DEF 14A 1 ddef14a.htm DEFINITIVE PROXY STATEMENT Definitive Proxy Statement
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.     )

Filed by the Registrant ¨ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

 

¨ Preliminary Proxy Statement

 

¨ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

 

x Definitive Proxy Statement

 

¨ Definitive Additional Materials

 

¨ Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

International Paper 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):

 

x No fee required.

 

¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

 

  (1) Title of each class of securities to which the transaction applies:

 

 

 

  (2) Aggregate number of securities to which the transaction applies:

 

 

 

  (3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

 

 

 

  (4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of the transaction:

 

 

 

  (5) Total fee paid:

 

 

 

¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

 

¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 

  (1) Amount Previously Paid:

 

 

 

  (2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

 

 

 

  (3) Filing Party:

 

 

 

  (4) Date Filed:

 

 

 


Table of Contents

LOGO

6400 Poplar Avenue

Memphis, Tennessee 38197

JOHN V. FARACI

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

April 2011

Dear Shareowners,

It is my pleasure to invite you to attend this year’s Annual Meeting of Shareowners, which will be held on May 9, 2011, in White Plains, New York. As in the past, we are coming together to consider important matters affecting the Company. Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, I encourage you to review the enclosed information and vote your shares.

2010 was an important year for International Paper. Despite a slowly recovering economy, we finished the second-half of the year earning our cost-of-capital for the first time in more than a decade. We attribute our success to our dedicated employees around the world, and our results set the stage for continued improvement in earnings, free cash flow and return on investment. As demand continues to improve in 2011, we expect our results to demonstrate that we have even more upside opportunity.

Our Board of Directors continues to provide leadership and vision that will shape our future success. This year we are pleased to welcome Mr. Ahmet Dorduncu to the Board. Previously, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Sabanci Holding, a publicly traded Turkish company, and as Chairman of the Board of an industrial packaging business joint venture between Sabanci Holding and International Paper. Mr. Dorduncu’s broad international business experience and knowledge of our industry will make him an asset to the Board and our Company.

We value your ongoing participation and support of International Paper. We are well positioned for success in the future, and we remain committed to creating long-term value for you.

Sincerely,

LOGO

John Faraci


Table of Contents

LOGO

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREOWNERS

To the Owners of Common Stock of International Paper Company:

 

Date:

Monday, May 9, 2011

Time:

11:00 a.m. EDT

Place:

The Ritz-Carlton, Westchester
  Three Renaissance Square
  White Plains, New York 10601

 

Items of Business:

Company Proposals:

 

  ¨ Item One: Elect the 11 directors nominated by the Board of Directors for a one-year term.

 

  ¨ Item Two: Ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2011.

 

  ¨ Item Three: Vote on a non-binding resolution to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, as discussed under the heading “Compensation Discussion & Analysis.”

 

¨ Item Four: Cast a non-binding vote to approve the frequency with which shareowners will vote on the compensation of our named executive officers in future years.

 

Items of Business:

Shareowner Proposal:

 

  ¨ Item Five: Consider a shareowner proposal on shareowner action by written consent.

 

Consider any other business properly brought before the meeting.

 

Record Date:

March 15, 2011. Holders of record of International Paper common stock, par value $1.00 per share, at the close of business on that date, are entitled to vote at the meeting.

By order of the Board of Directors,

LOGO

MAURA A. SMITH

Senior Vice President, General Counsel,

Corporate Secretary and Global Government Relations

April 8, 2011


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Information About Our Annual Meeting

     1   

Voting Procedures and Annual Meeting Attendance

     2   

Communicating With the Board

     6   

Matters to be Acted Upon at the 2011 Annual Meeting

     7   

Item 1—Company Proposal to Elect 11 Directors Nominated by the Board

     7   

Item 2—Company Proposal to Ratify Deloitte  & Touche LLP as the Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2011

     8   

Item  3—Company Proposal to Vote on a Non-Binding Resolution to Approve the Compensation of Our Named Executive Officers

     8   

Item  4—Company Proposal on a Non-Binding Vote on the Frequency with which Shareowners Will Approve the Compensation of Our Named Executive Officers

     9   

Item 5—Shareowner Proposal Concerning Shareowner Action by Written Consent

     10   

Our Board of Directors

     12   

Directors Standing for Election (Term Expiring in 2012)

     12   

Information About Our Corporate Governance

     14   

Our Commitment to Sound Corporate Governance Principles

     14   

Our Board Committees

     22   

Transactions with Related Persons

     27   

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

     27   

Director Compensation

     28   

Compensation Discussion & Analysis

     33   

Additional Information about Our Executive Compensation

     61   

Ownership of Company Stock

     77   

Index of Tables

        

Non-Employee Director Compensation

     30   

Summary Compensation Table

     61   

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

     63   

Outstanding Equity Awards

     65   

Stock Vested

     67   

Pension Benefits

     67   

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

     71   

Potential Payments Upon Retirement

     73   

Potential Payments Upon Involuntary Termination Without Cause

     73   

Potential Payments Upon Involuntary Termination With Cause

     74   

Potential Payments Upon Change in Control

     75   

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

     77   

Security Ownership of Management

     78   

Equity Compensation Plan Information

     79   


Table of Contents

LOGO

PROXY STATEMENT

2011 Annual Meeting of Shareowners

Information About Our Annual Meeting

This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by International Paper Company on behalf of the Board of Directors for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Distribution of this proxy statement and proxy form is scheduled to begin on or about April 8, 2011.

The 2011 annual meeting will be held on Monday, May 9, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. EDT at The Ritz-Carlton, Westchester, located at Three Renaissance Square in White Plains, New York 10601.

At the 2011 annual meeting, shareowners will vote on the following matters, as well as any other business properly brought before the meeting:

Item One: Elect the 11 directors nominated by the Board of Directors for a one-year term. The Board recommends a vote FOR each of the nominees.

Item Two: Ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2011. The Board recommends a vote FOR this proposal.

Item Three: Vote on a non-binding resolution to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, as disclosed under the heading “Compensation Discussion & Analysis.” The Board recommends a vote FOR this proposal.

Item Four: Cast a non-binding vote to approve the frequency with which shareowners will vote on the compensation of our named executive officers in future years. The Board recommends a vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers ANNUALLY.

Item Five: Consider a shareowner proposal on shareowner action by written consent. The Board recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

Information about these items may be found beginning on page 7 of this proxy statement.

The Board has designated John V. Faraci, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Tim S. Nicholls, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) as proxies in connection with the 2011 annual meeting. With respect to any other matter that properly comes before the annual meeting, these proxies will vote as recommended by the Board, or, if no recommendation is given, at their discretion.

Shareowners of record of International Paper common stock at the close of business on March 15, 2011, the record date, or their duly authorized proxy holders, are entitled to vote on each matter submitted to a vote at the 2011 annual meeting and at any adjournment or postponement of the annual meeting. There were 437,255,390 common shares outstanding on March 15, 2011. Each common share is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted on at the 2011 annual meeting.

A list of shareowners as of the record date will be available for inspection and review upon request of any shareowner to the Corporate Secretary at the address on page 6 of this proxy statement. We will also make the list available at the annual meeting.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Shareowner Meeting To Be Held on May 9, 2011:

This proxy statement, a form of proxy and our annual report to shareowners is available for viewing and printing at the following Web site: materials.proxyvote.com/460146

LOGO

Vote by telephone

If you choose to vote by telephone, you may call the toll-free number on your proxy card. You will need to have the 12-digit control number printed on your proxy card.

LOGO

Vote on the Internet

If you choose to vote via the Internet, follow the instructions for accessing the Web site on your proxy card. You will need to have the 12-digit control number printed on your proxy card.

LOGO

Vote by mail

If you choose to vote by mail, simply mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage prepaid envelope that was included with the proxy card.

 

1


Table of Contents

Voting Procedures and Annual Meeting Attendance

 

How many votes must be present to hold the annual meeting?

Holders of International Paper common stock, present in person or represented by proxy, representing one-third of the number of votes entitled to be cast upon any proposal to be considered at the meeting (at least 145,751,797 votes) are required to hold the 2011 annual meeting. If you properly vote on any proposal, your shares will be included in the number of shares to establish a quorum for the annual meeting. Shares held of record and represented by proxy cards marked “withhold” or “abstain,” or returned without voting instructions, will be counted as present for the purpose of determining whether the quorum for the annual meeting is satisfied. In addition, if you hold shares through a bank or brokerage account, your shares will be counted as present for the purpose of determining whether the quorum for the annual meeting is satisfied, even if you do not provide voting instructions to your bank or brokerage firm.

We urge you to vote by proxy even if you plan to attend the meeting. That will help us to know as soon as possible that we have enough votes to hold the meeting. Returning your proxy card will not affect your right to revoke your proxy or to attend the 2011 annual meeting and vote in person.

How many votes must be present to consider each of the proposals?

The presence, in person or by proxy, of holders of record of International Paper common stock representing one-third of the number of votes entitled to be cast on a specific proposal is required to consider that proposal at the annual meeting. Even if a quorum is established for the annual meeting, it is possible that a quorum may not be established for a specific proposal presented at the annual meeting.

How do I vote my shares?

You may vote at the annual meeting by proxy or in person.

If you are a holder of record (that is, if your shares are registered in your own name with our transfer agent), you have several options. You may vote by telephone, on the Internet or by attending the meeting and voting in person. In addition, you may vote by mail using the enclosed proxy card.

If you hold your shares in street name (that is, if you hold your shares through a broker, bank or other holder of record), you received this proxy statement and a voting instruction card from your broker, bank or other holder of record. This voting instruction card explains which voting options are available to you. As the beneficial owner of shares held in street name, you have the right to direct your bank or broker how to vote your shares, and it is required to vote your shares in accordance with your instructions. If you do not give instructions to your bank or brokerage firm, it will nevertheless be entitled to vote your shares with respect to “routine” items, but it will not be permitted to vote your shares with respect to “non-routine” items. In the case of a non-routine item, your shares will be considered “broker non-votes” on that proposal. If you want to vote in person at the annual meeting, you must obtain a power of attorney or proxy from your broker, bank or other holder of record authorizing you to vote. You must bring this power of attorney or proxy to the meeting.

How do I attend the annual meeting?

All shareowners as of the record date, March 15, 2011, or their duly authorized proxy holders, are welcome to attend the annual meeting. If you are voting by mail, by telephone or via the Internet, but still wish to attend the meeting, follow the instructions on your proxy card or via the Internet (www.proxyvote.com) to tell us that you plan to attend. When you arrive at the meeting, please look for the “Shareowners’ Welcome Desk,” where you will be asked for photo identification in order to be admitted.

If you hold your shares in street name and you decide to attend, you must bring to the annual meeting a copy of your bank or brokerage statement evidencing your ownership of International Paper common stock as of the record date. Please go to the “Shareowners’ Welcome Desk” and provide the bank or brokerage statement, as well as your photo identification, in order to be admitted.

What happens if the annual meeting is postponed or adjourned?

Your proxy will still be valid and may be voted at the postponed or adjourned meeting. You will still be able to change or revoke your proxy until it is voted.

 

2


Table of Contents

If I hold shares in an International Paper employee benefit plan, how do I vote my shares?

International Paper employees may hold shares of Company common stock in one of our employee benefit plans, including the:

 

  Ÿ  

International Paper Company Savings Plan;

 

  Ÿ  

International Paper Company Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (“LTICP”); or

 

  Ÿ  

International Paper Company 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan (“2009 ICP”).

