved interested transactions described above. In this case, the Committee ratified the transaction and determined that the related person did not have a material interest in the transaction. Therefore, there are no related party transactions that need to be disclosed in this Proxy Statement under the relevant SEC rules. 13 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
14
15
16 COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD The Board has the five committees described below. The Board has determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee (Richard S. Braddock, William H. Hernandez, Debra L. Lee, Delano E. Lewis, William G. Parrett and Dennis F. Strigl), the Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee (Timothy M. Donahue, Michael J. Hawley, Douglas R. Lebda, Hector de J. Ruiz and Laura D’Andrea Tyson), the Executive Compensation and Development Committee (Richard S. Braddock, Michael J. Hawley, Douglas R. Lebda, Delano E. Lewis and William G. Parrett) and the Finance Committee (Timothy M. Donahue, William H. Hernandez, Debra L. Lee, Hector de J. Ruiz, Dennis F. Strigl and Laura D’Andrea Tyson) has no material relationship with the Company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company) and is independent under the Company’s Director Independence Standards and, therefore, independent within the meaning of the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards and, in the case of the Audit Committee, the rules of the SEC. Audit Committee — 9 meetings in 2007 The Audit Committee assists the Board in overseeing: the integrity of the Company’s financial reports; the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; the independent registered public accounting firm’s (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) selection, qualifications, performance and independence; the Company’s systems of disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting; and the performance of the Company’s internal auditors. A detailed list of the Audit Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which is attached as Exhibit V and can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. In the past year, the Audit Committee:
17 Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee — 6 meetings in 2007 The Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee assists the Board in: overseeing the Company’s corporate governance structure; identifying and recommending individuals to the Board for nomination as directors; performing an annual review of the Board’s performance; and overseeing the Company’s activities in the areas of environmental and social responsibility, charitable contributions, diversity and equal employment opportunity. A detailed list of the Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. In the past year, the Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee:
The Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee is also referred to as the “Governance Committee” in this Proxy Statement. Executive Compensation and Development Committee — 8 meetings in 2007 The Executive Compensation and Development Committee assists the Board in: overseeing the Company’s executive compensation strategy; overseeing the administration of its executive compensation and equity-based compensation plans; reviewing and approving the compensation of the Company’s CEO; overseeing the compensation of the Company’s Section 16 Executive Officers; reviewing the Company’s succession plans for its CEO, President, if applicable, and other key positions; and overseeing the Company’s activities in the areas of leadership and executive development. A detailed list of the Executive Compensation and Development Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. In the past year, the Executive Compensation and Development Committee:
The Executive Compensation and Development Committee is also referred to as the “Compensation Committee” in this Proxy Statement. 18 Finance Committee — 5 meetings in 2007 The Finance Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s: balance sheet and cash flow performance; financing plans; capital expenditures; acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures; risk management programs; performance of sponsored pension plans; and tax policy. A detailed list of the Finance Committee’s functions is included in its charter, which can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. In the past year, the Finance Committee:
Executive Committee — No meeting in 2007 The Executive Committee is composed of the following directors: the Chairman of the Board, the Presiding Director and the Chairs of the other four committees. The Executive Committee is generally authorized to exercise all of the powers of the Board in the intervals between meetings of the Board. The Executive Committee did not meet in 2007. The Executive Committee’s charter can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP FROM JULY 2006 – FEBRUARY 26, 2008
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP – BEGINNING FEBRUARY 26, 2008
* Mr. Strigl joined the Board on February 21, 2008. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Compensation Committee is comprised of five members of the Board, all of whom are independent in accordance with the Board’s Director Independence Standards, which standards reflect the NYSE’s director independence standards. The Compensation Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities in connection with the compensation of its executives and employees, including our Named Executive Officers. It performs this function by overseeing the Company’s executive compensation strategy, overseeing the administration of its executive compensation and equity-based plans, assessing the effectiveness of the Company’s executive compensation plans, reviewing and approving the compensation of the Company’s CEO, and reviewing and approving the compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers and other Section 16 Executive Officers. The entire Board reviews the Company’s succession plans for its CEO and other key positions, and oversees the Company’s activities in the areas of leadership and executive development. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board, which details the Compensation Committee’s duties and responsibilities. A current copy of the Compensation Committee’s charter can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. The full Board sets the compensation of the Company’s non-employee directors based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee. The Compensation Committee has delegated limited authority to the Company’s Chief Human Resources Officer to assist the Compensation Committee with administration of the Company’s executive compensation and equity-based compensation plans. The Chief Human Resources Officer is authorized to amend any executive compensation or equity-based compensation plan in which our Named Executive Officers participate other than to materially increase the benefits accruing to a participant under the plan, increase the number of shares available for issuance under the plan or substantially modify the requirements as to eligibility for participation. The Chief Human Resources Officer has also been delegated the authority to amend award agreements under any executive compensation and equity-based compensation plan other than to increase the benefits accruing to the participant and to determine the manner and timing of payments under the Eastman Kodak Company 1982 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (EDCP). The Compensation Committee meets routinely throughout the year. It is the Compensation Committee’s policy to make most compensation decisions in a two-step process to ensure sufficient deliberation. The Compensation Committee approves all compensation and awards under the Company’s executive compensation plans for each of the Company’s Named Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee also approves compensation levels for each component of total direct compensation following discussions and after review of analyses and recommendations received from its independent compensation consultant and management, as it deems appropriate. The CEO, Chief Human Resources Officer and Director of Global Compensation make recommendations regarding each compensation element for the Named Executive Officers other than the CEO. The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant and the Director of Global Compensation present analyses and recommendations regarding CEO compensation to the Compensation Committee in executive session. 20 With respect to the Company’s performance-based plans, management, including the CEO, CFO, Chief Human Resources Officer and Director of Global Compensation, proposes performance goals. The CEO and Chief Human Resources Officer are involved in formulating recommendations to the Compensation Committee on award levels for each Named Executive Officer for the upcoming performance year, with the exception of award levels for the CEO. Management develops these performance targets considering the Company’s strategic and operational imperatives for the year and its executive compensation strategy and goals. Generally, the performance targets and individual award targets for the Company’s annual variable cash bonus plan are reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee within the first 90 days of each calendar year. The performance targets of the Company’s long-term incentive plans for the new performance cycle are reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee within the first 90 days of each calendar year while annual stock option grants and allocations for the Leadership Stock Program for the next performance cycle are generally established in December of the prior year. Throughout the year, the Compensation Committee reviews projections for achievement of each plan’s performance targets. Role of Compensation Consultant To assist the Compensation Committee in evaluating the Company’s executive compensation plans, the Compensation Committee engaged an independent compensation consultant, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc., to advise it directly. The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant attends Compensation Committee meetings on a regular basis and provides the Compensation Committee with market information and analysis with respect to establishing executive compensation practices that are in line with the Company’s executive compensation strategy and goals. The independent compensation consultant is also asked to confirm that the Company’s executive compensation goals continue to be aligned with best practices. The Company’s Chief Human Resources Officer and others directly involved with the Company’s executive compensation programs routinely consult with and seek advice from the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant regarding the design, competitiveness, operation and administration of our executive compensation programs and practices that fall within the scope of the Compensation Committee charter. In 2007, neither the Compensation Committee nor the Company engaged other consultants or advisors to advise in determining the amount or form of executive compensation. The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant does not provide any services other than executive compensation consulting to Kodak. COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION The following directors served on the Compensation Committee during 2007: Martha Layne Collins, Timothy M. Donahue, Douglas R. Lebda, Hector de J. Ruiz and Laura D’Andrea Tyson. There were no Compensation Committee interlocks between the Company and other entities involving the Company’s executive officers and directors. GOVERNANCE PRACTICES Described below are some of the significant governance practices that have been adopted by our Board. Presiding Director Our Board created the position of Presiding Director in February 2003. The Board has designated Richard S. Braddock its Presiding Director. The primary functions of the Presiding Director are to: 1) ensure that our Board operates independently of our management; 2) chair the meetings of the independent directors; 3) act as the principal liaison between the independent directors and the CEO; and 4) assist the Board in its understanding of the boundaries between Board and management responsibilities. A more detailed description of the Presiding Director’s duties can be found at www.kodak.com/go/governance. Meeting Attendance Our Board has a “Director Attendance Policy.” A copy of this policy is attached as an appendix to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which can be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. Under this policy, all of our directors are strongly encouraged to attend our annual meeting of shareholders. In 2007, the Board held a total of nine meetings. Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and committees of the Board on which the director served. Nine of our directors attended our 2007 annual meeting. Executive Sessions Executive sessions of our non-management directors are chaired by our Presiding Director. If all of our non-management directors are not independent, the independent members of our Board will meet in executive session at least once a year. Our Presiding Director will chair these meetings. In 2007, all of our non-management directors were independent. They met in executive session three times. 21 Board Declassification In 2005, the Board submitted, for your approval, a management proposal that all Board members be elected annually. You approved this proposal by a substantial majority and, as a result, the Company amended its Restated Certificate of Incorporation to eliminate the classified system. As required by the proposal, this was done in stages. Beginning this year for the first time, all Board members will be elected to one-year terms. The Board believes a declassified board better ensures that the Company’s corporate governance policies maximize accountability to you. Policy on Recoupment of Executive Bonuses in the Event of Certain Restatements In 2006, the Board, based on the Governance Committee’s recommendation, adopted a policy requiring the recoupment of bonuses paid to Named Executive Officers upon certain financial restatements. Under the policy, which is posted on our website at www.kodak.com/go/governance, the Company will require reimbursement of a certain portion of any bonus paid to a Named Executive Officer when:
In each such instance, the Company will, to the extent practicable, seek to recover the amount by which the individual officer’s annual bonus for the relevant period exceeded the lower payment that would have been made based on the restated financial results, plus a reasonable rate of interest. Communications with Our Board The Board maintains a process for our shareholders and other interested parties to communicate with the Board. Shareholders and interested parties who wish to communicate with the Board, the independent directors as a group, or an individual director, including the Presiding Director, may send an e-mail to our Presiding Director at presiding-director@kodak.com or may send a letter to our Presiding Director at P.O. Box 92818, Rochester, NY 14650. Communications sent by e-mail will go simultaneously to Kodak’s Presiding Director and Secretary. Our Secretary will review communications sent by mail and if they are relevant to, and consistent with, Kodak’s operations, policies and philosophies, they will be forwarded to the Presiding Director. By way of example, communications that are unduly hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly inappropriate will not be forwarded to the Presiding Director. Our Secretary will periodically provide the Board with a summary of all communications received that were not forwarded to the Presiding Director and will make those communications available to any director upon request. The Presiding Director will determine whether any communication sent to the full Board should be properly addressed by the entire Board or a committee thereof and whether a response to the communication is warranted. If a response is warranted, the Presiding Director may choose to coordinate the content and method of the response with our Secretary. Consideration of Director Candidates The Governance Committee will consider for nomination as director of the Company candidates recommended by its members, other Board members, management, shareholders and the search firms it retains. Shareholders wishing to recommend candidates for consideration by the Governance Committee may do so by providing the following information, in writing, to the Governance Committee, c/o Secretary, Eastman Kodak Company, 343 State Street, Rochester, NY 14650-0218: 1) the name, address and telephone number of the shareholder making the request; 2) the number of shares of the Company owned, and, if such person is not a shareholder of record or if such shares are held by an entity, reasonable evidence of such person’s ownership of such shares or such person’s authority to act on behalf of such entity; 3) the full name, address and telephone number of the individual being recommended, together with a reasonably detailed description of the background, experience and qualifications of that individual; 4) a signed acknowledgement by the individual being recommended that he or she has consented to: a) serve as director if elected and b) the Company undertaking an inquiry into that individual’s background, experience and qualifications; 5) the disclosure of any relationship of the individual being recommended with the Company or any subsidiaries or affiliates, whether direct or indirect; and 6) if known to the shareholder, any material interest of such shareholder or individual being recommended in any proposals or other business to be presented at the Company’s next annual meeting of shareholders (or a statement to the effect that no material interest is known to such shareholder). Our Board may change the process by which shareholders may recommend director candidates to the Governance Committee. Please refer to the Company’s website at www.kodak.com/go/governance for any changes to this process. The Governance Committee will consider candidates recommended by shareholders on the same basis as candidates identified through other means. 