If you hold shares in our Savings Plan, you may instruct the trustee, State Street Bank and Trust Company, to vote your shares in the Company Stock Fund by returning the proxy/voting instruction card included with this mailing or by providing voting instructions by telephone or on the Internet as explained on the voting instruction card. If you do not return the proxy/voting instruction card or provide voting instructions, or if your instructions are unclear or incomplete, the trustee will vote your shares at its discretion.

If you hold shares of restricted stock under our Performance Share Plan or a restricted stock grant pursuant to the LTICP or 2009 ICP, you may also vote these shares. The process is the same as voting shares of common stock, described above under the heading “How do I vote my shares?” However, if you do not vote your shares, they will not be counted as there is no trustee for the LTICP or 2009 ICP to vote the shares on your behalf.

Can I change or revoke my proxy?

Yes, you may change your vote or revoke your proxy at any time at or before the annual meeting. If you are a holder of record, you may change your vote or revoke your proxy through any of the following means:

 

  Ÿ  

by casting a new vote by telephone or on the Internet prior to the annual meeting, or by properly completing and signing another proxy card with a later date and returning the proxy card prior to the annual meeting;

 

  Ÿ  

giving written revocation to our Corporate Secretary prior to the annual meeting directed to the address on page 6, or at the meeting; or

 

  Ÿ  

voting in person at the annual meeting.

Your presence at the annual meeting will not in itself revoke your proxy; you must obtain a ballot and vote at the annual meeting to revoke your proxy.

If you hold your shares in street name, you may change your voting instructions by contacting your broker, bank or other holder of record prior to the annual meeting or by voting in person at the annual meeting pursuant to a power of attorney or proxy from your bank or broker.

What if I do not indicate my vote for one or more of the matters on my proxy card?

If you are a registered shareowner and you return a proxy card without indicating your vote, your shares will be voted as follows:

 

  Ÿ  

for the Company’s proposal to elect the 11 directors nominated by the Board of Directors in Item 1;

 

  Ÿ  

for the Company’s proposal to ratify the selection of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm in Item 2;

 

  Ÿ  

for the Company’s proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers in Item 3;

 

  Ÿ  

for the Company’s proposal to approve annually the compensation of our named executive officers in Item 4; and

 

  Ÿ  

against the shareowner proposal on shareowner action by written consent in Item 5.

If you are a registered shareowner and you do not return a proxy card or vote at the annual meeting, your shares will not be voted and will not count towards the quorum requirement to hold the annual meeting. Your shares that are not voted will not affect the outcome of any of the proposals.

If your shares are held through our Savings Plan, and you do not provide instructions, the trustee for the plan will vote your shares at its discretion.

 

3


Table of Contents

If your shares are held in street name and you do not give your bank or broker instructions on how to vote, your shares will be counted towards the quorum requirement for the annual meeting. The failure to instruct your bank or broker how to vote will have one of three effects on the proposals for consideration at the annual meeting, depending upon the type of proposal. For all items to be voted on, other than Item 2 to ratify our independent registered public accounting firm for 2011, absent instructions from you, the bank or broker may not vote your shares at all and your shares will be considered broker non-votes. For Item 2, however, the broker may vote your shares at its discretion. For Item 1, a broker non-vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election of directors. For Items 3, 4 and 5, a broker non-vote will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

Will my vote be confidential?

Yes. Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed to our directors or employees.

Will the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm be present at the annual meeting?

Yes, representatives of Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte & Touche”) will attend the meeting. They will be available during the meeting to answer your questions and they will have the opportunity to make a statement, if they desire to do so. The Audit and Finance Committee of our Board has approved the appointment of Deloitte & Touche as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2011, and this decision has been ratified by all members of our Board.

 

4


Table of Contents

For directions to the meeting, please see the map at the end of this proxy statement.

Need to change future proxy delivery options?

If you hold your shares in street name and wish to receive separate copies of future annual reports and proxy statements or if you currently receive multiple copies of our annual report and proxy statement and would like to receive a single copy, please send your written request to:

Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.

Householding Dept.

51 Mercedes Way

Edgewood, NY 11717

or call (800) 542-1061

Will our directors attend the annual meeting?

Yes. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines state that directors are expected to attend our annual meeting.

Do any shareowners beneficially own more than 5 percent of our common stock?

Yes. According to public filings and information provided to the Company, there are four entities that beneficially own more than 5 percent of our common stock:

 

  Ÿ  

BlackRock, Inc.;

 

  Ÿ  

Invesco Ltd., as investment adviser and parent holding company;

 

  Ÿ  

State Street Corporation, as trustee of various International Paper employee benefit plans and as trustee and discretionary adviser to third party trusts and employee benefit plan related accounts; and

 

  Ÿ  

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., as investment adviser to third parties.

For further information about these shareowners, please see “Ownership of Company Stock.”

Who will be soliciting proxies on our behalf?

The Company pays the cost of preparing proxy materials and soliciting your vote. Proxies may be solicited on our behalf by our directors, officers or employees by telephone, electronic or facsimile transmission or in person. We have hired Georgeson, Inc. to solicit proxies for an estimated fee of approximately $25,000, plus expenses.

What is householding?

We have adopted “householding,” a procedure under which shareowners of record who have the same address and last name and do not receive proxy materials electronically will receive only one copy of our annual report and proxy statement unless one or more of these shareowners notifies us that they wish to continue receiving individual copies. This procedure saves us printing and mailing costs. Shareowners will continue to receive separate proxy cards.

We will deliver promptly, upon written or oral request, a separate copy of this proxy statement and our 2010 annual report to a shareowner at a shared address to which a single copy of the documents was delivered. To request separate copies of our proxy statements or annual reports, either now or in the future, please send your written request to Investor Relations, International Paper, 6400 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN 38197, or call (800) 332-8146. You may also submit your request on our Web site, www.internationalpaper.com, under the “Investors” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Financial Requests” link.

 

 

5


Table of Contents

Communicating With the Board

 

How do I communicate with the Board?

You may communicate with our entire Board, the independent directors as a group, the chair of the Governance Committee, who serves as our Presiding Director, or any one of the directors by writing to Ms. Maura A. Smith, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, at the address set forth to the right. Ms. Smith will forward all communications relating to International Paper’s interests, other than business solicitations, advertisements, job inquiries or similar communications, directly to the appropriate director(s).

As previously reported on Form 8-K on March 25, 2011, Ms. Smith has resigned from the Company effective April 30, 2011. Correspondence received after that date can and will be directed to Ms. Sharon R. Ryan, Vice President, who will serve as Acting General Counsel and Corporate Secretary.

In addition, as described in detail under “Information About Our Corporate Governance,” our Office of Ethics and Business Practice has a HelpLine that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive calls, e-mails, and letters to report a concern or complaint, anonymous or otherwise.

LOGO

Direct all Board

correspondence to:

Corporate Secretary

International Paper

6400 Poplar Avenue

Memphis, TN 38197

 

All contacts that raise concerns or allegations of impropriety relating to our accounting, internal controls or other financial or audit matters are immediately forwarded to the chair of our Audit and Finance Committee. All such matters are investigated and responded to in accordance with the procedures established by our Audit and Finance Committee.

How do I submit a shareowner proposal for consideration at the 2012 Annual Meeting?

Our 2012 annual meeting is currently scheduled for May 7, 2012. If you wish to submit a proposal to be included in the 2012 proxy statement, you must submit your proposal in writing so that we receive it by December 10, 2011. Proposals should be sent to the Corporate Secretary at the address listed above.

If you would like to present your proposal at the 2012 annual meeting, but you do not meet the deadline for inclusion in the proxy statement, our By-Laws require that you notify us of your proposal between January 8, 2012, and February 7, 2012. Your notice should be sent to the Corporate Secretary.

You must be a shareowner of record on the date you submit your proposal and on the record date for determining shareowners entitled to vote at the 2012 annual meeting. You must also meet the minimum share ownership requirements set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in order to be eligible to submit a shareowner proposal. Your proposal must conform to the notice requirements in Article I, Section 7, of our By-Laws.

How do I nominate a candidate for director at the 2012 Annual Meeting?

Shareowner nominations for directors may be submitted to the Corporate Secretary at the address listed above. Our By-Laws require that the director nomination be received between January 8, 2012, and February 7, 2012.

As in the case of submitting a shareowner proposal, you must be a shareowner of record on the date you submit your nomination and on the record date for determining shareowners entitled to vote at the 2012 annual meeting. You must also meet the minimum share ownership requirements set forth by the SEC in order to be eligible to nominate a director candidate. Your director nomination must conform to the notice requirements in Article II, Section 9, of our By-Laws.

Our By-Laws are available at www.internationalpaper.com, under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link. A paper copy is available at no cost by written request to the Corporate Secretary.

 

6


Table of Contents

Matters to be Acted Upon at the 2011 Annual Meeting

 

 

Company Proposals

Item 1 — Company Proposal to Elect 11 Directors Nominated by the Board of Directors

 

Eleven directors have been nominated by the Board for election by shareowners at the 2011 annual meeting. All 11 nominees, if elected, will hold office until the earlier of:

 

  (i) our 2012 annual meeting and the date a qualified successor has been elected, or
  (ii) death, resignation or retirement.

There are no other nominees competing for their seats on the Board. This means we have a non-contested election. Shares may not be voted cumulatively and cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named in this proxy statement.

Under our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, directors in non-contested elections are elected by an affirmative majority of votes cast. You can vote “for” or “against” a nominee, or you may “withhold” your vote for a nominee.

Shares that are “withheld” will have no effect on the vote. If you hold your shares in street name, your failure to indicate voting instructions to your bank or broker will cause your shares to be considered broker non-votes not entitled to be cast with respect to Item 1 and will have no effect on the vote.

 

Majority vote for directors:

Each director must receive a majority of votes cast “for” his or her election.

If a director does not receive a majority of votes cast “for” his or her election, he or she must submit a letter of resignation, and the Board, through its Governance Committee, will decide whether to accept the resignation.

 

 

 


In 2008, shareowners approved an amendment to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation to elect directors annually, phasing in annual elections over a three-year period beginning in 2009. Accordingly, at this 2011 annual meeting, all 11 director nominees will serve for a one-year term. Information about these nominees may be found on pages 12-13.

We do not know of any reason why any nominee would be unable to, or for good cause would not serve as a director if elected. If, prior to the election, a nominee is unable or unwilling to serve, the shares represented by all valid proxies will be voted for the election of such other person as the Board may nominate, except for proxies voted “withhold” with respect to the original nominee.

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR each of the following nominees:

 

  Ÿ  

David J. Bronczek

  Ÿ  

Ahmet C. Dorduncu

  Ÿ  

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

  Ÿ  

John V. Faraci

  Ÿ  

Samir G. Gibara

  Ÿ  

Stacey J. Mobley

  Ÿ  

John L. Townsend, III

  Ÿ  

John F. Turner

  Ÿ  

William G. Walter

  Ÿ  

Alberto Weisser

  Ÿ  

J. Steven Whisler

 

7


Table of Contents

Item 2 — Company Proposal to Ratify Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2011

 

Our Board of Directors has ratified the selection of Deloitte & Touche by our Audit and Finance Committee to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2011. We are asking shareowners to ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche. To ratify the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm, the affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum at the annual meeting is required.

You may vote “for” or “against” the ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm, or you may “abstain” from voting. “Abstentions” will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal because they are considered votes present for purposes of a quorum on the vote.

There will be no broker non-votes associated with this proposal, as the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm is a routine matter. As a result, if your shares are held in street name and you do not give your bank or broker instructions on how to vote, your shares will be voted by the broker in its discretion.

Although ratification is not required by our By-Laws or otherwise, the Board is submitting the selection of Deloitte & Touche to our shareowners for ratification because we value our shareowners’ views on the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Our Audit and Finance Committee will consider the outcome of this vote in its decision to appoint an independent registered public accounting firm, but is not bound by the shareowners’ vote. Even if the selection of Deloitte & Touche is ratified, the Audit and Finance Committee may change the appointment at any time during the year if it determines that a change would be in the best interest of the Company and its shareowners.

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR the ratification of Deloitte & Touche as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2011.

Item 3 — Company Proposal to Vote on a Non-Binding Resolution to Approve the Compensation of Our Named Executive Officers

 

Our Board of Directors is seeking your approval of the compensation of our Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”), as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), including the Compensation Discussion & Analysis, related compensation tables and narrative disclosure. This vote is non-binding. To approve this proposal, the affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum at the annual meeting is required.

You may vote “for” or “against” this proposal, or you may “abstain” from voting. “Abstentions” will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal because they are considered votes present for purposes of a quorum on the vote.

If you hold your shares in street name, your failure to indicate voting instructions to your bank or broker will cause your shares to be considered broker non-votes not entitled to vote with respect to Item 3. Broker non-votes will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

Our Board seeks your approval of the compensation of our NEOs, who are listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 61. Information describing the compensation of our NEOs is provided in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis section, the accompanying tables and narrative contained in this proxy statement beginning on page 33.

Our Board asks shareowners to approve the following (non-binding) advisory resolution:

“Resolved, that the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K of the Exchange Act, including the Compensation Discussion & Analysis, the related compensation tables and narrative disclosure, in this proxy statement is hereby approved.”

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K.

 

8


Table of Contents

Item 4 — Company Proposal on a Non-Binding Vote on the Frequency with which Shareowners Will Approve the Compensation of Our Named Executive Officers

 

Our Board of Directors is requesting that shareowners cast a non-binding vote as to whether an advisory vote on NEO compensation should occur every one, two or three calendar years. To approve the selection of one of these three frequencies, the affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum at the annual meeting is required. If this proposal does not receive the approval of a majority of a quorum at the meeting, the Board will consider as the non-binding selection of the shareowners the frequency (every one, two or three years) that receives the greatest number of votes.

You may vote “for” one of the three frequencies or you may “abstain” from voting. “Abstentions” will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal because they are considered votes present for purposes of a quorum on the vote.

If you hold your shares in street name, your failure to indicate voting instructions to your bank or broker will cause your shares to be considered broker non-votes not entitled to vote with respect to Item 4. Broker non-votes will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

We are required by the Dodd-Frank Act to provide shareowners with a non-binding “say-on-pay” vote every one, two or three years. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires that our shareowners vote at least once every six years to express their preference as to the frequency of the “say-on-pay” vote. After careful consideration of the various arguments supporting each frequency level, the Board believes that submitting the advisory vote on executive compensation to shareowners on an annual basis is appropriate for the Company and its shareowners at this time and recommends that shareowners approve an annual vote. However, shareowners are not voting to approve or disapprove the Board’s recommendation, and shareowners may vote that a “say-on-pay” vote should occur every one, two or three years or may abstain from voting.

Shareowner approval of a one, two, or three-year frequency vote will not require the Company to implement the frequency selected by the shareowners. The final decision on the frequency of the advisory vote on executive compensation remains with the Board or its committees. The Board values the opinions of the Company’s shareowners as expressed through their votes and other communications. Although the resolution is non-binding, the Board or its committees will carefully consider the outcome of the frequency vote and other communications from shareowners when making future decisions regarding the frequency of “say-on-pay” votes.

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote FOR an annual vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers.

 

9


Table of Contents

Proposal Submitted by our Shareowners

Item 5 — Shareowner Proposal Concerning Shareowner Action by Written Consent

 

We expect the following shareowner proposal to be presented at the annual meeting. Upon request, we will promptly provide any shareowner with the name, address and number of shares held by the shareowner making this proposal. The Company is not responsible for the contents of this shareowner proposal or any supporting statement.

The shareowner proposal will be approved if a majority of a quorum at the annual meeting is voted “for” the proposal. You may vote “for” or “against” the shareowner proposal, or you may “abstain” from voting. “Abstentions” will have the same effect as a vote against this shareowner proposal, because they are considered votes present for purposes of a quorum. If you hold your shares in street name, your failure to indicate voting instructions to your bank or broker will cause your shares to be considered broker non-votes not entitled to vote with respect to Item 5. Broker non-votes will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

“RESOLVED, Shareholders hereby request that our board of directors undertake such steps as may be necessary to permit written consent by shareholders entitled to cast the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize the action at a meeting at which all shareholders entitled to vote thereon were present and voting (to the fullest extent permitted by law).

Taking action by written consent in lieu of a meeting is a means shareholders can use to raise important matters outside the normal annual meeting cycle. A study by Harvard professor Paul Gompers supports the concept that shareholder dis-empowering governance features, including restrictions on shareholder ability to act by written consent, are significantly related to reduced shareholder value.

The merit of this Shareholder Action by Written Consent proposal should also be considered in the context of the need for improvement in our company’s 2010 reported corporate governance status.

Please encourage our board to respond positively to this proposal to enable shareholder action by written consent – Yes on 5.”

[End of Shareowner Proposal]

 

 

Position of Your Company’s Board of Directors

The Board of Directors and its Governance Committee have considered this proposal and concluded that it is not in the best interest of our shareowners for the following reasons.

 

   

Matters that are sufficiently important and subject to a shareowner vote should be communicated to all shareowners and all shareowners should have the opportunity to vote on such action.

The Company’s By-Laws provide that shareowner action must be effected at a duly called annual or special meeting. This meeting requirement protects all shareowners by ensuring the following benefits:

 

   

notice of a request for a special meeting and the proposals to be considered;

 

   

at the meeting, an opportunity to discuss and raise questions with our Board of Directors and senior management (who attend our meetings), as well as with other shareowners; and

 

   

most importantly, the right to vote on any proposals.

We urge you to vote against this proposal because it would allow a group of shareowners, who, for as little as a single day, hold a majority of the Company’s outstanding shares, to impose their will on the minority without a meeting of the Company’s shareowners. They could take significant action, such as electing new directors or

 

10


Table of Contents

amending the Company’s By-laws. These actions could become effective without your knowledge or consent. The Board believes this is contrary to sound corporate governance principles that the Company has adopted to protect shareowner rights and to ensure your voice is heard.

New York law currently permits shareowners to act by unanimous written consent; that is, all shareowners may act by executing a written consent. The requirement of unanimity safeguards the right of all shareowners to be informed and have an opportunity to be heard on a proposed action.

The Board believes that NY law which allows shareowners to act at an annual or special meeting and permits shareowners to act by unanimous written consent is fair to all shareowners and ensures the proper functioning of the Company’s business and affairs.

 

  Ÿ  

The Board believes this proposal, if implemented, would create confusion and disruption.

Permitting a majority of shareowners to act by written consent could also create substantial confusion and disruption in a publicly held company with approximately 437 million shares outstanding. Multiple groups of shareowners could solicit written consents at any time and on any range of issues, some of which may be in part duplicative or potentially conflicting. This could lead to chaotic rather than an orderly conduct of corporate affairs and may frustrate shareowners leading to lesser overall participation in important Company matters.

 

  Ÿ  

The Company has adopted sound corporate governance policies which ensure that the Board of Directors remains fully transparent and accountable as well as provide shareowners with access to the Board of Directors and ample opportunity to submit items for approval at annual meetings.

Over the last several years, the Company has enhanced its corporate governance policies in order to achieve greater transparency and accountability by:

 

  Ÿ  

eliminating the classified structure of the Board of Directors to allow for annual election of all directors;

 

  Ÿ  

adopting a majority-voting standard in uncontested director elections and a resignation requirement for directors who fail to receive the required majority vote. The Board is prohibited from changing back to a plurality-voting standard without the approval of the shareowners; and

 

  Ÿ  

amending the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws to eliminate all supermajority voting requirements.

In addition, the Company’s shareowners currently have the right to:

 

  Ÿ  

communicate directly with any member of the Board of Directors or a committee member;

 

  Ÿ  

propose director nominees to the Governance Committee;

 

  Ÿ  

submit proposals for presentation at an annual meeting of shareowners and inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement, subject to certain rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and

 

  Ÿ  

submit proposals, including nominations of director candidates, directly at an annual meeting, subject to certain conditions in our By-Laws.

The Board believes that the Company’s existing corporate governance policies provide the appropriate balance between ensuring transparency and accountability, as well as meaningful access to the Board, and ample opportunities to raise matters before the shareowners on an annual basis.

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.

 

11


Table of Contents

Our Board of Directors

Directors Standing for Election — Term Expiring in 2012

 

The following 11 directors are nominated for election at the 2011 annual meeting. Each of these directors is standing for election to serve a term that will expire in 2012.

 

         
 

 

LOGO

    David J. Bronczek, 56, president and chief executive officer of FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, since February 2000. Mr. Bronczek started with FedEx in 1976 and has served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of FedEx Express. Mr. Bronczek was recently appointed by the President of the United States to the National Infrastructure Advisory Council. He is a board member for the Air Transport Association and a member of the Board of Governors of the International Air Transport Association. He is vice chairman for the Board of Visitors of the University of Memphis, a member of the Board of Governors for National Safe Kids Campaign, and a member of Memphis Tomorrow. Director since October 9, 2006.
         
         
 

 

LOGO

    Ahmet C. Dorduncu, 57, retired chief executive officer of Sabanci Holding, a financial and industrial conglomerate located in Turkey. From 2005 until his retirement in 2010, Mr. Dorduncu served as chief executive officer of Sabanci Holding. He also served from 2006 to 2010 as chairman of the board of Olmuksa, an industrial packaging business joint venture between Sabanci Holding and International Paper. Sabanci Holding is the parent company of the Sabanci Group, a leading Turkish financial and industrial company. Director since March 6, 2011.
         
  LOGO     Lynn Laverty Elsenhans, 54, chairman, chief executive officer and president, Sunoco, Inc., manufacturer and marketer of petroleum and petrochemical products since August 2008. Ms. Elsenhans is also chief executive officer and chairman of the board of Sunoco Partners, LLC, the general partner of Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP. Sunoco Logistics engages in the transport, terminalling and storage of refined products and crude oil. Ms. Elsenhans previously served as executive vice president, global manufacturing, Shell Downstream Inc., a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, from January 2005 until July 2008. She served concurrently as president of Shell Oil Company and chief executive officer of Shell Oil Products U.S. from 2003 until 2005. Ms. Elsenhans is an overseer for the Jones Graduate School of Management at Rice University and serves on the boards of the Texas Medical Center, the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Business Committee for the Arts Advisory Council. Director since March 15, 2007.
         
         
         
 

 

LOGO

    John V. Faraci, 61, chairman and chief executive officer of International Paper, since November 2003. Earlier in 2003, he was elected president of International Paper, and he previously served as executive vice president and chief financial officer from 2000 to 2003. From 1999 to 2000, he was senior vice president – finance and chief financial officer. From 1995 to 1999, he was chief executive officer and managing director of Carter Holt Harvey Ltd., a former majority-owned subsidiary of International Paper located in New Zealand. Mr. Faraci is a member of the board of directors of United Technologies Corporation. He also serves on the board of the Moscow School of Management and is chairman of the Brazil – US Business Council. He is a trustee of Denison University and the American Enterprise Institute, and a member of the Citigroup International Advisory Board. Director since February 11, 2003.
         