22 Director Qualification Standards When reviewing a potential candidate for the Board, the Governance Committee looks to whether the candidate possesses the necessary qualifications to serve as a director. To assist it in these determinations, the Governance Committee has adopted “Director Qualification Standards.” The Director Qualification Standards are attached as Exhibit ll to this Proxy Statement and can also be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. These standards specify the minimum qualifications that a nominee must possess in order to be considered for election as a director. If a candidate possesses these minimum qualifications, the Governance Committee, in accordance with the Director Selection Process described in the next section, will then consider the candidate’s qualifications in light of the needs of the Board and the Company at that time, given the then-current mix of director attributes. Director Selection Process As provided in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Governance Committee seeks to create a diverse and inclusive Board that, as a whole, is strong in both its knowledge and experience. When identifying, screening and recommending new candidates to the Board for membership, the Governance Committee follows the procedures outlined in its “Director Selection Process.” The Director Selection Process is attached as Exhibit lll to this Proxy Statement and can also be accessed at www.kodak.com/go/governance. The Governance Committee generally uses the services of a third-party executive search firm when identifying and evaluating possible nominees for director. Board Business Plan Our Board has a formal process for annually establishing and prioritizing its goals. The end product of this process is a “Board business plan.” The Board believes that adopting such a plan annually enhances its ability to measure its performance, improves its focus on the Company’s long-term strategic issues and ensures that its goals are linked to the Company’s operational and strategic imperatives. Under the process approved by the Board, each year the Governance Committee submits to the Board a proposed list of Board goals for the following year. At its first meeting of the year, the Board finalizes its goals for the year based on the Governance Committee’s recommendations. Once the goals are established by the Board, the Governance Committee is responsible for tracking the Board’s performance against its goals and routinely reporting these results to the Board. Performance against the goals is assessed as part of the Board’s annual evaluation process. Strategic Role of Board The Board plays a key role in developing, reviewing and overseeing the Company’s business strategy. Twice each year, the Board devotes an extended meeting to an update from management regarding the strategic issues and opportunities facing the Company and its businesses. In addition, the Board throughout the year reviews the Company’s strategic plan and receives briefings and reports on critical aspects of its implementation. These include business unit performance reviews, product category reviews and presentations regarding research and development initiatives and the Company’s intellectual property portfolio. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION Introduction Our directors are compensated through a combination of cash retainers and equity-based incentives. Consistent with the Board’s Director Compensation Principles, a substantial portion of director compensation is linked to our stock performance. In addition, directors can elect to receive their entire Board remuneration in stock based compensation. Our directors are required to keep all of the shares, net of any shares used to pay the exercise price when exercising an option, they receive as compensation until they own shares equal in market value to at least five times their annual retainer that is paid in cash. Kodak does not pay management directors for Board service in addition to their regular employee compensation. Director Compensation Principles The Board has adopted the following director compensation principles, which are aligned with the Company’s executive compensation principles:
23
Review The Governance Committee, which consists solely of independent directors, has the primary responsibility for reviewing and considering any changes to the Board’s compensation program. The Board reviews the Governance Committee’s recommendation and determines the amount of director compensation. In 2007, the Governance Committee completed a review of the Board’s compensation program. In connection with this review, the Governance Committee retained Peal Meyer & Partners, independent compensation consultant, to competitively assess our director compensation relative to market trends and comparable peer companies. The last time such a review was initiated by the Governance Committee was in 2003. The Governance Committee commenced its review by examining the current trends in director pay as presented by its independent compensation consultant, including: the current board landscape, board pay levels, structure of board pay, director pay mix, board equity pay, director pay mix, committee service and compensation, and stock ownership guidelines. With this background in mind, the Governance Committee’s independent compensation consultant conducted a competitive review of director pay levels and practices at peer companies. This analysis compared Kodak’s Board compensation to competitive market data from a peer group of 20 companies. This peer group is the same group of companies that the Company uses to benchmark its share usage and fair value transfer for executive compensation purposes. The companies within this peer group were selected by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant with input from Pearl Meyer & Partners. A primary goal in compiling the peer group was to have it be reflective of the Company’s transformation to a digital technology company. Annual revenues of the companies within the peer group ranged from $5 billion to $94 billion, with the median being approximately $11 billion. The peer group consisted of the following companies:
Based on this peer group, the Governance Committee’s independent compensation consultant completed its review and reported that the Company’s director compensation had fallen below the median compensation of its peer group and certain compensation components were no longer consistent with market practices. A summary of the independent compensation consultant’s finding appears below:
Based on these findings, and by using the Board’s Director Compensation Principles as a guide, the Governance Committee’s independent compensation consultant developed various proposals to address the deficiencies identified during its review. After reviewing and considering these proposals, the Governance Committee made the following recommendations regarding the Board’s compensation program which were approved by the Board at its November 14, 2007 meeting:
24
The changes to the equity retainer became effective on December 11, 2007. The remaining changes became effective as of January 1, 2008. As a result of these changes, the annual cash and equity components of the Company’s director compensation program are now as follows:
Director Share Ownership Requirements A director is not permitted to exercise any stock options or sell any restricted shares granted to him or her by the Company unless and until the director owns shares of stock in the Company (either outright or through phantom stock units in the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan) that have a value equal to at least five times the then maximum amount of the annual retainer, which may be taken in cash by the director (currently, this amount is $350,000). 25 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE In 2007, we provided the following compensation to our directors who are not employees:
26 The following table reports the outstanding stock awards held by each of the non-employee directors at the end of fiscal year 2007. Aggregate Stock Awards Outstanding at Fiscal Year End
The following table reports the outstanding option awards held by each of the non-employee directors at the end of fiscal year 2007. Aggregate Stock Options Outstanding at Fiscal Year End
27
Deferred Compensation Non-employee directors may defer some or their entire Board retainer, chair retainer, presiding director retainer and restricted stock award into the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. The plan has two investment options: an interest-bearing account that pays interest at the prime rate and a Kodak phantom stock account. The value of the Kodak phantom stock account reflects changes in the market price of the common stock and dividends paid. Five directors deferred compensation in 2007. In the event of a change-in-control, the amounts in the phantom accounts will generally be paid in a single cash payment. The plan’s benefits are neither funded nor secured. Life Insurance The Company provided $100,000 of group term life insurance to each non-employee director. This decreased to $50,000 at retirement or age 65, whichever occurs later. Effective as of January 1, 2008, this benefit has been terminated for all current non-employee directors. Personal Umbrella Liability Insurance The Company provided $5,000,000 of personal umbrella liability insurance to each non-employee director. This coverage terminated on December 31st of the year in which the director terminates service on the Company’s Board. Effective as of January 1, 2008, this benefit has been terminated. Travel Accident Insurance The Company provided each non-employee director with $200,000 of accidental death and $100,000 of dismemberment insurance while traveling to, or attending, Board or Committee meetings. Effective as of January 1, 2008, this benefit has been terminated. 28 Other Benefits The Company reimburses the directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board, committee and shareholder meetings and other Company-sponsored events, and provides Company transportation to the directors (including use of Company aircraft) to attend such meetings and events. From time to time, we also invite our directors’ spouses, significant others and other family members to accompany them to these meetings and events, and we reimburse travel and incidental expenses related to their attendance, in order to encourage attendance and to foster social interaction among directors. To encourage our directors to experience and familiarize themselves with our products and services, we occasionally provide them samples of the Company’s products and services. Charitable Award Program This program, which was closed to new participants effective January 1, 1997, provides for a contribution by the Company of up to a total of $1,000,000 following a director’s death, to be shared by a maximum of four charitable institutions recommended by the director. The individual directors derive no financial benefits from this program. It is funded by self-insurance and joint life insurance policies purchased by the Company. Mr. Braddock is the only current director who continues to participate in the program. 29
BENEFICIAL SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN 5% OF THE COMPANY’S COMMON STOCK As of February 14, 2008, based on Schedule 13G/A filings, the Company was aware of the following beneficial owners of more than 5% of its common stock:
30 BENEFICIAL SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF DIRECTORS, NOMINEES AND SECTION 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The above table reports beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock in accordance with the applicable SEC rules. All Company securities over which the directors, nominees and Section 16 Executive Officers directly or indirectly have, or share voting or investment power, are listed as beneficially owned. The figures above include shares held for the account of the above persons in the Kodak Employees’ Stock Ownership Plan, and the interests of the above persons in the Kodak Stock Fund of the Eastman Kodak Employees’ Savings and Investment Plan, stated in terms of Kodak shares.
31
32 Share Ownership Program In order to closely align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders, the Company strongly encourages executives to acquire a significant ownership stake in Company stock. Effective February 26, 2008, our share ownership program was revised to require our Section 16 Executive Officers to retain 100% of shares attributable to stock option exercises or the vesting or earn-out of full value shares (such as restricted shares or Leadership Stock) until they attain specified ownership levels, which are expressed below as a multiple of base salary. Also, stock acquired upon stock option exercise, restricted stock, restricted stock units, any shares held in the executive’s account under Kodak’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan or Savings & Investment Plan and any “phantom stock” selected by an executive as an investment option in the EDCP count toward meeting the executive’s share ownership requirement. The Compensation Committee monitors each executive’s status regarding achievement of the applicable minimum ownership requirement throughout the year utilizing a fixed stock price of $25.66 per share that was established at the commencement of the program. As of January 31, 2008, Mr. Perez and Mr. Sklarsky had met their share ownership targets. Ms. Hellyar met her share ownership target on March 27, 2008 after receiving a portion of her 2007 Executive Compensation for Excellence and Leadership Plan award in shares of common stock. Effective February 26, 2008, our Named Executive Officers have the following share ownership requirements:
33
The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board is composed solely of independent directors and operates under a written charter adopted by the Board, most recently amended on February 17, 2004. A copy of the Audit Committee’s charter is attached as Exhibit V to this Proxy Statement and can be found on our website at www.kodak.com/go/governance. Management is responsible for the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, and preparing the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm (independent accountants), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), is responsible for performing an independent audit of the consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and for issuing a report of the results. As outlined in its charter, the Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing these processes. During 2007, the Audit Committee met and held discussions with management and the independent accountants on a regular basis. Management represented to the Audit Committee that the Company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP), and the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements with management and the independent accountants. The Audit Committee met and discussed with the Corporate Controller and Assistant Controllers the Company’s significant accounting matters, key fluctuations in the Company’s financial statements and the quality of the Company’s earning reports. The Audit Committee discussed with the independent accountants the matters specified by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, “Communications with Audit Committee,” as adopted by the PCAOB in Rule 3200T. The independent accountants provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures required by the Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1, “Independence Discussion With Audit Committees,” as adopted by the PCAOB in Rule 3600T. The Audit Committee discussed with the independent accountants their independence. The Audit Committee discussed with the Company’s internal auditors and independent accountants the plans for their audits. The Audit Committee met with the internal auditors and independent accountants, with and without management present. The internal auditors and independent accountants discussed with or provided to the Audit Committee the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, and the quality of the Company’s financial reporting. With reliance on these reviews, discussions and reports, the Audit Committee recommended that the Board approve the audited financial statements for inclusion in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and the Board accepted the Audit Committee’s recommendations. The following fees were paid to PwC for services rendered in 2007 and 2006:
The Audit Fees related primarily to the annual audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements (including Section 404 internal control assessment under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reviews of interim financial statements included in the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q, statutory audits of certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, and services relating to filings under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Audit-Related Fees for 2006 and 2007 are related primarily to separate financial statement audits for the Company’s Health Group Segment. Tax Fees in 2007 consisted of $1.9 million for tax compliance services and $.2 million for tax planning and advice. Tax Fees in 2006 consisted of $1.9 million for tax compliance services and $.3 million for tax planning and advice. The Audit Committee appointed PwC as the Company’s independent accountants. In addition, the Audit Committee approved the scope of non-audit services anticipated to be performed by PwC in 2007 and the estimated budget for those services. The Audit Committee has adopted an Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy, a copy of which is attached to this Proxy Statement as Exhibit IV. William H.