 

 

LOGO

    Samir G. Gibara, 71, retired chairman of the board and chief executive officer of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Mr. Gibara served as chairman and chief executive officer from 1996 to his retirement in 2002 and remained as non-executive chairman until June 30, 2003. Prior to 1996, Mr. Gibara served that company in various managerial posts before being elected president and chief operating officer in 1995. Mr. Gibara served as a director of Dana Corporation through early 2008, and was elected to the board of W&T Offshore Inc. in May 2008. He serves on the Board of Dean’s Advisors of the Harvard Business School and as a trustee of the University of Akron Foundation. Director since March 9, 1999.

 

12


Table of Contents
 

 

LOGO

    Stacey J. Mobley, 65, retired in June 2008 as senior vice president, chief administrative officer and general counsel of DuPont, a global science company, and a member of DuPont’s Office of the Chief Executive. Mr. Mobley was with DuPont for 35 years and had senior management responsibility for legal and governmental affairs. Since November 2008, Mr. Mobley has served as senior counsel, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, a multi-service law firm, and as a director of Hewitt Associates Inc. (through October 2010), Wilmington Trust Company (through April 2010), and Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. Mr. Mobley also serves on the board of trustees of Howard University. Director since July 7, 2008.
         
 

 

LOGO

    John L. Townsend, III, 55, managing partner and chief operating officer of Tiger Management, LLC, an investment management business since July 2010. Mr. Townsend is also a member of the Riverstone Group, a private investment fund. Mr. Townsend was previously employed by Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1987 to 2002 and was a general partner from 1992 to 1999 and a managing director from 1999 to 2002. Mr. Townsend is a director of Belk, Inc., a department store retailer. Director since March 13, 2006.
         
 

 

LOGO

    John F. Turner, 69, former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International and Scientific Affairs from November 11, 2001, to July 8, 2005. He received the Department of State’s Distinguished Honor Award from Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2005. Prior to serving in the Department of State, Mr. Turner was president and chief executive officer of The Conservation Fund. Between 1989 and 1993, he was director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Turner also served in the Wyoming State Legislature for 19 years and is a past president of the Wyoming State Senate. Mr. Turner is a director of American Electrical Power, Inc., Peabody Energy Company, Ashland Inc., and The Bank of Jackson Hole. He was a visiting professor at the University of Wyoming in the School of Environment & Natural Resources in 2007 and 2008, and is a managing partner in a family business, The Triangle X Ranch, in Wyoming. Director since July 11, 2005.
         
         
 

 

LOGO

    William G. Walter, 65, retired chairman of FMC Corporation, an agriculture, specialty and industrial chemical company. Mr. Walter served as chairman of FMC Corporation from 2001 to September 2010, and also served as FMC’s president and chief executive officer from 2001 until December 31, 2009. Mr. Walter served as executive vice president of FMC Corporation from 2000 to 2001 and vice president and general manager of FMC’s Specialty Chemicals Group from 1997 to 2000. Mr. Walter is a member of the board of directors of New York Life Insurance Company. Director since January 1, 2005.
         
 

 

LOGO

    Alberto Weisser, 55, chairman and chief executive officer of Bunge Limited, a global food, commodity and agribusiness company, since 1999. Mr. Weisser served as Bunge’s chief financial officer from 1993 to 1999. Mr. Weisser is a member of the North American Agribusiness Advisory Board sponsored by Rabobank Nederland. Director since January 1, 2006.
         
 

 

LOGO

    J. Steven Whisler, 56, retired as chairman and chief executive officer of Phelps Dodge Corporation, an international mining company, upon its merger with Freeport Copper and Gold, Inc. in March 2007. Mr. Whisler served as chairman and chief executive officer of Phelps Dodge Corporation from May 2000 until March 2007, and served on the board of Phelps Dodge Corporation from 1995 through March 2007. Mr. Whisler is a director of the U.S. Airways Group, Inc., and the Brunswick Corporation. He is standing for election to the board of CSX Corporation in May 2011. He is also a director of the C.M. Russell Museum. Director since December 11, 2007.
         

 

13


Table of Contents

Information About Our Corporate Governance

Our Commitment to Sound Corporate Governance Principles

 

We believe that good corporate governance is critical to achieving business success. Our Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines that reflect its commitment to sound governance practices. In addition, each of our Board committees has its own charter to assure that our Board fully discharges its responsibilities to our shareowners. Our Board regularly reviews its Corporate Governance Guidelines and committee charters and makes changes from time to time to reflect developments in the law and the corporate governance area. Our Restated Certificate of Incorporation permits the size of our Board to range from nine to 18 members. Currently, the size of our Board is 11 members. Our Board maintains four standing committees, each of which is described in detail below, as well as an Executive Committee, which is comprised of the chair of each of the standing committees.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Board committee charters are available at www.internationalpaper.com under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link. A paper copy is available at no cost by written request to the Corporate Secretary at the address on page 6.

In each of the areas discussed below, we have embraced sound principles, policies and procedures to ensure that our Board and our management goals are aligned with our shareowners’ interests.

Code of Business Ethics

Our Board has adopted a Code of Business Ethics that applies to our directors, officers and all employees to ensure that we conduct business in a legal and ethical manner. Our revised Code of Business Ethics (Third Edition) was updated in January 2008 to reflect the increasingly global nature of our business and addresses many global compliance issues. Our Code of Business Ethics is available at www.internationalpaper.com, under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Ethics at IP” link. A paper copy is available at no cost by written request to the Corporate Secretary.

Our Office of Ethics and Business Practice is located at our global headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. If an employee, customer, vendor or shareowner has a concern about ethics or business practices of the Company or any of its employees or representatives, he or she may contact the Office of Ethics and Business Practice in person, via mail, e-mail, facsimile or telephone. Our Code of Business Ethics explains that there are multiple other channels for an employee to report a concern, including to his or her manager, assigned human resource professional or legal counsel, or to our internal audit department.

Our HelpLine is also available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive calls from anyone wishing to report a concern or complaint, anonymous or otherwise. Our HelpLine contact information can be found at www.internationalpaper.com, under the “Company” tab at the top of the page, then under the “Ethics at IP” link, then under “How Can We Help You?” on the right side.

All HelpLine contacts are provided to the Office of Ethics and Business Practice for further action and, if possible, for a response to the person making the contact. Any report to any one of our multiple channels for reporting concerns that raises a concern or allegation of impropriety relating to our accounting, internal controls or other financial or audit matters is immediately forwarded to the Office of Ethics and Business Practice, which is then responsible for reporting such matters, unfiltered, to the chair of our Audit and Finance Committee. All such matters are investigated and responded to in accordance with the procedures established by the Audit and Finance Committee to ensure compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Risk Oversight

As set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board exercises oversight of the Company’s strategic, operational and financial matters, as well as compliance and legal risks. The Board is responsible for assuring appropriate alignment of its leadership structure and oversight of management with the interests of shareowners and the communities in which the Company operates. Pursuant to delegated authority as permitted by the Company’s By-Laws, Corporate Governance Guidelines, and committee charters, the Board’s four standing committees oversee certain risks, and the Audit and Finance Committee coordinates the risk

 

14


Table of Contents

oversight role exercised by various committees and management. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide the foundation upon which the Board oversees a working system of principled goal setting and effective decision making, with the objective of establishing a vital, agile, and ethical corporate entity that provides value to the shareowners who invest in the Company and to the communities in which it operates.

Board Leadership Structure

Our Board has no policy with respect to the separation of the offices of Chairman and CEO. We currently combine the role of Chairman and CEO, coupled with an independent Presiding Director whose authority, duties and responsibilities are set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Board believes that combining the position of Chairman and CEO is appropriate to further strengthen the Company’s governance structure by promoting unified leadership and direction for the Company, fostering accountability and allowing for a single, clear focus for management to execute the Company’s strategy and business plans.

The Board believes that consideration of this issue is part of the Company’s succession planning. The Board will continue to evaluate this structure going forward in light of factors and considerations prevailing at the time to determine whether the CEO should also serve as Chairman.

Director Independence Determination Process and Standards

Annually, our Board determines the independence of directors based on a review conducted by the Governance Committee and the General Counsel. The Governance Committee and the Board evaluate and determine each director’s independence under the NYSE Listed Company Manual’s independence standards and the Company’s Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards, which are consistent with, but more rigorous than, the NYSE standards.

Under SEC rules, the Governance Committee is required to analyze and describe any transactions, relationships or arrangements not specifically disclosed in this proxy statement that were considered in determining our directors’ independence. To facilitate this process, the Governance Committee reviews directors’ responses to our annual Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaire, which requires disclosure of each director’s and his or her immediate family’s relationships to the Company, as well as any potential conflicts of interest.

In this context, the Governance Committee considered the relationships described below. Based on its analysis of the relationships and our independence standards, the Governance Committee concluded and recommended to our Board that none of these relationships impaired any of our director’s independence.

 

  Ÿ  

The service by Mr. Walter as Chairman of the Board of FMC Corporation through September 2010 and the commercial relationship involving routine, arms-length purchases and sales transactions between International Paper and FMC Corporation during this period.

 

  Ÿ  

The service by Mr. Weisser on the North American Agribusiness Advisory Board sponsored by Rabobank Nederland. Rabobank Nederland is an entity to which International Paper is indebted. Mr. Weisser does not serve as an executive officer of Rabobank Nederland, nor did he receive compensation from Rabobank Nederland.

 

  Ÿ  

The service by Mr. Dorduncu as Chief Executive Officer of Sabanci Holding and the Chairman of the Board of an industrial packaging business joint venture between Sabanci Holding and International Paper through 2010.

 

  Ÿ  

Non-profit and charitable organization affiliations of our directors. None of our directors serve as an executive officer of any organization to which we make charitable contributions.

 

  Ÿ  

Service by several of our directors as an executive officer at a company with whom we may do business. The Governance Committee determined that the commercial relationships involving routine, arms-length purchases and sales transactions between International Paper and these companies were not material under our independence standards. These standards provide that payments to or payments from the Company to a company for which a director serves as an executive officer, for property or services that are less than the greater of $750,000 or 1.75 percent of such other company’s consolidated gross revenues, are not considered a material relationship that would impair the director’s independence. We provide additional details about these relationships below.

 

15


Table of Contents

Transactions Considered in Analysis of Director Independence

 

Director   Name of Employer   Business Relationship
(including affiliated
companies)
 

Dollar Amount of
Routine Sales
Transactions

(approximate)

  Amount  exceeds
greater of $750,000
or 1.75% of other
company’s gross
revenue?

David J. Bronczek

  FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation  

Routine sales to

FedEx Corp.

  $202,093,960 in total, representing .803% of International Paper’s
annual net sales in 2010
  No
    Routine purchases from FedEx Corp.   $8,930,843 in total, representing less than .026% of FedEx Corp.’s annual gross revenue in 2010   No
Lynn Laverty Elsenhans   Sunoco, Inc.  

Routine sales to

Sunoco, Inc.

  None   No
    Routine purchases from Sunoco, Inc.   $48,210,539 in total, representing less than .124% of Sunoco’s annual gross revenue in 2010   No

Alberto Weisser

  Bunge Ltd.  

Routine sales to

Bunge Ltd.

  $7,832,023 in total, representing .031% of International Paper’s annual net sales in 2010   No
   

Purchases from

Bunge Ltd.

  $255,367 in total, representing less than .0005% of Bunge’s annual gross revenue in 2010   No

Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards

Our Board has adopted Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards, which it uses to evaluate incumbent directors being considered for election at each annual meeting, as well as to evaluate director-candidates. As noted in our Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards, neither the Governance Committee nor the Board has any specific minimum qualifications expected of qualified directors, although we do expect candidates to have ample experience and a proven record of professional success, leadership and the highest level of personal and professional ethics, integrity and values.

It is the policy of our Board that a majority of its members be independent from the Company, its management and its independent registered public accounting firm. Based on the Governance Committee’s review of our current directors, our Board has determined that all of our non-employee directors are independent. We have one employee-director, our Chairman, Mr. Faraci, who is not independent. All committees of the Board are comprised entirely of independent directors. Further, the Governance Committee concluded and recommended to our Board, and our Board determined, that all of our non-employee directors meet the independence requirements for service on our Audit and Finance Committee, the Management Development and Compensation Committee and the Governance Committee.

 

16


Table of Contents

Diversity of our Directors

Our Board and the Governance Committee have assembled a Board comprised of experienced directors who are currently, or have recently been, leaders of major companies or institutions, are independent thinkers and have a wide range of expertise and skills. The Board, through its Governance Committee, seeks directors with a mix of backgrounds and experiences that will enhance the quality of its deliberations and decisions. The criteria considered by the Board and the Governance Committee include a person’s skills, current and previous occupations, other board memberships and professional experiences in the context of the needs of the Board. The Governance Committee Charter specifically directs the Committee to seek qualified candidates with diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to such factors as race, gender, and ethnicity. The satisfaction of these criteria is implemented and assessed through ongoing consideration of directors and nominees by the Governance Committee and the Board, as well as through the Board’s annual self-evaluation process.

Additionally, the Board believes that its membership should reflect diversity in the broadest sense, and is particularly interested in maintaining a mix that includes the following backgrounds:

  Ÿ  

Senior management level leadership in a comparable company or organization;

  Ÿ  

Manufacturing;

  Ÿ  

International operations;

  Ÿ  

Environmental affairs and sustainability;

  Ÿ  

Public policy;

  Ÿ  

Public service;

  Ÿ  

Finance;

  Ÿ  

Accounting;

  Ÿ  

Strategic planning;

  Ÿ  

Supply chain;

  Ÿ  

Technology;

  Ÿ  

Marketing; and

  Ÿ  

Legal.

Our Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards may be found at www.internationalpaper.com under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link.

 

17


Table of Contents

Specific Qualifications and Experience of our Directors

We describe below for each director and nominee the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led our Board to conclude that such person should serve as a director of the Company in light of the Company’s business.

 

Director    Significant Experience   Rationale
     
David J. Bronczek   

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ  Strategic Planning

Ÿ Supply Chain

Ÿ  Technology

Ÿ Marketing

  As president and CEO of FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corp., Mr. Bronczek brings critical business insight to a large, diversified company with international operations. Mr. Bronczek has served in many capacities at FedEx Corporation, beginning his career in operations in 1976. His experience includes serving as senior vice president of Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), which is a region of strategic importance to International Paper’s business as well.
     
Ahmet C. Dorduncu   

Ÿ Former CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ Supply Chain

Ÿ  Marketing

  As retired CEO of Sabanci Holding, a leading financial and industrial conglomerate, Mr. Dorduncu brings vast experience in international operations for a large manufacturing company. He also has financial expertise that adds to the strength of our Board. His knowledge of regions of key importance to the Company brings even greater perspective to our Board.
     

Lynn Laverty

Elsenhans

  

Ÿ  Current CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ  Supply Chain

Ÿ Technology

Ÿ  Marketing

  As chairman, CEO and president of Sunoco, Ms. Elsenhans brings management expertise and leadership capabilities, as well as a broad understanding of the operational, financial and strategic issues facing public companies. Her previous experience at Royal Dutch Shell includes global manufacturing, supply chain and marketing. She has experience with operations overseas, including Brazil, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific, which are regions of strategic importance to International Paper. Ms. Elsenhans also brings financial expertise to our Board and our Audit and Finance Committee, and has served on the audit committees of several not-for-profit boards.
     
John V. Faraci   

Ÿ Current CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ  Supply Chain

Ÿ Technology

Ÿ  Marketing

  Under Mr. Faraci’s leadership, International Paper has successfully executed a major transformation plan, focusing and repositioning the Company on our core global papers and packaging business, which resulted in record free cash flow in 2008 and 2009. Mr. Faraci has developed a thorough understanding of all aspects of the Company’s businesses, leading the strategic decisions that continue to strengthen the Company. He has served International Paper as its CEO since 2003, with previous experience as executive vice president and CFO. He also has experience in overseas operations, having served as CEO of Carter Holt Harvey, a former subsidiary located in New Zealand. He has been with International Paper for more than 35 years. His service on the board of publicly traded United Technologies Corporation gives him additional experience on which he can draw as Chairman of our Board.
     
Samir G. Gibara   

Ÿ Former CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ  Marketing

  With more than 10 years of service on our Board, Mr. Gibara is well versed in the history of the Company and is a valued contributor on our strategic direction for the future. Mr. Gibara’s previous experience as CEO of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company from 1996 to 2002 gives him excellent insight into the business operations of a large, publicly traded, manufacturing company. He has a strong background in marketing, including in Europe and the Middle East, which are regions of strategic importance to International Paper. Mr. Gibara’s service on other public company boards gives him further experience to draw on in his service on our Board and Audit and Finance Committee.

 

18


Table of Contents
Director    Significant Experience   Rationale
     
Stacey J. Mobley   

Ÿ  Manufacturing

Ÿ International Operations

Ÿ  Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ  Strategic Planning

Ÿ Supply Chain

Ÿ  Marketing

Ÿ Legal

  Having served with DuPont for 35 years, including senior management responsibility for legal and government affairs, Mr. Mobley brings a deep understanding of legal compliance and oversight of a diversified, publicly traded company. Mr. Mobley’s service on other public company boards allows him to bring current insight into governance and other significant issues facing public companies.
     
John L. Townsend, III   

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ  Strategic Planning

  Mr. Townsend brings strong financial acumen to our Board with his current experience working with private investment funds, as well as his previous experience as general partner and managing director for Goldman Sachs & Co. Mr. Townsend’s financial background, experience with the investment community and knowledge of financial markets makes him well qualified to serve as the chair of our Audit and Finance Committee.
     
John F. Turner   

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ  Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ  Marketing

  Mr. Turner brings government relations depth and perspective to our Board, having served as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International and Scientific Affairs. His experience in academia and the Conservation Fund also gives him a broader perspective on current issues in sustainability and forest resources, which are critical issues to the Company. His service on other public company boards gives him experience and oversight over manufacturing, natural resource conversion and production as well as a broad range of strategic and tactical business matters. He actively supplements his financial background through director education courses with a focus on auditing, finance and budgeting responsibilities. These experiences give Mr. Turner a strong background on which to draw as chairman of our Public Policy and Environment committee.
     
William G. Walter   

Ÿ Former CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ Technology

Ÿ  Marketing

  Mr. Walter is an experienced business leader, having served from 2001 to 2009 as chairman and CEO of FMC Corporation, a large, publicly traded, manufacturing company with international operations. Mr. Walter continued to serve as FMC’s chairman through September 2010. Mr. Walter brings management experience, leadership capabilities, financial knowledge and business acumen to our Board, including as a member of our Audit and Finance Committee and as chairman of our Management Development and Compensation Committee.
     

Alberto Weisser

  

Ÿ Current CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ Supply Chain

Ÿ  Marketing

  Mr. Weisser has served as chairman and CEO of Bunge Ltd. since 1999. This gives him a strong background in the strategic, financial and compliance issues facing a large, diversified, publicly traded, manufacturing company. Mr. Weisser’s six years’ previous experience as Bunge’s CFO further augments the financial expertise he brings to our Board and our Audit and Finance Committee.
     
J. Steven Whisler   

Ÿ Former CEO

Ÿ Manufacturing

Ÿ  International Operations

Ÿ Environment, Public Policy, Public Service

Ÿ Finance, Accounting

Ÿ Strategic Planning

Ÿ  Supply Chain

Ÿ Legal

  Prior to its acquisition in March 2007, Mr. Whisler served as chairman and CEO of Phelps Dodge Corporation, a large, publicly traded, manufacturing company with international operations. He has a deep understanding of the governance, compliance and regulatory issues facing public companies. His service on other public company boards further augments his range of knowledge and allows him to draw on various perspectives and viewpoints in his role as our Presiding Director and as chairman of our Governance Committee.

 

19


Table of Contents

Director Nomination Procedures

During 2010, there have been no changes to the procedures by which shareowners may recommend Board nominees. The Governance Committee did not receive any recommended nominees from a shareowner or group of shareowners that beneficially own more than 5 percent of our common stock.

Our Board applies the same criteria in evaluating candidates nominated by shareowners as those recommended by other sources, including the Governance Committee. The Governance Committee historically has engaged Egon Zehnder International, a business leadership recruiting firm, to identify potential director-candidates to the Board.

Board of Directors’ Policies and Practices

Resignation Policies

We have two policies relating to director resignation. The first applies when a director has a substantial change in his or her principal occupation, and the second applies in relation to a director who does not receive a majority of shares voted in favor of his or her election. We describe each policy below.

First, if a director’s principal occupation changes substantially, he or she is required to tender his or her resignation for consideration by the Governance Committee. The Governance Committee then recommends to the Board whether or not to accept the resignation using the Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards. In 2010, Mr. John Townsend, III, tendered his resignation for consideration by the Governance Committee in accordance with this policy. The Board determined not to accept the resignation.

Second, our Restated Certificate of Incorporation was amended in 2008 to provide for majority voting of directors in non-contested elections. Pursuant to our By-Laws, any director nominee in a non-contested election who fails to receive the requisite majority of votes cast “for” his or her election must tender his or her resignation, and the Board, working through the Governance Committee, will determine whether or not to accept the resignation. In 2010, no director was required to tender a resignation under this policy.

Mandatory Retirement Policy

Our Board revised its mandatory retirement policy in 2010. Under the revised policy, a director is required to retire from our Board effective December 31 of the year in which he or she attains the age of 72. No directors retired under this policy during 2010. Mr. Gibara, who has served on our Board since 1999, will retire under this policy in December 2011.

Orientation and Continuing Education

Our new directors participate in a director orientation that includes written materials and presentations by Company employees who are subject matter experts, as well as meetings with senior management, our independent registered public accounting firm and both the Company’s and the Management Development and Compensation Committee’s compensation consultants. New directors visit several of our facilities and meet with employees. Continuing education occurs at Board and committee meetings, with specific topics of interest covered by management or outside experts. Directors are also offered the opportunity to attend director education programs provided by third parties. From time to time, directors visit a facility or significant operation, or attend meetings of Company officers, and at each Board meeting, they meet informally with senior leaders of the Company.

Board, Committee and Annual Meeting Attendance

The Board met 10 times during 2010, with an average attendance rate of 92 percent. Each director attended 75 percent or more of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and committees on which he or she served. As expected by our Corporate Governance Guidelines, all those who were directors at the time of the 2010 annual meeting were in attendance at the 2010 annual meeting.

 

20


Table of Contents

Executive Sessions of Non-Management and Independent Directors

After regularly scheduled face-to-face meetings and, if needed, after telephonic meetings, non-management and independent directors of our Board meet in executive session without management present, chaired by the Presiding Director. If non-management directors are not independent, then the Presiding Director will also chair an executive session of independent directors at least once annually. In 2010, executive sessions were held at every regularly scheduled Board meeting. Independent directors may engage, at the Company’s expense, independent legal, financial, accounting and other advisors as they may deem appropriate, without obtaining management approval.