Hernandez, Chair 34 REPORT OF THE CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY AND Introduction The Company has long practiced and led in developing and implementing good corporate governance. The Corporate Responsibility and Governance Committee of the Board is primarily responsible for overseeing the Company’s governance practices, with the intent of seeking to maintain “best practices” in the area of corporate governance. The Governance Committee continually considers ways to improve the Company’s corporate governance practices. In this regard, the Governance Committee periodically reviews the Board’s governance policies and procedures to ensure that they are aligned with best practices, the Board’s corporate governance documents and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. This report, an annual voluntary governance practice that the Governance Committee began in 2003, highlights the Governance Committee’s corporate governance activities during 2007. Governance Committee Composition The Governance Committee is composed of five directors, each of whom meets the definition of independence set forth in the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards. During 2007, the Governance Committee met six times and routinely reported its activities to the full Board. The Governance Committee acts pursuant to a written charter, which can be accessed electronically in the “Corporate Governance” section at www.kodak.com/go/governance. Governance Committee Responsibilities The primary role of the Governance Committee is to: assess the independence of Board members; lead the annual evaluation of the Board and its committees; identify and assess candidates for Board membership; oversee the Company’s activities in the areas of environmental and social responsibility, charitable contributions, diversity and equal employment opportunity; and generally oversee the Company’s corporate governance structure. The Governance Committee monitors emerging issues and practices in the area of corporate governance and pursues those initiatives that it believes will enhance the Company’s governance practices and policies. In addition, the Governance Committee is responsible for, among other things: 1) administering the Board’s Director Selection Process; 2) developing the Board’s Director Qualification Standards; 3) implementing the Board’s director orientation and education programs; 4) overseeing and reviewing the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and Director Independence Standards; and 5) recommending to the Board the compensation for directors. A complete description of the Governance Committee’s responsibilities can be found in its charter. 2007 Governance Initiatives Described below are some of the significant governance actions that the Governance Committee undertook in 2007. Director Search This past year, the Governance Committee spent much of its time considering, interviewing and recruiting candidates to fill the Board’s vacancies. To assist in this process, the Governance Committee engaged two external executive search firms who helped in identifying and evaluating qualified independent candidates who met the Board’s target candidate profiles and fit the Board’s Director Qualification Standards. Based on the Governance Committee’s recommendations, the Board elected two new members to the Board in 2007, Douglas R. Lebda and William G. Parrett, and one new member in February of 2008, Dennis F. Strigl. All three new members were first suggested to the Governance Committee as candidates by the Governance Committee’s external executive search firms. In accordance with the Board’s Director Selection Process, the Committee oversaw the process of electing each of these candidates to the Board. All three directors are independent non-employee directors and standing for election at the Annual Meeting. A copy of the Board’s Director Selection Process and Director Qualification Standards can be found in the “Corporate Governance” section of www.kodak.com/go/governance. 35 Director Compensation In early 2007, the Governance Committee began a review of the Board’s Director Compensation Program. The last time such a review was initiated by the Governance Committee was in late 2003. To assist in this effort, the Governance Committee retained Pearl Meyer & Partners to competitively assess the Board’s director compensation relative to market trends and comparable peer companies. The process used by the Governance Committee to conduct this review, the comparable peer group used to complete the competitive review, the independent compensation consultant’s findings, the Governance Committee’s recommendations, and the revisions approved by the Board to the Director Compensation Program are described on pages 23-25 of this Proxy Statement. Board Mandatory Retirement Age The Governance Committee continually seeks ways to improve the Board’s effectiveness. Last year, based on the Governance Committee’s recommendation, the Board revised its mandatory retirement age. After reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory retirement policy, the prevalence of such a policy at large publicly held companies, the practices at peer companies and current trends, the Governance Committee recommended that the Board’s mandatory retirement age be increased from age 70 to 72. The Governance Committee also recommended that a waiver provision be implemented as part of the policy allowing the Board, upon recommendation of the Governance Committee, to annually waive the age 72 limit in unusual cases up to a maximum of age 75. The Board approved these changes as recommended by the Governance Committee. Composition of Board Committees The Governance Committee undertook a review of the composition of the Board’s committees in late 2007. The last time such a review was conducted by the Governance Committee was in April 2006. The Board’s Governance Guidelines establish the general rule that committee memberships and committee chairs should be rotated every three years. Other considerations the Governance Committee took into account in its review included: 1) leveraging the Board’s knowledge by placing each director on the committees where he or she can best add value; 2) being respective of each director’s own outside time commitments; and 3) where possible, providing for continuity on each committee. As part of its recommendation to the Board, the Governance Committee proposed to eliminate the requirement that an Audit Committee member may not serve on another Board committee. The Governance Committee noted that the Audit Committee’s workload is now more regularly balanced than it was in 2005 when the requirement was first adopted. Upon conclusion of its review, the Governance Committee recommended a new committee realignment to the Board which was approved at the Board’s December 2007 meeting and implemented at its February 2008 meeting. The table on page 20 of this Proxy Statement describes the present composition of the Board’s committees resulting from this realignment. Other Key Actions in 2007 Some of the other key actions taken by the Governance Committee last year are described below. Director Independence The Governance Committee assessed each non-management director’s independence based upon the Board’s Director Independence Standards and those of the NYSE, and made recommendations to the full Board regarding each non-management director’s independence. Board Business Plan Based on the Governance Committee’s assistance, the Board last year continued its practice of establishing an annual Board business plan. The business plan is the end product of a formal process developed by the Governance Committee to annually establish and prioritize the Board’s goals. A more detailed description of this process appears on page 23 of this Proxy Statement. The Governance Committee tracked the Board’s performance against its business plan and provided periodic reports to the Board on its progress. Governance Committee Evaluation The Governance Committee prepared and conducted an annual self-evaluation, discussed the results of this evaluation and developed an action plan from these discussions to further enhance the Governance Committee’s performance. Diversity Advisory Panel’s Recommendations The Governance Committee met with the Company’s Chief Diversity Officer to assess the Company’s progress with regard to the recommendations of the Diversity Advisory Panel, a seven-member, blue-ribbon panel launched in 2001 to provide advice on the Company’s comprehensive diversity strategy and assess future diversity trends and the potential impact on Kodak. 36 Board Action Plan The Governance Committee monitored the Board’s performance against the action plan arising from the Board’s 2006 annual evaluation and provided periodic reports to the Board concerning its progress against the action plan. Hector de J.
Ruiz, Chair REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Executive Compensation and Development Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that is required by the SEC rules with the Company’s management. Based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Company’s Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement. Timothy M.
Donahue, Chair 37
The Executive Compensation and Development Committee, which we refer to in this discussion as the Committee, has oversight responsibility for the Company’s executive compensation strategy. The Committee approves our compensation objectives, philosophy and forms of compensation for all executives, including our Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the two other executive officers who had the highest “total compensation” for 2007, as shown in the Summary Compensation Table on page 51 of this Proxy Statement. These five executives are collectively referred to in this Proxy Statement as our Named Executive Officers. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis discusses and analyzes our executive compensation strategy and compensation of our Named Executive Officers as shown in the executive compensation tables beginning on page 51 of this Proxy Statement. The overall design and operation of our executive compensation program did not significantly change from 2006. During 2007, our executive compensation strategy was focused on:
The Committee implemented this strategy primarily through the creation of performance goals and associated awards for our Named Executive Officers that were aligned to our strategic and operational imperatives. The majority of our Named Executive Officers’ total direct compensation is delivered through performance-based variable programs, which are intended to enable executives to earn significant rewards for achieving key operational and financial metrics that drive long-term shareholder value. COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY AND PROGRAM Our overall philosophy is to provide an executive compensation package that attracts, retains and motivates world-class executive talent critical to the success of the Company’s short-term and long-term business goals. Our executive compensation program consists of the following material elements: base salary, annual variable pay and long-term variable equity incentives, retirement benefits and perquisites. Our Named Executive Officers are also eligible to participate in broad-based welfare benefit plans and programs that are generally available to our employees. Our Committee annually reviews the Company’s executive compensation strategy and programs. In the course of the Committee’s review in 2007, the Committee sought the advice and input of its independent compensation consultant, as well as Company management. For additional information regarding the role of the Committee’s independent compensation consultants and management, see page 21 of this Proxy Statement. DETERMINING EXECUTIVE TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION The Committee oversees the Company’s executive compensation strategy and reviews and approves the compensation of our Named Executive Officers. In the first quarter of each year, the Committee establishes base salaries and target award opportunities under our annual variable pay plan, the Executive Compensation for Excellence and Leadership Plan (EXCEL), for our Named Executive Officers. During the first quarter the Committee also makes grants of performance-based equity awards earned under the Company’s Leadership Stock program and establishes the performance targets for the new performance cycles under both EXCEL and Leadership Stock. In the fourth quarter of each year, the Committee establishes the aggregate target economic value to be delivered to each Named Executive Officer in the form of long-term variable equity incentive awards, which include stock options and Leadership Stock, the performance cycle of which will start on January 1 of each year. 38 When determining base salary, annual variable pay target opportunities and long-term variable equity incentive awards, the Committee seeks to provide an appropriate mix of compensation that is performance-based to drive company performance and properly align our executives’ interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders. The Committee is guided by the principle that a significant amount of total direct compensation for our Named Executive Officers should be “at risk,” with a positive correlation between the degree of risk and the level of the executive’s responsibility. In other words, the senior-most executives have the greatest amount of compensation at risk, which ensures that executives most responsible to shareholders are held most accountable to changes in shareholder value and achievement of critical performance goals. Over the last several years, the Committee has implemented a policy to place greater emphasis on the long-term variable equity incentive component of total direct compensation. The portion of target total direct compensation awarded to our Section 16 Executive Officers in the form of long-term variable equity incentive compensation has increased in the aggregate from 39% in 2004 to 57% in 2007. This is supportive of our principle to align the interests of executives with the interest of the Company’s shareholders and results in a total compensation package that is better aligned with the technology-based companies we compete with for executive talent. Factors Considered by the Committee to Determine Levels of Total Direct Compensation The Committee considers a broad range of facts and circumstances when determining levels of executive compensation. Among the factors that the Committee considers are: 1) market competitiveness; 2) experience relative to typical market peers; 3) the importance of the position to the Company relative to other senior management positions; 4) sustained individual performance; 5) readiness for promotion to a higher level and/or role in the Company’s senior management succession plans; and 6) retention of critical talent. The significance of any individual factor will vary from year to year and may vary among Named Executive Officers. In general, the Committee does not consider awards granted or earned under plans in past or current years or the effect of changes in the Company’s stock price when setting annual target total direct compensation levels of our Named Executive Officers, except to the extent that such information is relevant to determining whether retention risk is high. Each Named Executive Officer’s level of annual target total direct compensation is established by the Committee after reviewing market data and factors listed in the prior paragraph. Competitive Compensation Analysis The Committee generally targets total direct compensation