Role of the Presiding Director

The chair of the Governance Committee is the Presiding Director, who is elected by the independent directors for a term of not less than one year. The Presiding Director has authority to call meetings of independent directors. He may consult and directly communicate with certain shareowners if requested. The duties of the Presiding Director include:

  Ÿ  

Determining a schedule and agenda for regular executive sessions in which independent directors meet without management present, and presiding over these sessions;

  Ÿ  

Presiding over meetings of the Board in the event the Chairman is not present;

  Ÿ  

Serving as liaison between the Chairman and independent directors;

  Ÿ  

Approving agendas of the Board and meeting schedules to assure there is ample discussion time;

  Ÿ  

Approving information sent to the Board; and

  Ÿ  

Organizing the process for evaluating the performance of the Chairman and CEO not less than annually in consultation with the Management Development and Compensation Committee.

Annual Board and Committee Self-Assessment

In accordance with a procedure established by the Governance Committee, our Board conducts an annual self -assessment of its own and its committees’ performance. The assessment is based on confidential, individual interviews with each independent director, conducted by the General Counsel.

Separately, an assessment of individual Board members is conducted by the Governance Committee and the Chairman of the Board prior to their nomination for election by shareowners, in accordance with the Director Qualification Criteria and Independence Standards discussed above.

 

21


Table of Contents

Our Board Committees

 

As described above, in order to fulfill its responsibilities, the Board has delegated certain authority to its committees. The Board has four standing committees and one Executive Committee. Our four standing committees are: (i) Audit and Finance; (ii) Governance; (iii) Management Development and Compensation; and (iv) Public Policy and Environment. The Executive Committee meets only if a quorum of the full Board cannot be convened and there is an urgent need to meet.

Each committee has its own charter, and each charter is reviewed annually by each committee to assure ongoing compliance with applicable law and sound governance practices. The Governance Committee assesses the Executive Committee Charter. Committee charters are available at www.internationalpaper.com under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link. A paper copy is available at no cost by written request to the Corporate Secretary.

Committee Assignments

Independent Board members are assigned to one or more committees. The Governance Committee recommends any changes in assignments to the entire Board. Committee chairs are rotated periodically, usually every three to five years.

Governance Committee

Meetings. Meeting agendas are developed by the Governance Committee chair in consultation with committee members and senior leaders of the Company, who regularly attend the meetings. The Governance Committee chair also serves as the Presiding Director, as described above.

Responsibilities. The Governance Committee is responsible for assuring the Company abides by sound corporate governance principles, including compliance with the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Corporate Governance Guidelines, and reviewing conflicts of interest, including related person transactions under our Related Person Transactions Policy and Procedures. The committee also serves as the Board’s nominating committee, responsible for identifying and recommending individuals qualified to become Board members and for evaluating directors being considered for re-election. The committee is also responsible for assuring that shareowner communications, including shareowner proposals, are addressed appropriately by the Board or Company management. The committee also recommends non-employee director compensation, and assists the Board in its annual self assessment.

Audit and Finance Committee

Meetings. Meeting agendas are developed by the Audit and Finance Committee chair in consultation with committee members and senior leaders, who regularly attend the meetings. On a regular basis, the committee holds an executive session without members of management, and it also meets privately with representatives from our independent registered public accounting firm, and separately with each of Mr. Nicholls, Ms. Smith, and our Director of Internal Audit, Ms. Tanya K. Robbins.

Responsibilities. The Audit and Finance Committee assists our Board in monitoring the integrity of our financial statements and financial reporting procedures, reviewing the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence, overseeing the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm, coordinating our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements relating to the use and development of our financial resources, and monitoring the risk of financial fraud involving management and ensuring that controls are in place to prevent, deter and detect fraud by management.

 

Governance Committee

Current Members

J. Steven Whisler (Chairman)

David J. Bronczek

Stacey J. Mobley

John L. Townsend, III

John F. Turner

Five Meetings in 2010

Attendance Rate

100 percent

All Members are Independent

Audit and Finance Committee

Current Members

John L. Townsend, III (Chairman)

Lynn Laverty Eisenhans

Samir G. Gibara

William G. Walter

Alberto Weisser

12 Meetings in 2010

Attendance Rate

88 percent

Each Member is an “Audit Committee Financial Expert” under the SEC’s Definition

All Members are Independent

 

22


Table of Contents

Audit and Finance Committee Report

Audit and Finance Committee Report

The following is the report of the Audit and Finance Committee with respect to the Company’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Audit and Finance Committee assists the Board of Directors in its oversight of the Company’s financial reporting process and implementation and maintenance of effective controls to prevent, deter and detect fraud by management. The Audit and Finance Committee’s responsibilities are more fully described in its charter, which is accessible on the Company’s Web site at www.internationalpaper.com under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link and the “Board of Directors” section. Paper copies of the Audit and Finance Committee charter may be obtained, without cost, by written request to Ms. Maura A. Smith, Corporate Secretary, International Paper Company, 6400 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN 38197.

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit and Finance Committee has reviewed and discussed the Company’s annual audited and quarterly consolidated financial statements for the 2010 fiscal year with management and Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte & Touche”), the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit and Finance Committee has discussed with Deloitte & Touche the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1.AU. section 380), as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) in Rule 3200T. The Audit and Finance Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from Deloitte & Touche required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant's communications with the audit committee concerning independence, and has discussed with Deloitte & Touche its independence from the Company and its management. The Audit and Finance Committee has also considered whether the provision of non-audit services by Deloitte & Touche is compatible with maintaining the auditors’ independence.

The Board has determined that the following members of our Audit and Finance Committee are audit committee financial experts as defined in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) of Regulation S-K: Lynn Laverty Elsenhans, Samir G. Gibara, John L. Townsend, III, William G. Walter, and Alberto Weisser. The Board has determined that each of these audit committee financial experts meets the independence requirements for audit committee members set forth under the listing standards of the NYSE and our independence standards.

Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the Audit and Finance Committee recommended to the Company’s Board of Directors that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Audit and Finance Committee has selected, and the Board of Directors has ratified the appointment of the Company’s independent auditors.

Audit and Finance Committee

John L. Townsend, III, Chairman

  William G. Walter

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

  Alberto Weisser

Samir G. Gibara

 

 

23


Table of Contents

The Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit and Finance Committee is responsible for engaging the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, and has evaluated the qualifications, performance and independence of Deloitte & Touche, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and their respective affiliates. Based on this evaluation, the Audit and Finance Committee has approved and selected, and the Board has ratified, Deloitte & Touche as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2011.

Deloitte & Touche’s reports on the consolidated financial statements for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended December 31, 2010, did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

Independent Auditor Fees

The Audit and Finance Committee engaged Deloitte & Touche to perform an annual integrated audit of the Company’s financial statements, which includes an audit of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting, for the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The total fees and expenses paid to Deloitte & Touche are as follows (in thousands):

 

    

2009

($)

   

2010

($)

 

Audit Fees

    12,935        13,359   

Audit-Related Fees

    1,498        1,614   

Tax Fees

    1,401        1,604   

All Other Fees

    —          5,605   

Total Fees

    15,834        22,182   

Services Provided by the Independent Auditors

All services rendered by Deloitte & Touche are permissible under applicable laws and regulations, and are pre-approved by the Audit and Finance Committee. For a complete copy of International Paper’s “Guidelines of International Paper Company Audit and Finance Committee for Pre-Approval of Independent Auditor Services,” please write to Ms. Maura A. Smith, or visit us on our Web site, www.internationalpaper.com, under the “Company” tab, then the “Governance” link.

Pursuant to rules adopted by the SEC, the fees paid to Deloitte & Touche for services provided are presented in the table above under the following categories:

 

1. Audit Fees — These are fees for professional services performed by Deloitte & Touche for the audit and review of our annual financial statements that are normally provided in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements, comfort letters, consents and other services related to SEC matters. Audit fees in both years include amounts related to the audit of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting.

 

2. Audit-Related Fees — These are fees for assurance and related services performed by Deloitte & Touche that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements. This includes employee benefit and compensation plan audits, accounting consultations on divestitures and acquisitions, attestations by Deloitte & Touche that are not required by statute or regulation, consulting on financial accounting and reporting standards, and consultations on internal controls and quality assurance audit procedures related to new or changed systems or work processes.

 

3. Tax Fees — These are fees for professional services performed by Deloitte & Touche with respect to tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning. This includes consultations on preparation of original and amended tax returns for the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, refund claims, payment planning, and tax audit assistance. Deloitte & Touche has not provided any services related to tax shelter transactions, nor has Deloitte & Touche provided any services under contingent fee arrangements.

 

4. All Other Fees — These are fees for other permissible work performed by Deloitte & Touche that do not meet the above category descriptions. The services relate to various consultations that are permissible under applicable laws and regulations, which are primarily related to engagements to provide advice, observations, and recommendations regarding operations, infrastructure and distribution to be considered by the Company.

 

24


Table of Contents

Public Policy and

Environment Committee

Current Members

John F. Turner (Chairman)

David J. Bronczek

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

Stacey J. Mobley

Three Meetings in 2010

Attendance Rate

100 percent

All Members are Independent

Executive Committee

Current Members

John V. Faraci (Chairman)

John L. Townsend, III

John F. Turner

William G. Walter

J. Steven Whisler

No Meetings in 2010

Management Development and Compensation Committee

Current Members

William G. Walter (Chairman)

Samir G. Gibara

Alberto Weisser

J. Steven Whisler

Five Meetings in 2010

Attendance Rate

100 percent

All Members are Independent

Public Policy and Environment Committee

Meetings. Meeting agendas are developed by the Public Policy and Environment Committee chair in consultation with committee members and senior leaders, who regularly attend the meetings.

Responsibilities. The Public Policy and Environment Committee has overall responsibility for the review of contemporary and emerging public policy issues, as well as technology issues pertaining to the Company. The committee reviews the Company’s health and safety policies, as well as environmental policies, including the Office of Sustainability policies, to ensure continuous improvement and compliance. The committee also reviews the Company’s policies and procedures for complying with its legal and regulatory obligations, including the Code of Business Ethics, and charitable and political contributions.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee may act for our Board, to the extent permitted by law, if Board action is required and a quorum of our full Board cannot be convened on a timely basis in person or telephonically. The Chairman of our Board and the chair of each Board committee are members of the Executive Committee.

Management Development and Compensation Committee

The Management Development and Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing our overall compensation programs and approving compensation of our senior management (other than the CEO). The committee is responsible for conducting performance evaluations of the Chairman and CEO not less than annually, in accordance with the process organized by the Presiding Director, and recommending compensation of the CEO to the independent directors based on such evaluations. The committee is also responsible for discussing with Company management the required disclosure under Item 407(e)(5) of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion & Analysis that is prepared as part of this proxy statement, and for recommending that it be included in our proxy statement. The committee is responsible for ensuring that we have in place policies and programs for the development of senior leaders and succession planning. The committee acts as the oversight committee with respect to our retirement and benefit plans for senior officers and must approve significant changes to the retirement and benefit plans for our employees. With respect to those plans, the committee may delegate authority for both day-to-day administration and interpretation of the programs, except as it may impact our senior leaders or the CEO.

 

Meetings. Meeting agendas are developed by the Management Development and Compensation Committee chair in consultation with committee members and senior leaders, who regularly attend the meetings. An executive session without management present is held at each meeting.

The committee’s independent compensation consultant is James F. Reda of James F. Reda & Associates (formerly James F. Reda & Associates, LLC), a division of Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Mr. Reda regularly attends the committee’s meetings. A representative of the Company’s compensation consultant, Towers Watson & Co. (“Towers Watson”), also attends meetings from time to time.

 

25


Table of Contents

Role of Independent Consultant. The committee has retained Mr. Reda as its independent compensation consultant since early 2004. Mr. Reda is expected to achieve the following objectives:

 

  Ÿ  

Attend meetings of the Management Development and Compensation Committee as requested;

  Ÿ  

Acquire adequate knowledge and understanding of our compensation philosophy and rewards programs;

  Ÿ  

Provide advice on the direction and design of our executive compensation programs;

  Ÿ  

Provide insight into the general direction of executive compensation within Fortune 100 companies; and

  Ÿ  

Facilitate open communication between our management and the Management Development and Compensation Committee, assuring that both parties are aware and knowledgeable of ongoing issues.

The committee has sole authority for retaining and terminating Mr. Reda, as well as approving the terms of engagement, including fees. Mr. Reda works exclusively for the committee and provides no services to the Company.

Assessment and Management of Compensation Related Risk. Beginning in 2009, the Committee committed to completing an annual risk assessment to evaluate the Company’s compensation programs. In 2010, the committee, in consultation with Mr. Reda, completed this annual risk assessment. The committee evaluated a series of analytical questions, including those recommended by the Center On Executive Compensation. The questions were designed to assess programmatic risk, including compensation mix, plan design, performance metrics, relationship between performance and plan payout, officer stock ownership requirements, severance and change-in-control provisions. Based on this evaluation, the committee concluded that the Company’s executive compensation program appropriately aligns compensation with long-term shareowner value creation and avoids short-term rewards for decisions that could pose long-term risks to the Company as a result of the following factors:

 

  Ÿ  

Our compensation mix is appropriately balanced and incentive compensation is not overly weighted toward short-term performance at the expense of long-term value creation;

  Ÿ  

Our short-term incentive compensation award pool is appropriately capped, thereby limiting payout potential;

  Ÿ  

Our long-term incentive compensation is based entirely on performance shares, which are less leveraged than stock options and, unlike time-based restricted stock awards, reward both Company performance and stock price;

  Ÿ  

Our performance is measured against absolute and relative metrics to ensure quality and sustainability of Company performance;

  Ÿ  

We have adopted several programs that serve to mitigate potential risk, including officer stock ownership requirements, clawback policies in our incentive compensation programs, and non-compete and non-solicitation agreements to deter behavior that could be harmful to the Company either during or after employment; and

  Ÿ  

The committee maintains strict controls over the Company’s equity granting practices, and our incentive compensation plan prohibits option re-pricing.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The members of the Management Development and Compensation Committee during 2010 were Mr. William G. Walter, Chairman, Mr. Samir G. Gibara, Mr. Alberto Weisser and Mr. J. Steven Whisler. No member of the Management Development and Compensation Committee was, during the fiscal year, an officer or employee of the Company or was formerly an officer of the Company. Please refer to the discussion below related to “Transactions with Related Persons,” for additional information requiring disclosure by us under Item 404 of Regulation S-K of the Exchange Act for members of the Company’s Management Development and Compensation Committee.

In addition, no executive officer of the Company served as a member of the compensation committee (or its equivalent) of another entity, or as a director of another entity, one of whose executive officers served on our Management Development and Compensation Committee. No executive officer of the Company served as a member of the compensation committee (or its equivalent) of another entity, one of whose executive officers served as one of our directors.

 

26


Table of Contents

Transactions with Related Persons

 

 

Transactions Covered. Our Board has adopted a written policy and procedures for review and approval or ratification of transactions involving the Company and “related persons” (directors and executive officers and their immediate family members or shareowners owning 5 percent or greater of our outstanding common stock and their immediate family members).

The policy covers any related person transaction that meets the minimum threshold for disclosure in the proxy statement under the SEC’s rules (specifically, any transaction involving us in which:

 

  (i)    the amount involved exceeded $120,000, and

 

  (ii)    a related person had a direct or indirect material interest).

 

Related Person Transaction Review Procedures. Related person transactions are approved in advance by the Governance Committee whenever possible, or must be ratified as promptly as possible thereafter. We disclose in our proxy statement any transactions that are found to be directly or indirectly material to a related person.

Prior to entering into a transaction, a related person must provide the details of the transaction to the General Counsel, including the relationship of the person to the Company, the dollar amount involved, and whether the related person or his or her family member has or will have a direct or indirect interest in the transaction. The General Counsel evaluates the transaction to determine if the Company or the related person has a direct or indirect material interest in the transaction. If so, then the General Counsel notifies the CEO and submits the facts of the transaction to the Governance Committee for its review. The Governance Committee may approve a transaction only if these review procedures have been followed, and the Governance Committee determines that the transaction is not detrimental to the Company and does not violate the Company’s Conflict of Interest Policy.

Related Person Transactions. Please see the table on page 16 under the heading “Transactions Considered in Analysis of Director Independence” for a description of related person transactions during 2010.

 

Our Related Person Transaction procedures are available at www.internationalpaper.com under the “Company” tab at the top of the page and then under the “Governance” link. A paper copy is available at no cost by written request to the Corporate Secretary.

 

 

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

 

 

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors and certain officers, as well as persons who own more than 10 percent of our common stock, to file with the SEC initial reports of beneficial ownership on Form 3, and reports of subsequent changes in beneficial ownership on Forms 4 or 5. Based solely on our review of these forms, and certifications from our executive officers and directors that no other reports were required for such persons, we believe that all directors and officers complied with the filing requirements applicable to them for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, except the Form 4 for Mr. Maximo Pacheco, Senior Vice President, to reflect the sale on February 4, 2010, of shares held beneficially by Mr. Pacheco, which was filed one day late on February 9, 2010.

 

27


Table of Contents

Director Compensation

 

 

Compensation Philosophy

Our compensation program for non-employee directors is guided by the following principles. We believe our director compensation program should:

 

  Ÿ  

Provide total compensation comprising both cash and equity that targets the median level of compensation paid by our Compensation Comparator Group (“CCG”) listed in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis section of this proxy statement on page 34;

  Ÿ  

Align the interests of our directors with the interests of our executives and shareowners;

  Ÿ  

Attract and retain top director talent;

  Ÿ  

Focus on stewardship; and

  Ÿ  

Be flexible to meet the needs of a diverse group of directors.

Each element of director compensation discussed below is recommended by the Governance Committee and approved by our Board.

Stock Ownership Requirements

Our director stock ownership policy was revised in May 2010 to require that our directors hold equity of the Company valued at two times (2X) the annual Board retainer (which, for May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, requires ownership of Company stock equivalent to $400,000). Directors have until 2014 to meet this requirement, or, in the case of directors elected in 2010 or later, four years from the date of their election. We believe this aligns the interests of our directors with the interests of our shareowners. As of December 31, 2010, all directors who were required to meet the ownership levels held the requisite number of shares.

Elements of Our Director Compensation Program

For the May 2010 – April 2011 performance year, compensation for our non-employee directors consists of:

 

  Ÿ  

An annual retainer fee that is a mix of cash and equity;

  Ÿ  

Committee chair fees, a Presiding Director fee, and an Audit and Finance Committee member fee, as applicable; and

  Ÿ  

Life insurance, business travel accident insurance, and liability insurance.

We evaluate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the total compensation paid to our directors in comparison to peer companies who comprise our CCG. We target our director compensation at the median of our CCG.

We did not increase the annual retainer fee paid to our directors in 2010. However, in May 2010, we increased the Public Policy and Environment Committee Chair fee so that it was consistent with other chair fees, and, consistent with the practices of our CCG, we added a Presiding Director fee in recognition of the additional responsibilities of that role.

Annual Compensation

The annual retainer fees for the May 2010 – April 2011 performance year are shown below. A director’s annual compensation is $200,000, 40 percent of which is payable in cash and 60 percent of which is payable as equity. A director may elect to convert all or 50 percent of his or her cash retainer fee into shares of restricted stock. In order to encourage director stock ownership, a director who makes this election receives a 20 percent premium in additional shares of restricted stock. For 2010, four of our directors elected to receive stock in lieu of all or 50 percent of the cash retainer fee and received the applicable premium.

Directors may also elect to defer receipt of their equity retainer fee until January of the calendar year following retirement. Directors who make this election receive restricted stock units (“RSUs”) in lieu of restricted stock. For 2010, two of our directors elected to defer payment of all or a portion of their equity compensation until retirement.

 

28


Table of Contents

Elections with regard to form of payment and deferrals are made in December preceding each performance year.

We use the closing market price of the Company’s common stock on the day preceding our annual meeting in May to award the equivalent number of shares for the $120,000 equity retainer and restricted stock elected by our directors in lieu of their cash retainer fee. RSUs are settled in cash based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock as of December 31 of the year of the director’s retirement.

In addition, each committee chair receives a fee for his or her service in such role. For 2010, Messers. Townsend, Turner, Walter and Whisler each received a committee chair fee. Members of our Audit and Finance Committee also receive an additional fee for their services on this committee. For 2010, Ms. Elsenhans and Messers. Gibara, Walter and Weisser each received an Audit and Finance Committee member fee. As Presiding Director, Mr. Whisler also received a Presiding Director fee for 2010.

 

Type of Fee   2010 - 2011 Fee Amount
($)
       
Board Fees                
Cash Retainer   $ 80,000     
Equity Retainer   $ 120,000     
Committee Fees                
Audit and Finance Committee Chair   $ 25,000     
Audit and Finance Committee Member   $ 10,000     
Management Development and Compensation Committee Chair   $ 15,000     
Governance Committee Chair   $ 15,000     
Public Policy and Environment Chair   $ 15,000     
Presiding Director Fee   $ 15,000     

Directors’ Charitable Award Program

Directors who joined our Board on or before July 1, 2007, are eligible to participate in our charitable award program. Under this program, the Company will make a charitable donation in the aggregate amount of $1 million in the director’s name in 10 equal annual installments following the director’s death to the eligible colleges or universities selected by the director. This program was closed to new participants effective July 1, 2007.

Insurance and Indemnification Contracts

We provide life insurance in the amount of $10,500 to each of our non-employee directors, and travel accident insurance in the amount of $500,000 that covers a director if he or she dies or suffers certain injuries while traveling on Company business.

We provide liability insurance for our directors, officers and certain other employees at an annual cost of approximately $5 million. The primary underwriters of coverage, which was renewed in 2010 and extends to June 15, 2011, are XL Specialty Insurance Company and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company.

Our By-Laws provide for standard indemnification of our directors and officers in accordance with New York law. We also have contractual arrangements with our directors that indemnify them in certain circumstances for costs and liabilities incurred in actions brought against them while acting as our directors.

 

29


Table of Contents

Our Analysis

We believe that our director compensation program effectively compensates our directors for their time and commitment to the Company and is consistent with our compensation philosophy as shown below.