for each Named Executive Officer at approximately the median of total direct compensation paid to executives in similar positions with similar responsibilities in companies with similar revenues as Kodak as identified by market data derived from national surveys. The Committee does not have a pre-defined target for each element of total direct compensation, but rather reviews the market data as a reference to assess how each component compares to market practices and to confirm that the overall compensation mix is reasonably aligned with market practices. To assist the Committee in its annual market review, the Committee’s independent compensation consultant prepares an analysis of the market competitiveness of the aggregate value of total direct compensation as well as the market competitiveness of each element of total direct compensation (base salary, total target cash and total long-term incentive) for each Named Executive Officer. The market data prepared by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant is derived from the average of data from national surveys in which the Company participates. In 2007, market data was compiled from the Towers Perrin Executive Compensation Survey, the Hewitt Executive Compensation Survey and the Radford Survey. All three surveys are national non-industry specific compensation surveys. The Radford Survey, which was first added in 2007, has a higher concentration of participants in the technology industry. The Committee felt it was appropriate to include the Radford Survey as a survey source in 2007 due to the Company’s multi-year restructuring activities and transformation to a digital technology company. The use of the Radford Survey data, on average, had little impact on the competitive data. The Committee does not review the individual companies who participate in these surveys. The Committee believes based on the recommendation of its independent compensation consultant that the surveys represent the market from which the Company competes for executive talent. In recent years, the Committee has used the national survey data in lieu of a smaller group of specific companies to benchmark total direct compensation because there were few companies with a similar product portfolio during the Company’s digital transformation. As the Company continues its migration to a digital technology company, the Committee intends to periodically review the process of using survey versus specific peer frame data and may, if and when appropriate, adopt a specific peer frame for benchmarking purposes. Actual realized compensation of our Named Executive Officers may be more or less than the aggregate target opportunity provided to them depending upon Company, unit and individual performance under the EXCEL plan and our long-term variable equity incentive plans. The most current market data provided by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant was utilized as a reference when the Committee considered base salary, long-term variable equity incentive awards and the target EXCEL opportunity for Named Executive Officers. 39 The 2007 market review indicated that: 1) base salaries of our Named Executive Officers are generally competitive; 2) target cash compensation for our Named Executive Officers is aligned with or slightly above the approximate median value; and 3) total direct compensation approximates the median for all Named Executive Officers. As noted above, the Committee does not target each element of total direct compensation to the market median. However, in 2007 the Committee considered the results of the 2007 market review when determining the appropriate level of each component of total direct compensation for the Named Executive Officers. The compensation decisions specific to each component of total direct compensation for the Named Executive Officers are discussed under “Elements of Total Direct Compensation,” beginning on page 40 of this Proxy Statement. Use of Tally Sheets In addition to the competitive benchmarking analysis, the Committee annually reviews all components of our Named Executive Officers’ compensation as presented in a comprehensive set of Tally Sheets prepared by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. The Tally Sheets provide a comprehensive view of each Named Executive Officer’s compensation, broken down into three components:
The Tally Sheets provide the Committee with context for the decisions they make in relation to total direct compensation. Although they do not necessarily drive decision making with regard to specific components of the total compensation program, the Tally Sheets enable the Committee to holistically assess total direct compensation and the relationship of various components of the total compensation program to each other. The Tally Sheets also enable the Committee to determine how much wealth creation opportunity exists through equity-based compensation and how strong the retention power is as a result of unvested value. The Tally Sheets may also influence the Committee’s views on a variety of issues, such as changes to severance plans and employment agreements, special equity grants to promote retention, or changes in long-term variable equity incentives. Use of the CEO Evaluation Process The Presiding Director, the Chair of the Compensation Committee and the Chief Human Resources Officer lead the annual CEO evaluation process to assess the performance of our CEO. In February each year, a written self-assessment of performance versus the business plan of record is completed by our CEO. The written assessment is sent to the full Board for review. Later in the same month, the Chief Human Resources Officer interviews each member of the Board to collect feedback against an established set of criteria, including reaction to our CEO self-assessment and the Company’s leadership imperatives, which are “Drives to Win,” “Develops Leaders” and “Leads With Values.” All input is summarized and reviewed by the Presiding Director and the Chair of the Compensation Committee, who are responsible for delivering feedback to our CEO. For 2007, the Committee determined that Mr. Perez had performed well with respect to execution as the Company had either already completed, or was on track to achieve, each 2007 operational and strategic imperative of the Company. The Committee also determined that Mr. Perez’s leadership had been outstanding based on a review of his leadership performance against each of the Company’s leadership imperatives. The Committee considered the evaluation results when determining our CEO’s annual variable cash incentive award for 2007 under EXCEL, as further described on page 44 of this Proxy Statement. The results of the 2006 CEO evaluation were considered by the Committee when determining our CEO’s long-term variable equity target allocation as described on page 46 of this Proxy Statement. ELEMENTS OF TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION Total direct compensation consists of the following elements: base salary, annual variable pay and long-term variable equity incentives. Base Salaries Base salaries are intended to provide a regular source of income to our Named Executive Officers. Consistent with our philosophy of tying pay to performance, our Named Executive Officers receive a relatively small proportion of overall total direct compensation in the form of base salary. The base salaries of our Named Executive Officers in 2007 ranged from approximately 14% to 28% of their total target direct compensation, with a positive correlation between the degree of compensation at risk and the level of an executive’s responsibility. Base salaries are reviewed annually by the Committee at the beginning of the year, but are not automatically increased annually. Rather, base salaries are adjusted as the Committee deems appropriate to recognize expanded responsibilities, experience, the importance of the position to the Company relative to other senior management positions or changes in the competitive marketplace. Any change in base salary will affect an executive’s target opportunity under our annual variable pay plan, which is based on a percentage of base salary. 40 Committee Decision and Analysis After reviewing the market analysis prepared by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant and the position of each Named Executive Officer’s base salary relative to the market, the Committee held base salaries of our Named Executive Officers constant in 2007, except where warranted by promotion. The Committee’s decision was primarily driven by the market analysis that indicated that most of our Named Executive Officers’ base salaries are approximately at the median, with the exception of Mr. Langley, who is slightly above the market median primarily as a result of the base salary level required to recruit him to the Company. As a result of its analysis, the Committee did not increase base salaries for Messrs. Perez, Sklarsky and Langley and Ms. Hellyar. Mr. Faraci’s base salary was increased from $520,000 to $600,000 upon his promotion in March 2007 to co-lead the Chief Operating Office with Mr. Langley. Upon promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer in September 2007, Mr. Faraci received an increase in base salary to $700,000, reflecting his new role and level of responsibilities as he became responsible for leading both the Graphic Communications Group (GCG) and the Consumer Digital Imaging Group (CDG). In determining the level of Mr. Faraci’s base salary, the Committee considered market data, the relative responsibilities of his role as compared to other Section 16 Executive Officers within the Company and his consistent positive performance in prior positions For 2008, the Committee determined not to increase base salaries for any Named Executive Officer as part of their annual base salary review. The Committee reached this conclusion after reviewing total direct compensation as well as base salary and total target cash against the market data prepared by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. The Committee found the base salary levels to be appropriate and competitive. The market analysis indicated that the total direct compensation of each of our Named Executive Officers was approximately at or slightly above median and their base salaries were competitively positioned to median. Annual Variable Pay EXCEL Plan The Company provides an annual variable cash incentive opportunity to our executives, including our Named Executive Officers, through the EXCEL plan. Executives participating in the plan are assigned a target opportunity expressed as a percentage of base salary. The EXCEL plan was last approved by our shareholders in 2005 and is intended to comply with the “performance-based” compensation requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) so that any bonuses payable under the plan will be fully deductible by the Company. Annual cash bonuses may be awarded under the plan based on achievement of key financial performance goals established by the Committee at the beginning of the year. These objective measures are designed to drive Company performance. Typically, the Committee establishes threshold, target and stretch performance goals. If the threshold performance level is not achieved, no amounts will be paid under the plan to our Named Executive Officers. If performance targets are exceeded, payouts may exceed an executive’s target opportunity. After the end of the performance year, the Committee determines the extent to which the performance goals were achieved, and subsequently will approve and certify the amount of any award to be received by our Named Executive Officers. The Committee has the discretion to increase or decrease the amount of the corporate funding pool for any year. Positive discretion may not, however, increase the size of a Named Executive Officer’s award above the maximum award level established under the plan. The maximum award under the plan for any Named Executive Officer is the lesser of 10% of the corporate award pool determined based on achievement of the performance metrics or 500% of his or her prior year-end base salary, not to exceed $5 million. The Committee considers a number of baseline metrics described below when exercising its discretion to increase or decrease the corporate funding pool. In addition, the Committee may choose to exercise discretion to recognize such things as unanticipated economic or market changes, extreme currency exchange effects and management of significant workforce issues. EXCEL Target Opportunity As noted above, our Named Executive Officers are assigned target opportunities based on a percentage of base salary. Since a Named Executive Officer’s EXCEL opportunity is a component of total direct compensation, the Committee annually reviews survey data to determine the position of each Named Executive Officer’s target opportunity relative to the market. Committee Decision and Analysis For 2007, the year-end target EXCEL opportunities for our Named Executive Officers were: Mr. Perez, 155%; Mr. Faraci, 85%; Mr. Sklarsky, 75%; and Mr. Langley and Ms. Hellyar each had a target opportunity of 62%. With the exception of Mr. Faraci, the Committee did not increase the target EXCEL opportunity for any of our Named Executive Officers in 2007 because the target variable cash bonus, when combined with base salary for the Named Executive Officers, approximated the market median for total cash compensation. Mr. Faraci’s target opportunity was initially increased to 75% from 62% of base salary as a result of his promotion in March 2007 to co-lead the Chief Operating Office with Mr. Langley. Upon promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer in September 2007, his target opportunity increased to 85%. 41 For 2008, the target EXCEL opportunities for our Named Executive Officers are: 155% for Mr. Perez, 85% for Mr. Faraci, 75% for Mr. Sklarsky and 65% for Ms. Hellyar. Due to his departure from the company on March 14, 2008, Mr. Langley will not be eligible for a 2008 EXCEL award. The target EXCEL opportunity for our Named Executive Officers, other than Ms. Hellyar, remained unchanged from 2007 because the Committee felt that each executive’s total direct compensation was appropriate and competitively positioned against the market. Ms. Hellyar’s target opportunity was increased by 3% to recognize her increase in responsibilities and to improve the competitive positioning of her total direct compensation. Effective January 1, 2008, the Film Products Group (FPG), the business segment Ms. Hellyar leads, was restructured to include several additional strategic product groups that resulted in this business segment increasing from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion in annual revenues. The restructured business segment is referred to, effective January 1, 2008, as Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment Group (FPEG). 2007 EXCEL Plan Design and Performance Results Performance Metrics For 2007, the Committee selected two performance metrics that, based on the Company’s performance, would be used to determine the corporate award pool from which awards would be allocated. Using the targets of these performance metrics, a performance matrix was created that determined the plan’s corporate award pool funding percentage. The Committee also established a set of baseline metrics that could be used to adjust the size of the corporate award pool through the application of positive or negative discretion in the event that performance in key strategic and operational areas was stronger or weaker than expected. The Committee reviewed and finalized these performance metric targets and baseline metrics in the first 90 days of the performance year. Although the Committee has the authority to increase or decrease the amount of the corporate award pool allocated to a Named Executive Officer, the actual bonus awarded to a Named Executive Officer cannot be increased beyond the maximum limits established under the plan. As noted above, a Named Executive Officer’s EXCEL bonus cannot exceed the lesser of: i) 10% of the total corporate award pool calculated by reference to the performance metric targets (without discretion); ii) five times his or her prior year-end base salary; or iii) $5 million. In 2007 the Committee selected Net Cash Generation and Total Earnings from Operations (Total EFO) as the two primary metrics for the plan, each of which were equally weighted. Net Cash Generation and Total EFO are non-GAAP financial measures. Net Cash Generation means net cash flow provided by activities from continuing operations, including proceeds, dividends, capital expenses, restructuring payments and divestitures. Total EFO means total earnings of all the Company’s product groups included within segment earnings from continuing operations before restructuring, interest, other income and income taxes. These two primary performance metrics are among the metrics our CEO periodically reported to the investment community and are key financial metrics that the Company has focused on through its digital transformation. They provide insight into the Company’s cash flow and ability to fund the costs associated with the digital transformation as well as the profitability of the Company’s overall operations. The Committee approved these performance metrics as recommended by our CEO. The target for Net Cash Generation was set within the range communicated to the investment community. The target for Total EFO was set below the initial market guidance to account for the probability of additional investment associated with new product launches beyond what was factored into our external guidance. A decision was made in the first quarter to make the investment, and the Company updated the investment community on the expected EFO impact. The following abbreviated corporate performance matrix shows the threshold, target and stretch goals for 2007 and the resulting EXCEL corporate funding pool percentage:
If the Company achieves the target goals, then the corporate award pool will fund at 100%. If either threshold goal is not achieved, then the corporate award pool will not be funded for our Named Executive Officers and no bonus will be earned under the plan. Results between the goals shown in the matrix are interpolated to derive a percentage. The threshold, target and maximum annual bonus that may be earned by each of our Named Executive Officers under the plan is shown in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table on page 57 of this Proxy Statement. 42 After determining the funding percentage derived from the performance matrix, the Committee reviews a set of baseline metrics to determine the corporate award pool and the amount of such pool allocated to the Named Executive Officers. These baseline performance metrics reflect key strategic or operational imperatives for the year associated with the Company’s business strategy. The baseline metrics are “leading indicators” of the Company’s future success and are selected in part to ensure that the primary EXCEL performance metrics are not achieved at the expense of other key goals that are critical to the Company’s ongoing success. The baseline metrics are also designed to provide the Committee with additional performance metrics to guide their exercise of discretion in deciding whether to adjust upward or downward the size of the corporate award pool and the amount allocated to each Named Executive Officer. Typically, the baseline metrics are not assigned any relative weight vis-à-vis each other. The baseline metrics established by the Committee for 2007 were:
Determination of Corporate Award Pool The EXCEL corporate award pool percentage determined by the Committee was 195% of target. This award pool funding percentage corresponds to the Company’s Total EFO result of $343 million (inclusive of the EXCEL award accrual) and a Net Cash Generation result of $333 million. In coming to this determination, the Committee first considered the funding percentage derived from the performance matrix based on the Company’s results against the two primary metrics. In 2007, the Company exceeded our Total EFO target and significantly exceeded our Net Cash Generation target level, reflective of the Company’s successful implementation of its transformation strategy. The initial performance funding percentage from the performance metric table based on these results was 221% reflecting a Net Cash Generation result of $333 million and a Total EFO result (inclusive of a 221% EXCEL accrual) of $296 million. Next, the Committee reviewed the Company’s results with respect to the baseline metrics. The Company exceeded the SG&A Reduction target and far exceeded the Working Capital target. Additionally, the Company completed its 2007 restructuring plans, sold its Light Management Film business and delivered all milestones to launch the Continuous Inkjet Production Press at Drupa in 2008. The Company had a slight delay to the CDG product launch. The Committee concluded that these positive baseline metric results supported funding the corporate award pool at a level significantly above target. Based on management’s recommendations, however, the Committee exercised negative discretion to decrease the size of the corporate award pool from 221% to the 195% referenced above, to reflect the impact on the performance metrics from the one-time sale of an investment in 2007. Committee Decision and Analysis After determining the corporate award pool funding percentage, the Committee approved the actual EXCEL award percentage for each Named Executive Officer, which were below the maximum amount permitted under EXCEL for each Named Executive Officer. Our Named Executive Officers’ EXCEL awards are generally based on the achievement of the Company’s two primary performance metrics and baseline metrics. The award may also, however, be determined based in part on the achievement of unit goals, where applicable, and upon achievement of individual leadership excellence and diversity goals. Our CEO’s recommendations are based upon his review of the individual performance of each executive and the business unit or staff function that they lead. As part of his review, our CEO determines a funding percentage to be allocated to each business unit and staff function based upon the goals established for each unit at the beginning of the year and based upon comparisons to prior year results. A Named Executive Officer heading a business unit or function typically receives the same EXCEL award percentage that has been allocated to his or her business unit or function, although positive adjustments may be made based on an executive’s leadership excellence and/or performance under the Company’s diversity and inclusion strategy. In 2007, the CEO allocated GCG a funding percentage equal to 185%. CDG was allocated a funding percentage equal to 205%. FPG was allocated a funding percentage equal to 210%, and the Company’s Finance function was allocated a funding percentage equal to 200%. Using these CEO’s recommendations, the Committee reviewed and authorized bonuses for each of our Named Executive Officers as indicated in the following table and presented in greater detail in the Summary Compensation Table on page 51 of this Proxy Statement. 43 EXCEL Award Earned for 2007
The Committee determined that all of the Company’s business units and functions positively contributed to the significant cash generation performance of the Company and made significant contributions to the Company’s performance on baseline metrics. The actual award levels received by certain of our Named Executive Officers reflect in part the fact that certain business units contributed more to the Company’s earnings performance relative to their goals. Ms. Hellyar received an award equal to 210% of her target opportunity based on FPG’s delivery of an EFO rate in excess of 18% compared to an internal goal of 13 - 16%. Mr. Faraci received an award equal to 202% of his pro-rated target opportunity reflecting 1) CDG’s significant year-over-year improvement in earnings, as well as exceptional digital revenue growth of 8% compared to an internal goal of 2 - 4%; and 2) his three months of managing the GCG business in addition to managing the CDG business in connection with his promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Langley received an award equal to 185% of his target opportunity in consideration of the growth of GCG’s EFO by 3.2%, despite the absorption of a two-point aluminum price increase. This result, while significant, fell short of the planned growth rate for GCG of 4 - 5%. Mr. Sklarsky received an award equal to 200% of his target opportunity in recognition of his leadership of the Finance function in the Company’s outstanding Net Cash Generation performance including the outstanding results on both receivables and payables. The Committee approved an award for Mr. Perez equal to 195% of his target opportunity based on the Company’s overall performance results. While the Committee may approve an upward adjustment to the Named Executive Officer’s EXCEL award based on an executive’s leadership excellence and/or performance under the Company’s diversity and inclusion strategy, no such adjustment occurred in 2007 in light of the overall EXCEL performance and the size of EXCEL awards earned by our Named Executive Officers. The Committee determined that Mr. Perez’s leadership had been outstanding in 2007 based on a review of his leadership performance against the Company’s leadership imperatives, which are “Drives to Win,” “Develops Leaders” and “Leads With Values,” as determined through the CEO evaluation process described on page 40 of this Proxy Statement. The Committee, however, did not increase Mr. Perez’s EXCEL award in order to be consistent with the principle that an executive should receive the same award percentage as received by the unit they lead. For Named Executive Officers who have not met their share ownership requirements as described on page 40 of this Proxy Statement, any bonus earned over 100% of each Named Executive Officer’s EXCEL target was paid in the form of unrestricted shares of our common stock. Individual Bonus Plan Mr. Langley participated in an individual variable cash bonus plan to provide him a total target cash opportunity level consistent with his hiring agreement and to ensure that he was compensated for specific performance achievements that were unique to his position. The goals were based on priorities our CEO identified for Mr. Langley for the performance year, all of which were critical to the Company’s ongoing transformation activities. The opportunity associated with the individual plan was included in the analysis of Mr. Langley’s compensation relative to the competitive market analysis. The performance goals were established by our CEO and approved by the Committee. They focused on the integration of GCG into the Company’s operating structure as well as financial metrics primarily for the GCG business. The details of Mr. Langley’s bonus plan are described on page 58 of this Proxy Statement. Based on achievement of his 2007 performance targets, Mr. Langley was awarded a bonus of $212,250 equal to 70.75% of the target amount payable under the plan. Long-Term Variable Equity Incentive Compensation Our Named Executive Officers receive an annual grant of long-term variable equity incentive awards as described further below. In addition to these awards, Named Executive Officers may receive additional equity awards during the year in recognition of a promotion or other significant achievement. All equity awards are issued under the 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan. Purpose The purposes behind our long-term variable equity incentive programs are to align executive compensation with shareholder interests, create significant incentives for executive retention, encourage long-term performance by our executives and promote stock ownership. 44 The Committee reviews our long-term variable equity incentive program annually to ensure that it is in line with these principles. Over the last several years in connection with our digital transformation, the Committee has implemented a compensation strategy designed to increase the proportion of our Named Executive Officers’ total direct compensation delivered in the form of long-term variable equity incentive awards. Mix of Long-Term Variable Equity Incentive Compensation The Committee has no set policy for determining the mix of the form of long-term variable equity incentives granted to our Named Executive Officers. However, in 2007, as in recent years, our long-term equity incentive compensation program was designed to provide one-half of the value of our Named Executive Officers’ long-term variable equity incentive compensation in the form of stock options that vest over a three-year period and one-half of the value in the form of Leadership Stock. Awards under the Leadership Stock program are granted in the form of performance stock units which, if earned, are paid in the form of shares of common stock upon fulfilling the specified vesting period. The performance goals for the Leadership Stock program are established each year, providing flexibility to the Committee to design a pay-for-performance plan that rewards achievement of key financial and/or operational metrics. The Committee believes that this mix balances a focus on stock price appreciation and the achievement of strategic business goals. In determining the mix of stock options and Leadership Stock, the Committee considered a variety of factors, including most importantly:
The Committee will continue to evaluate these and other related factors periodically as part of its ongoing planning activities. Changes in the mix may be made if the facts and circumstances under which the Company operates change. Determining Annual Target Allocations of Long-Term Variable Equity Incentive Compensation The number of stock options and Leadership Stock units granted to the Named Executive Officers is based on a dollar value determined for each executive, which is established to generally bring target total direct compensation to approximately the market median and then adjusted to reflect individual performance factors. At its regularly scheduled meeting in December of each year, the Committee grants stock options and determines the subsequent year’s Leadership Stock allocation for the performance cycle that begins January 1. These equity grants are made in accordance with the Board of Directors Policy on Equity Awards, discussed further on page 48 of this Proxy Statement. As a result of this process, the Committee determined the size of the 2006 stock option grants and the 2007 Leadership Stock allocations in December 2006. Similarly, the size of our executives’ 2007 stock option grants and the 2008 Leadership Stock allocations were determined in December 2007. The actual number of Leadership Stock units earned by an executive will be based on company performance against established metrics for the performance year. The Committee’s annual review of total direct compensation conducted in 2006 indicated that our Named Executive Officer’s total direct compensation was below market median, principally as a result of below-market long-term variable equity awards. To better align executive compensation with market rates and support important retention and shareholder alignment objectives, the Committee increased the prior year guidelines for each Named Executive Officer in 2006 to “close the gap” in target total direct compensation relative to market. The 2006 stock option awards and 2007 Leadership Stock allocations were set at levels that brought each Named Executive Officer to the market median and were not adjusted for individual performance factors. The material factors considered by the Committee in 2006 when determining these award allocations are discussed in our 2006 proxy statement. The 2007 stock option awards and 2008 Leadership Stock allocations were based on the new competitive levels approved by the Committee in 2006. 45 The total long-term variable equity incentive value used by the Committee in determining the number of stock options granted in 2006 and the 2007 Leadership Stock allocation for each Named Executive Officer was: Mr. Perez ($5,032,000); Mr. Sklarsky ($1,600,000); Mr. Faraci ($939,000); Mr. Langley ($939,000); and Ms. Hellyar ($939,000). While the Committee determines a total value for purposes of determining the number of stock options and Leadership Stock units to be granted, this value does not represent the actual compensation that may be realized by our Named Executive Officers. Whether or not our executives receive any actual value will depend on the Company’s stock price and the number of shares earned under the Leadership Stock program. The number of stock options and Leadership Stock units granted to, or earned by, our Named Executive Officers in 2007 are shown in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table on page 57 of this Proxy Statement. Committee Decision and Analysis With respect to determination of award allocations occurring in 2007, with the exception of our CEO, the size of each Named Executive Officer’s target long-term equity incentive compensation (i.e., 2007 stock options and 2008 Leadership Stock allocations) was based on the position of each executive’s total direct compensation relative to the market median and our CEO’s assessment of each executive’s leadership and performance over the prior year. In the case of our CEO, his target allocation for 2007 was based on the Committee’s review of the Company’s overall performance as measured by operating results, progress on major aspects of the Company’s digital transformation, demonstrated leadership and the competitive median total direct compensation levels. The Committee did not increase Mr. Sklarsky’s target allocation determining that his total direct compensation continued to be competitively positioned. Mr. Faraci’s target allocation was increased by 102% in order to bring his target total direct compensation closer to the market median and to a level the Committee determined to be appropriate in light of his new role as President and Chief Operating Officer and his strong individual performance for the prior year. Ms. Hellyar’s target allocation increased by 8.4% in order to bring her total direct compensation to the market median in recognition of her increased responsibilities in managing a $3.5 billion business. As noted above, FPEG, the business segment Ms. Hellyar leads, was restructured effective January 1, 2008 to increase from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion in annual revenues. Mr. Langley did not receive any long-term equity award in 2007 due to his pending departure from the Company. The Committee determined to increase our CEO’s target allocation for 2007 by 15% because of his leadership during the final year of our digital transformation. In making this determination, the Committee reviewed information concerning Mr. Perez’s execution and leadership as well as a summary of the results from our 2007 CEO evaluation process, as described on page 40 of this Proxy Statement. The Committee determined that Mr. Perez had performed well with respect to execution of the Company’s operational and strategic imperatives, as the Company had either already completed, or was on track to achieve, each 2007 imperative. The Committee also determined that Mr. Perez’s leadership had been outstanding based on a review of his leadership performance against the Company’s leadership imperatives, which are “Drives to Win,” “Develops Leaders” and “Leads With Values.” Based on these factors the Committee concluded that this award would reasonably position Mr. Perez’s total direct compensation at an appropriate level above market median total direct compensation benchmarks. As a result of these decisions, the total long-term variable equity incentive value used by the Committee in determining the number of stock options granted in 2007 and the 2008 Leadership Stock allocation for each Named Executive Officer, other than Mr. Langley, was: Mr. Perez ($5,787,000); Mr. Sklarsky ($1,600,000); Mr. Faraci ($1,900,000); and Ms. Hellyar ($1,018,000). Leadership Stock — 2007 Performance Cycle Awards As part of its annual review of long-term variable equity incentives, the Committee approves the performance criteria and terms of the annual Leadership Stock cycle. The Leadership Stock performance goals are approved in compliance with the rules of Section 162(m) of the Code, which generally require that goals be established no later than 90 days after the start of the performance period. As discussed above, these awards provide the participant with the right to earn shares of our common stock based upon attainment of certain performance goals. The two performance metrics selected by the Committee for the 2007 performance cycle were 2007 GCG Digital Revenue Growth and 2007 Consumer Inkjet Printer Net Revenue. These metrics are non-GAAP financial measures. GCG Digital Revenue Growth represents the year-over-year growth in total net revenue of GCG’s digital products. Consumer Inkjet Printer Net Revenue means the total net revenue of the Consumer Inkjet Equipment strategic product group (SPG) within CDG, excluding revenue from ink or other consumables. For purposes of determining total net revenue of the SPG under the plan, certain other costs such as returns, discounts and certain marketing expenses are also deducted. The performance target for GCG Digital Revenue Growth was set within the range our CEO reported to the investment community. The goal for Consumer Inkjet Printer Net Revenue was established above the range reported externally to establish an internal stretch goal. The Committee approved these performance metrics, as recommended by management, because they are leading indicators of the future growth of the Company and representative of the successful transformation to a digital technology company. The Committee decided to use a one-year performance period followed by a two-year subsequent time-based vesting schedule for the 2007 awards due to the difficulty in establishing multi-year performance goals during the final stages of the Company’s digital transformation and to ensure that the awards provided strong retention impact. 46 The following abbreviated corporate performance matrix shows the threshold, target and stretch goals for 2007 and the resulting performance percentage.
Awards are earned under the plan based on an executive’s target allocation multiplied by the applicable performance percentage. If results exceed threshold, the Committee will determine the performance percentage based on interpolation. If results fall below threshold all awards under the program would be forfeited. The maximum number of performance stock units that may be earned by an executive is 200% of the executive’s target allocation. The threshold, target and maximum number of shares allocated to our Named Executive Officers under the 2007 Leadership Stock performance cycle are shown in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table on page 57 of this Proxy Statement. Committee Decision and Analysis For 2007, the Company achieved a GCG Digital Revenue Growth of 7%, which was above the target level. The Company also achieved a Consumer Inkjet Printer Net Revenue that was slightly above the threshold level. Based on these results, the performance percentage for the 2007 cycle was 73%. The actual number of shares earned by each Named Executive Officer for the 2007 cycle was determined by multiplying each officer’s target award allocation by 73%. As a result, our Named Executive Officers earned the following number of restricted share units, which are subject to a subsequent two-year time-based vesting requirement: Mr. Perez (73,475); Mr. Sklarsky (23,360); Mr. Faraci (13,709); Mr. Langley (13,709); and Ms. Hellyar (13,709). These restricted share units will vest on December 31, 2009 if service conditions are satisfied. Leadership Stock — 2006 - 2007 Performance Cycle Awards In 2006, as in prior years, the 2006 - 2007 performance cycle had a two-year performance cycle and a one-year subsequent vesting requirement. Similar to the 2007 performance cycle described above, awards are earned based on an executive’s target allocation multiplied by the applicable performance percentage derived from the performance formula established for the particular performance cycle. For the 2006 - 2007 performance cycle, the program’s sole performance metric was digital earnings from operations (DEFO). DEFO is a non-GAAP performance metric that measures total earnings from the Company’s digital strategic product groups included within earnings from continuing operations, before: 1) restructuring charges; 2) interest; 3) other (income) charges, net; and 4) income taxes. This performance was selected by the Committee to further encourage and reinforce executive actions implementing Kodak’s transition to a digital technology company. As determined by the Committee in March 2006, in order to achieve any payout under the 2006-2007 Leadership Stock performance cycle, the Company’s aggregate DEFO for the two-year period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007 would need to be greater than $750 million. In order to achieve 100% of the target award allocation, the Company’s aggregate DEFO would need to equal $1 billion. The maximum payout under the program, equal to 200% of target allocation, would require a DEFO equal to $1.15 billion. If results fell between these DEFO targets, the Committee would determine a percentage payout based on interpolation. Committee Decision and Analysis Our Named Executive Officers did not earn any shares for the 2006-2007 Leadership Stock performance cycle. The DEFO achieved by the Company for the 2006 - 2007 performance period was $519 million, less than the threshold DEFO target of $750 million. Given Kodak’s sale of its Health Group on April 30, 2007, the DEFO achieved by the Company fell short of the threshold DEFO target because the actual DEFO result did not include results from the Health Group for the entire two-year performance period. The DEFO target established by the Committee in 2006 at the beginning of the performance period had taken into account results from the Health Group for two years. In light of the rules regarding the deductibility of compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code, the Committee did not adjust the performance formula under the plan for Named Executive Officers. Initial Hire Grants and Ad Hoc Awards In addition to annual equity awards, our Named Executive Officers may receive stock options and time-based restricted stock grants in connection with the commencement of their employment, as a result of a promotion or for retention purposes. The objectives of these grants are to encourage hiring, retention and stock ownership and to align an executive’s interest with those of our shareholders. On occasion, the Committee may also grant one-time, ad hoc stock option awards to reward an executive for superior individual performance. 47 In 2007, the Committee revised its policy regarding the number of stock options granted to an individual upon election to a Company officer. The Committee increased the size of the award to a level it determined to be appropriate in recognition of an individual’s promotion and increase in responsibilities. In determining the new policy award levels, the Committee did not engage in a formal benchmarking process, but did seek recommendations from management and its independent compensation consultant regarding award levels that would be both reasonable and adequate to recognize and reward an individual’s promotion. Based on this advice, the Committee increased the award levels as follows:
Mary Jane Hellyar was the only Named Executive Officer to receive a non-annual equity award in 2007 in recognition of her election to Executive Vice President. In accordance with the Company’s revised policy described above, Ms. Hellyar received a grant of 20,000 stock options with an exercise price of $28.44, equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant of the award. This award was made in accordance with the Board of Directors Policy on Equity Awards, discussed further on page 48 of this Proxy Statement. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION POLICIES RELATING TO INCENTIVE PLANS Share Ownership Program Under our Share Ownership Program, our Section 16 Executive Officers are expected, over time, to acquire a significant ownership stake in the Company equal to at least one to five times their base salary amounts, depending on the executive’s position. Details regarding this program are on page 33 of this Proxy Statement. The Committee believes this program furthers its objective of closely aligning the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders. Equity Grant Timing Practices All stock options granted to Named Executive Officers in 2007 were granted in accordance with our Board of Directors Policy on Equity Awards approved by the Board effective as of January 1, 2007. In accordance with this policy, our grant timing guidelines are as follows: Regular Annual Grant Dates. Annual grants of stock options are approved at the Committee’s regularly scheduled December meeting. If grants of stock options are to be awarded, the grant date for such options will be the date of the December meeting in which the grants were approved. Grant Dates for Ad Hoc and New Hire Equity Awards. For awards to Section 16 Executive Officers, the grant date for any ad hoc or new hire equity award approved in a meeting of the Committee will be:
The grant date of any ad hoc or new hire equity award approved by unanimous written consent of the Committee will be the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting following:
The exercise price of any stock options awarded will be the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the grant date as defined in the applicable equity compensation plan. Policy on Qualifying Compensation When designing all aspects of compensation, the Company considers the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code, which provides that the Company may not deduct compensation of more than $1 million paid to certain executives, other than “performance-based” compensation meeting certain requirements. Annual bonuses payable under our EXCEL plan are designed to satisfy the requirements for “performance-based” compensation as defined in Section 162(m) of the Code. Stock options and Leadership Stock are also intended to satisfy the requirements for “performance-based” compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code. While these plans are designed to operate in a manner that are intended to qualify as “performance-based” under Section 162(m) of the Code, the Committee may administer the plans in a manner that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code in order to achieve a result that the Committee determines to be appropriate. While the Committee considers the impact of the tax treatment, the primary factor influencing program design is the support of business objectives. Generally, whether or not compensation will be deductible under Section 162(m) of the Code will be an important, but not be the decisive factor, with respect to the Committee’s compensation determinations. 48 Policy on Recoupment of Bonuses in the Event of Certain Financial Restatements In 2006, the Board adopted a policy that permits the Board to seek to recover, to the extent permitted under applicable local law, any performance-based bonus awarded to a Named Executive Officer under EXCEL if an executive’s fraud or misconduct caused or partially caused the need for significant financial restatement and if the bonuses would have been lower as a result of the restatement. The policy is more fully discussed on page 22 of this Proxy Statement. OTHER COMPENSATION ELEMENTS Retirement Plans The Company offers a tax-qualified defined benefit plan comprised of a cash balance component and a traditional defined benefit component (KRIP) and tax-qualified 401(k) defined contribution plan (SIP), which cover virtually all U.S. employees. In addition to these tax-qualified retirement plans, the Company provides supplemental non-qualified retirement benefits to our Named Executive Officers under the Kodak Unfunded Retirement Income Plan (KURIP) and the Kodak Excess Retirement Income Plan (KERIP). KURIP and KERIP are unfunded retirement plans that are designed to provide our executives with pension benefits that make up for the Code’s limitations on allocations and benefits that may be paid under KRIP. None of our Named Executive Officers has an accumulated benefit under KERIP. The details of KRIP and KURIP are described under the Pension Benefits Table on page 63 of this Proxy Statement. The Company believes that our tax-qualified retirement plans and non-qualified supplemental retirement plans enhance our executive compensation package. The primary objective of our retirement plans is to attract and retain our employees. Supplemental Individual Retirement Arrangements We have also entered into individual letter agreements with our Named Executive Officers, except Ms. Hellyar, to provide additional retirement benefits beyond those available under our tax-qualified retirement plans and non-qualified supplemental retirement plans. For some of our Named Executive Officers, these agreements provide for additional years of service in calculating their benefits under KRIP and KURIP. Supplemental individual retirement arrangements were necessary to attract and retain certain Named Executive Officers who would accrue less than competitive benefits under the Kodak retirement plans due to their short service with the Company. The benefits provided to our Named Executive Officers under any individual retirement arrangement are described following the Pension Benefits Table on page 63 of this Proxy Statement. Deferred Compensation Plan The Company maintains a non-qualified deferred compensation plan for its executives, known as the Eastman Kodak Company 1982 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (EDCP). The plan permits the Company’s executives to defer a portion of their base salary and annual bonus awards. Each fall, the Company’s executives may elect to defer base salary for the following year and up to a portion of any bonus earned under EXCEL the following year. The plan is intended to promote retention by providing our executives with a long-term savings opportunity on a tax-deferred basis. The details of this plan are described under the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Table on page 66 of this Proxy Statement. In 2007, the Committee froze the receipt of new monies into this plan in 2008 due to its low utilization and its administrative cost. Perquisites The primary perquisites that all our Named Executive Officers receive are financial counseling services, home security services, personal umbrella liability insurance coverage, occasional use of the Company’s driver service and executive physicals. The executive physical perquisite is not available beyond 2007 due to its low utilization and high cost. Our executive security program requires our CEO to use Company aircraft for all air travel, whether personal or business. Our Named Executive Officers, other than our CEO, also on occasion, with CEO approval, use corporate aircraft with their spouses for personal travel. The Company provides most of these perquisites primarily for security related reasons, to maximize an executive’s time spent on Kodak business or to attract and retain our Named Executive Officers. The compensation attributed to our Named Executive Officers for 2007 and required to be reported for these perquisites is included in the Summary Compensation Table on page 51 of this Proxy Statement. 49 SEVERANCE AND CHANGE-IN-CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS Severance Arrangements Our Named Executive Officers are responsible for the continued success of the Company and the execution of the Company’s strategic plan to transform the Company from a traditional products and services company to a digital technology company. The Committee believes that it is important to provide our senior management some measure of financial security in the event their employment is terminated without cause. Most of our Named Executive Officers have an individual letter agreement that provides various severance benefits in the event their employment is terminated under various circumstances. These individual letter agreements were negotiated at the time each Named Executive Officer commenced employment with the Company or later in connection with entering into a retention arrangement to provide for the executive’s continued employment and are consistent with guidelines established by the Committee for executive severance. Especially during the Company’s digital transformation process, our individual severance arrangements are designed to serve as a retention tool and to eliminate any reluctance of executives and employees to implement the Company’s strategic plan. In certain instances, an executive’s successful completion of his or her responsibilities may result in the elimination of his/her job. These arrangements also provide an incentive for individuals to sign a release of claims against the Company, to refrain from competing with the Company and to cooperate with the Company both before and after their employment is terminated. Mr. Perez’s individual severance arrangement provides him with severance benefits that are payable in the event his employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” or if he terminates for “good reason.” Under their individual severance arrangements, Messrs. Faraci, Sklarsky and Langley and Ms. Hellyar are entitled to severance benefits for termination by the Company without “cause.” The arrangements for Mr. Sklarsky and Ms. Hellyar also provide them with severance benefits upon their long-term disability. For purposes of these severance arrangements, the definitions of “cause” vary slightly among the relevant individual letter agreements negotiated between the Company and the Named Executive Officers. When approving any letter agreement for employment or retention, the Committee focuses on the severance triggers relative to each executive’s position and responsibilities. Our severance arrangements with our Named Executive Officers also provide for the treatment of other compensation provided under the Company’s annual bonus plan, equity plans and retirement plans. For additional information regarding the potential severance benefits payable to our Named Executive Officers under various circumstances see the description under the Severance Benefits Tables beginning on page 72 of this Proxy Statement. Change-in-Control Arrangements Consistent with our compensation philosophy, we believe that the interests of our shareholders are best served if the interests of our senior management are aligned with theirs. To this end, our Executive Protection Plan, which the Company adopted in 1992, provides for enhanced change-in-control severance benefits for our Named Executive Officers to reduce any reluctance of our Named Executive Officers to support potential change-in-control transactions and to promote the continued employment and dedication of our Named Executive Officers without distraction. The Committee believes that these change-in-control benefits also encourage smooth transition of management in the event of a change-in-control. The terms of the Executive Protection Plan are more fully described on page 75 of this Proxy Statement. Certain of our other employee benefit and compensation plans also provide enhanced benefits to our Named Executive Officers after a change-in-control. These benefits are designed to protect our Named Executive Officers against possible loss of promised benefits after a change-in-control. Additional plan terms and the treatment of any benefits after a change-in-control under the Company’s retirement and welfare plans, deferred compensation plan, EXCEL plan and equity incentive plans are described below after the Change-in-Control Severance Payments Table on page 78 of this Proxy Statement. Committee Decision and Analysis In 2007 the Company undertook a review of change-in-control benefits. This review was initiated to understand the positioning of Kodak plans in relation to best practices from governance, competitive and potential cost perspectives. Based on the review, the Committee adopted a provision in which the pension enhancement provided under the Company’s plans known as the Kodak Retirement Income Plan (KRIP) and the Kodak Unfunded Retirement Income Plan (KURIP) would be eliminated gradually over a five-year period (i.e., the age and service enhancement would decline annually in equal increments). This change was made in recognition of: 1) comparison with market competitive practices; and 2) the high potential costs of the provision in the event of a change-in-control transaction. The Committee decided to retain the change in control provisions in other compensation and benefit programs with the intention of reviewing these provisions again in 2008. 50
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE The table below summarizes the total compensation of each of our Named Executive Officers (NEO) for 2006 and 2007.
51
52
53
EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION ARRANGEMENTS The material terms of each Named Executive Officer’s employment or retention arrangement with the Company are described below. The levels of salary, annual variable incentive compensation and long-term equity-based incentive compensation as well as the material considerations taken into account by the Compensation Committee in establishing those levels are described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis on page 38 of this Proxy Statement. Antonio M. Perez The Company employed Mr. Perez as President and COO under a letter agreement dated March 3, 2003. On May 10, 2005, in connection with Mr. Perez’s election as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, the Compensation Committee modified the compensation-related terms of his employment. In addition to the compensation described elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, Mr. Perez is eligible to receive a base salary of $1,100,000 and a target award under the EXCEL plan of 155% of his base salary. Mr. Perez is eligible to participate in all incentive compensation, retirement, supplemental retirement and deferred compensation plans, policies and arrangements that are provided to other senior executives of the Company. Under his March 3, 2003 letter agreement, Mr. Perez is also eligible to receive a supplemental unfunded retirement benefit, which is described on page 65 of this Proxy Statement. Mr. Perez’s letter agreement was amended by a letter agreement dated February 27, 2007 to provide that this supplemental retirement benefit will vest when he turns age 65, consistent with the Company’s mandatory retirement policy for our corporate officers. This February 27, 2007 letter agreement also provides that if Mr. Perez was terminated before June 1, 2007, he would have received the supplemental retirement benefit in a monthly annuity, with payments beginning the first month following the six-month anniversary of Mr. Perez’s termination and continuing until the end of 2007, with the remainder paid in a lump sum on or after January 1, 2008. However, if Mr. Perez is terminated after January 1, 2008, he will receive his supplemental retirement benefit in a lump sum following the six-month anniversary of his termination. The term of Mr. Perez’s employment is indefinite but, according to his March 3, 2003 letter agreement, he will be eligible to receive certain severance benefits in connection with termination of his employment under various circumstances. For information regarding his potential severance payments and benefits, please read the narrative descriptions and tables beginning on page 68 of this Proxy Statement. 54 Frank S. Sklarsky The Company employed Mr. Sklarsky as Chief Financial Officer under a letter agreement dated September 19, 2006. In addition to the compensation described elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, his letter agreement provides that Mr. Sklarsky is eligible to receive a base salary of $600,000 and a target award under the EXCEL plan of 75% of his base salary. The letter agreement was amended by a letter agreement dated September 26, 2006 to provide that Mr. Sklarsky was eligible to receive a cash award equal to $75,000, less any amount actually received under the EXCEL plan for the 2006 performance period. Mr. Sklarsky is eligible to participate in all incentive compensation, retirement, supplemental retirement and deferred compensation plans, policies and arrangements that are provided to other senior executives of the Company. In addition, Mr. Sklarsky’s letter agreements provide that he is eligible to receive a supplemental retirement benefit, which is described under the Pension Benefits Table on page 65 of this Proxy Statement. The term of Mr. Sklarsky’s employment is indefinite but, according to his September 19, 2006 letter agreement, he will be eligible to receive certain severance benefits in connection with termination of his employment under various circumstances. For information regarding his potential severance payments and benefits, please read the narrative descriptions and tables beginning on page 68 of this Proxy Statement. Philip J. Faraci The Company employed Mr. Faraci under a letter agreement dated November 3, 2004. In addition to the information provided elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, Mr. Faraci initially received a base salary of $520,000 and a target award under the EXCEL plan of 62% of his base salary. Mr. Faraci is eligible to participate in all incentive compensation, retirement, supplemental retirement and deferred compensation plans, policies and arrangements that are provided to other senior executives of the Company. Mr. Faraci’s letter agreement also provides him with a supplemental retirement benefit, as described on page 65 of this Proxy Statement. Mr. Faraci’s letter agreement was amended by a letter agreement dated February 28, 2007 to provide for lump-sum payment of his supplemental retirement benefits. The terms of the February 28, 2007 agreement provide that if Mr. Faraci was terminated before June 1, 2007, he would have received his supplemental retirement benefit in a monthly annuity, with payments beginning the first month following the six-month anniversary of Mr. Faraci’s termination and continuing until the end of 2007, with the remainder paid in a lump sum on or after January 1, 2008. However, if Mr. Faraci is terminated after January 1, 2008, he will receive his supplemental retirement benefit in a lump sum following the six-month anniversary of his termination. In connection with his promotion to co-lead the Chief Operating Office with Mr. Langley in March 2007, Mr. Faraci’s base salary was increased from $520,000 to $600,000 and his target EXCEL from 62% to 75% of his base salary. In September 2007, Mr. Faraci was promoted to President and Chief Operating Officer and his base salary was increased to $700,000 and his target award under the EXCEL plan was increased to 85% of his base salary. The term of Mr. Faraci’s employment is indefinite but, according to his November 3, 2004 letter agreement, he will be eligible for certain severance benefits in connection with termination of his employment under various circumstances. For information regarding his potential severance payments and benefits in connection with termination of his employment under various circumstances, please read the narrative descriptions and tables beginning on page 68 of this Proxy Statement. James T. Langley The Company employed Mr. Langley under a letter agreement dated August 12, 2003. Under this agreement, Mr. Langley was eligible to receive a base salary of $475,000 and a target award under the EXCEL plan of 62% of his base salary. The letter agreement also provided Mr. Langley with a hiring bonus and additional relocation benefits. To incent achievement of certain pre-established goals in the GCG, Mr. Langley’s letter agreement initially established an individual bonus plan, which provided for a target aggregate award of $1,000,000 for his performance through 2006. On February 28, 2007, Mr. Langley’s letter agreement was amended to extend his individual bonus plan through 2007 (which under his August 12, 2003 letter agreement expired on December 31, 2006) to continue to incentivize and reward achievement of certain pre-established goals in the GCG. This individual bonus plan was completely performance based with a maximum target and payout amount of $300,000. Our CEO established the performance goals which are described in further detail under the Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2007 table. Mr. Langley would receive the maximum payout of the award if the GCG achieved 100% of the performance goals. If GCG did not achieve the performance goals, Mr. Langley would receive a portion of the maximum payout for 2007 if the threshold performance goals were met. Mr. Langley received an award of 70.75% of the maximum award, equal to $212,250, which was paid on March 6, 2008. 55 Under his August 12, 2003 letter agreement, Mr. Langley is also eligible to receive a supplemental retirement benefit, which is described under the Pension Benefits Table on page 63 of this Proxy Statement. This letter agreement was amended by a letter agreement dated February 28, 2007 to provide that his supplemental retirement benefit will be paid in a lump sum. At the time of Mr. Langley’s employment, the Company agreed to pay the airfare for up to 10 roundtrip flights per year for both he and Mrs. Langley to travel between Rochester, NY and Boise, ID. For 2007, the amount of the Company-paid airfare for these trips is reflected in the “All Other Compensation” column to the Summary Compensation Table on page 51 of this Proxy Statement. In connection with Mr. Langley’s planned separation from service with the Company, the Compensation Committee approved a leaving arrangement in 2007. The arrangement initially provided for a separation date of December 31, 2007, but this date was extended by the Compensation Committee in December 2007 for an additional three to six months in order for Mr. Langley to complete his work on several special projects. The leaving arrangement approved by the Compensation Committee provides Mr. Langley with severance payments and benefits upon his termination of employment. For information regarding these severance payments and benefits, please read the narrative descriptions and tables beginning on page 68 of this Proxy Statement. Mr. Langley’s last day of employment with the Company was March 14, 2008. Under his August 12, 2003 letter agreement, Mr. Langley is eligible for certain relocation benefits in connection with his termination of employment. These include the payment of expenses related to the sale of his house in Rochester, New York and the shipment of his household goods to his permanent residence. The total amount of these expenses is estimated to be $65,000. Mary Jane Hellyar In addition to the information provided elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, Ms. Hellyar is eligible to receive a base salary of $490,000 and a target award under the EXCEL plan of 62% of her base salary. In February 2008, the Committee approved a 3% increase to her EXCEL target opportunity to recognize her expanded responsibilities as President of FPEG and to improve her competitive positioning of her total direct compensation. The Company and Ms. Hellyar entered into a letter agreement dated August 18, 2006 to provide her with a restricted stock grant of 15,000 shares for retention purposes. The term of Ms. Hellyar’s employment is indefinite but, according to her August 18, 2006 letter agreement, she will also be eligible for certain severance benefits in connection with termination of her employment under various circumstances. For information regarding her potential severance payments and benefits in connection with termination of her employment under various circumstances, please read the narrative descriptions and tables beginning on page 68 of this Proxy Statement. On October 16, 2007, Ms. Hellyar was granted 20,000 stock options upon her election to Executive Vice President. There was no other change to her compensation associated with this election. 56 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN 2007 The compensation plans under which the grants were made in 2007 that are shown in the following table include the Company’s annual bonus plan (EXCEL), the 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan, which provides for the grant of stock options, restricted stock grants and performance stock units, and any individual non-equity incentive bonus plan in which a Named Executive Officer participated.
57
EXCEL Plan EXCEL (Executive Compensation for Excellence and Leadership) is our short-term variable incentive plan for executives. For a discussion of the EXCEL plan, target allocations for our Named Executive Officers and the award earned under the plan for 2007 performance, see the discussion in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” under the heading “Annual Variable Pay.” 2007 Leadership Stock On December 12, 2006, the Compensation Committee approved a performance stock allocation to each Named Executive Officer pursuant to the 2007 performance cycle of the Leadership Stock Program. The allocations became effective on January 1, 2007. Leadership Stock may be earned by our executives at the end of a performance cycle if the Company achieves the aggregate performance target established for the performance cycle. The actual number of stock units earned by an executive is based on the executive’s target allocation multiplied by the applicable performance percentage based on the Company’s performance. Any unearned units are forfeited at the end of the performance period. The performance metrics established for the 2007 performance cycle are discussed in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” under the heading “Leadership Stock – 2007 Performance Cycle Awards.” For the 2007 Leadership Stock performance cycle, the payment of any stock units earned under the program for the 2007 performance cycle is delayed for two years contingent on the executive’s continued employment with the Company. During this two-year vesting period, dividend equivalents accrue on the stock units, but payment of the dividends is also subject to this two-year vesting period. At the end of the two-year period, the stock units and the dividend equivalents earned on these stock units are paid to the executive in the form of shares of Company common stock. All shares earned under the Leadership Stock program are granted under the Company’s 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan. 2006 Performance Bonus One-half of the discretionary bonus awarded to Named Executive Officers for performance in 2006 was awarded in the form of restricted shares of Company common stock. These awards were granted on February 27, 2007 and assuming continued employment will vest in equal installments on each of the first three anniversaries of the grant date, subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of certain events as described in “Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change-in-Control” later. Individual Bonus Plan Mr. Langley is eligible to earn a cash bonus under an individual bonus plan established to incent achievement of certain pre-established goals in the GCG for the 2007 performance year. The target and maximum payout under the plan was $300,000. At the beginning of the year, our CEO established the following four equally weighted performance goals, which were approved by the Compensation Committee: 1) solidify and operationalize the GCG operating structure; 2) deliver an accepted, cohesive and comprehensive graphic communications strategy; 3) reduce SG&A targets at the business unit and corporate center level; and 4) drive GCG financial performance, specifically GCG Digital Revenue Growth, GCG Earnings from Operation and GCG Contribution Earnings from Operations. The first three goals focused on the integration of GCG into Kodak’s operating structure. The fourth goal relating to GCG financial performance had a minimum threshold of achieving one of three specified financial metrics: Digital Revenue Growth, Earnings from Operations and Contribution Earnings from Operations. The minimum goal for Digital Revenue Growth was 6% with a target of 7%. The Earnings from Operations minimum goal was 4% with a target of 6%. The Contribution EFO minimum goal was $275 million with a target of $296 million. 58 The first two goals have qualitative metrics, which the CEO and Compensation Committee determined Mr. Langley completed as defined. The third goal had a minimum threshold of achieving either business unit or corporate center level SG&A targets. The business unit SG&A run rate was achieved, while the targeted SG&A for the corporate center was not achieved, although significantly improved. With respect to the fourth goal relating to GCG financial performance, only one of the performance metrics was achieved. GCG achieved the Digital Revenue Growth goal with a result of 7%. GCG did not achieve the Earnings from Operations metric, instead delivering a 3.2% result. The Contribution EFO result was also below the established target range. Based on these results and the CEO’s recommendation, the Compensation Committee determined to award Mr. Langley a bonus payment equal to 70.75% of target, equal to $212,250, which was paid on March 6, 2008. The calculation used by the Compensation Committee in the determination of this payout reflected the first two goals completed at 100% of target, the third goal completed at 50% of target and the fourth goal completed at 33% of target. 2007 Option Grants On December 11, 2007, the Compensation Committee approved a non-qualified stock option grant for each Named Executive Officer. Stock options granted in 2007 have a seven-year term and vest in three substantially equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date. All stock options become fully vested and exercisable upon the third anniversary of the grant date. Upon termination of employment, all unvested stock options will be forfeited, except in certain cases. If a Named Executive Officer’s employment is terminated as a result of death, disability, transfer or divestiture (as defined in the plan), all unvested stock options will fully vest and will expire on the third anniversary date of the Named Executive Officer’s termination of employment. If a Named Executive Officer’s employment is terminated as a result of retirement, layoff, pursuant to a special separation program or for an approved reason, any unvested stock options will continue to vest and will expire three years after termination of employment. The exercise price of the stock options is $23.28, the mean between the high and low price at which the Kodak shares traded on the NYSE on the grant date. All options are granted under the Company’s 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan. 2007 Promotion Grant In accordance with the Company’s policy, Ms. Hellyar received a promotion grant of 20,000 shares of non-qualified stock options under the Company’s 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan on October 16, 2007, in recognition of her election to Executive Vice President. The stock options will vest in substantially equal installments on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant and expire seven years from the grant date. The exercise price of the stock options is $28.44, the mean between the high and low price at which the Kodak shares traded on the NYSE on the grant date. 59 OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2007 FISCAL YEAR-END TABLE (1) The following table sets forth additional information concerning option awards and stock awards held by Named Executive Officers as of December 31, 2007, including awards granted during 2007 and described in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.
60
61
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED TABLE
62 The Pension Benefits Table below shows the present value as of December 31, 2007 of the accumulated benefits payable to each of our Named Executive Officers, including the number of years of service credited to each Named Executive Officer, under KRIP, KURIP and, when applicable, their supplemental individual retirement arrangements. The methods and assumptions for calculating the present value of accumulated benefits generally follow those set forth in statement No. 87 under GAAP and are consistent with those used in our financial statements as described in Note 17 to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements to the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. The present value has been calculated for all Named Executive Officers, with the exception of Ms. Hellyar, assuming they will remain in service until the normal retirement age of 65, and that the benefit is payable as a lump sum. The present value of Ms. Hellyar’s accumulated benefit assumed a benefit commencement at age 60, when she would be entitled to retire without any benefit reduction, in the form of a straight life annuity.
Tax-Qualified Retirement Plan (KRIP) The Company funds a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan (KRIP) for virtually all U.S. employees. Effective January 1, 2000, the Company amended the plan to include a cash balance component. KRIP’s cash balance component covers all new employees hired after March 31, 1999, including Messrs. Perez, Sklarsky, Langley and Faraci. Ms. Hellyar is the only Named Executive Officer who participates in KRIP’s traditional defined benefit component. Cash Balance Component Under KRIP’s cash balance component, a hypothetical account is established for each participating employee and, for every month the employee works, the employee’s account is credited with an amount equal to 4% of the employee’s monthly pay (i.e., base salary and EXCEL awards, including allowances in lieu of salary for auth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