 

Our Director Pay

Principles

 

Our 2010 Director Pay

Policies and Practices

¨       Target compensation at median of CCG

 

•   Compensation for 2010-2011 remained in line with CCG market practice

•   Maintained mix of cash and equity that is in line with CCG

¨       Align the interests of our directors with the interests of our executives and shareowners

 

•   Paid 60 percent of compensation in the form of equity so that directors, like shareowners, have a personal stake in the Company’s financial performance

¨       Attract and retain top director talent

 

•   Compensated directors competitively, based on a cross-section of similar companies (CCG)

¨       Focus on stewardship

 

•   Continued to pay annual retainer rather than per-meeting fees

¨       Maintain flexibility to meet the needs of a diverse group of directors

 

•   Continued to allow directors to choose between cash and equity and to elect to defer their fees until retirement

Non-Employee Director Compensation Table

The following table provides information on 2010 compensation for non-employee directors. This table shows fiscal year 2010 compensation based on the SEC’s compensation disclosure requirements. Since we pay our directors on a May to April performance year, the amounts in the table below show differences among directors because (i) each director makes an individual election to receive his or her fees in cash and/or equity; (ii) each director makes an individual election to defer compensation; (iii) certain directors receive committee chair fees, a Presiding Director fee, and/or member fees; and (iv) directors may join our Board on different dates, so their compensation is prorated for the year.

 

Name of Director   Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash
($)(1)
    Stock
Awards
($)(2)
    All Other
Compensation
($)(3)
    Total
($)
 

David J. Bronczek

    40,000        168,003        22,842        230,845   

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

    89,697        119,992        29,599        239,288   

Samir G. Gibara

    90,530        119,992        29,390        239,912   

Stacey J. Mobley

    40,000        168,003        11,146        291,149   

John L. Townsend, III

    106,326        119,992        18,247        244,565   

John F. Turner

    93,712        119,992        19,316        233,020   

William G. Walter

    -        240,990        41,075        282,065   

Alberto Weisser

    60,606        119,992        34,933        215,531   

J. Steven Whisler

    -        245,990        16,680        262,670   

(1) As described above, certain directors elected to receive shares of restricted stock in lieu of cash and therefore had no cash compensation during 2010.

(2) The value of stock awards shown in the “Stock Awards” column is based on grant date fair value calculated under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value of the equity awards shown in the “Stock Awards” column is based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the day prior to grant of the equity award.

Directors who elect to defer their equity retainer fee receive RSUs, rather than restricted stock.

 

30


Table of Contents

Restrictions on shares awarded to our directors under our current compensation plan lapse one year from the date of grant, and then are freely transferable, subject to our director stock ownership requirement and securities regulations. As of December 31, 2010, only Mr. Gibara holds shares of Company stock that were awarded under our previous compensation plan. He may not sell these shares until retirement, disability or death. RSUs are not transferable until a director’s retirement from the Board, death or disability. The cash value of RSUs is paid in January following retirement, death or disability. The following table shows the aggregate number of unvested shares of restricted stock and RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2010, for each non-employee director.

 

   
Name of Director   Aggregate Number of  Shares
Outstanding That Have Not Vested
(#)

David J. Bronczek

  11,353

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

  22,914

Samir G. Gibara

  39,231

Stacey J. Mobley

  7,254

John L. Townsend, III

  5,181

John F. Turner

  5,181

William G. Walter

  59,108

Alberto Weisser

  35,926

J. Steven Whisler

  39,872

Total

  226,021

(3) A breakdown of the amounts shown in the “All Other Compensation” column for 2010 for each non-employee director is set forth in the following table:

 

Name of Director   Annual Expense
of Charitable
Award Program
(closed )
($) (a)
    Dividends
Earned
($) (b)
    TOTAL
($) (c)
 

David J. Bronczek

    16,095        6,747        22,842   

Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

    16,095        13,504        29,599   

Samir G. Gibara

    16,095        13,295        29,390   

Stacey J. Mobley

    -        11,146        11,146   

John L. Townsend, III

    16,095        2,152        18,247   

John F. Turner

    16,095        3,221        19,316   

William G. Walter

    16,095        24,980        41,075   

Alberto Weisser

    16,095        18,838        34,933   

J. Steven Whisler

    -        16,680        16,680   

(a) With regard to the annual expense of our charitable award program, we determine the total annual expense to the Company by using assumptions related to each current and retired director who participates in the program. We take into account each director’s age, years of service on our Board, and mandatory retirement age. We make a standard mortality assumption for all directors and use a discount rate of 6 percent. For directors who served in 2010, the aggregate accrued liability increased by $128,762, which was allocated ratably to those directors eligible to participate in the program based on the number of months each served. Non-employee directors vest in the program upon the earliest of (i) serving on our Board for at least 10 years, (ii) retiring from our Board at the mandatory retirement age, or (iii) in the event of disability or death. Directors derive no financial benefit from our charitable award program. We finance the program in part through life insurance policies, of which we are the beneficiary. We expect to receive an income tax deduction when we make the designated charitable awards.

 

31


Table of Contents

(b) Directors earn dividends on their shares of restricted stock and RSUs, which they may elect to receive either as cash or in the form of additional shares of restricted stock or RSUs. Dividends are paid to the director at the time the underlying award is vested or settled. The amount shown represents the value of dividends earned, whether in cash or in stock. Directors who have accumulated a greater number of shares or RSUs will earn a greater number of dividends.

(c) The total column represents the sum of columns (a) through (c), and is shown in column (3) of the “2010 Non-Employee Director Compensation” Table, above. The amount shown does not include the de minimis cost for each director of a $10,500 life insurance policy and a $500,000 business travel accident policy.

 

32


Table of Contents

Compensation Discussion & Analysis (“CD&A”)

 

Overview

In this CD&A, we discuss the compensation paid to our executive officers who are identified as Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) in the 2010 Summary Compensation Table found on page 61 of this proxy statement. The executive compensation program discussed in this CD&A applies to our NEOs, as well as to our other Senior Vice Presidents. We refer to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and 11 Senior Vice Presidents as our Senior Leadership Team (“SLT”).

We also describe our pay-for-performance philosophy, key design principles and the governance policies that reinforce these principles. Our objective is to design an executive compensation program that encourages all of our leaders to produce outstanding financial results and create long-term value for our shareowners.

We have embraced three key design principles that reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy:

 

  Ÿ  

We target our executives’ pay at the median level of our Compensation Comparator Group (“CCG”), and in our incentive plans – representing the greatest percentage of total targeted compensation for our NEOs – we require above-median Company performance for executives to receive a target payout.

 

  Ÿ  

To assure that our executives are focused on producing outstanding financial results, our short- and long-term incentive pay is based on three financial measures:

   

Free Cash Flow;

   

Return on Investment (“ROI”); and

   

Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”).

 

  Ÿ  

The Management Development and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) conducts an annual risk assessment to ensure our incentive plans do not motivate excessive risk taking, as described under the heading “Assessment and Management of Compensation Related Risk” on page 26.

During 2010, International Paper delivered strong results and record earnings in a number of businesses. In our capital-intensive business, a focus by our leaders on efficient use of capital and solid return on investment are key elements for creating long-term shareowner value. The Company’s return on investment was the highest since 1995, and with strong cash flow, we contributed nearly $1.2 billion to our pension plan and repaid $300 million of balance sheet debt. As the global economy emerged from the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Company was well-positioned to capture the benefits of earlier investments, capacity rationalization, and efficiency improvements. Our executives were rewarded for these results with above-target payouts in the short-term and long-term incentive plans.

As shown in the table below, we have organized our CD&A to explain how the amounts we have paid to our NEOs are tied directly to our Company’s performance.

 

Part I:

  

How We Design Our Executive Compensation Program

Explains how the Committee uses benchmarking to guide its decision making, and how the Committee, consultants and executive officers participate in the development of our program

   Page 34

Part II:

  

Pay for Performance Analysis

Demonstrates that our CEO’s pay is appropriately tied to Company performance

   Page 37

Part III:

  

Elements of Our Executive Compensation Program

Describes each element of our program and explains how our incentive compensation plans are designed

   Page 38

Part IV:

  

NEO Compensation

Details the rationale for the Committee’s compensation decisions in 2010 related to the NEOs, describes each NEO’s individual, pre-established performance objectives, and compares the actual amounts paid to his or her targeted compensation

   Page 47

Part V:

  

Other Governance and Compensation Related Matters

Discusses the governance policies that reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy and limit executive benefits, including, among others, our stock ownership requirements and clawback features of our incentive plans

   Page 58

Part VI:

  

Additional Information about Our Executive Compensation

Provides detailed information about our NEO compensation for 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the Summary Compensation Table and other tables

   Page 61

 

33


Table of Contents

Part I: How We Design Our Executive Compensation Program

Executive Compensation Philosophy

Our executive compensation program is designed to attract, retain and motivate our SLT to deliver Company performance that builds long-term shareowner value. Our program is designed around two guiding principles:

 

Compensation Principles   Rationale

Pay for performance

  We reward achievement of specific goals that improve our financial performance and drive strategic initiatives to ensure long-term profitability.

Pay at risk

  We believe that a significant portion of an executive’s compensation should be specifically tied to Company and individual performance.

Peer Group Benchmarking

The Committee benchmarks our compensation program against our CCG to assure that our pay levels remain competitive. We strive for consistency by retaining as many of the same companies in this group as possible from year to year. Changes are made only to assure sufficient data on which to base compensation decisions.

Our CCG generally consists of 20 publicly traded companies with which we are likely to compete for executive talent. CCG companies are selected based on the following business characteristics:

 

  Ÿ  

Comparable annual revenue;

 

  Ÿ  

Global geographic presence; and

 

  Ÿ  

Complexity of business operations.

Annually, the Committee reviews an analysis of the pay levels of each member of our SLT to comparable positions at CCG companies.

Towers Watson provides data to the Committee in order to compare the three elements of total direct compensation (“TDC”):

 

  Ÿ  

Base salary;

 

  Ÿ  

Short-term incentive compensation (“STI”); and

 

  Ÿ  

Long-term incentive compensation (“LTI”).

The Committee targets TDC at the median level (50th percentile) of our CCG.

 

IP’s Targeted TDC = CCG Median TDC

2010 Compensation Comparator Group

 

     Fiscal Year
End
  Revenues
(in billions)

Lockheed Martin Corp.

  Dec-09   $45.2

Dow Chemical Company

  Dec-09   $44.9

Bunge Limited

  Dec-09   $41.9

FedEx Corp.

  May-10   $34.7

Johnson Controls, Inc.

  Sep-10   $34.3

Caterpillar Inc.

  Dec-09   $32.4

Honeywell International Inc.

  Dec-09   $30.9

Hess Corp.

  Dec-09   $29.6

E.I. DuPont de Nemours

  Dec-09   $27.3

3M Company

  Dec-09   $23.1

Schlumberger Limited

  Dec-09   $22.7

Emerson Electric Company

  Sep-10   $21.0

Kimberly-Clark Corp.

  Dec-09   $19.1

Alcoa Inc.

  Dec-09   $18.4

Whirlpool Corp.

  Dec-09   $17.1

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

  Dec-09   $16.3

Occidental Petroleum

  Dec-09   $15.5

Xerox Corp.

  Dec-09   $15.2

Eaton Corp.

  Dec-09   $11.9

United States Steel Corp.

  Dec-09   $11.0

25th Percentile

    $16.9

50th Percentile

    $22.9

75th Percentile

    $32.9

90th Percentile

    $42.2

International Paper Company

  Dec-09   $23.4

IP Percent Rank

    52.9%

IP Rank

    10 out of  21
 

 


 

34


Table of Contents

The Committee uses this analysis as a frame of reference when setting pay levels. Actual compensation paid to our SLT will vary from benchmark medians based on factors such as:

 

  Ÿ  

Position scope and responsibilities;

 

  Ÿ  

Individual performance; and

 

  Ÿ  

Internal equity.

2010 Total Target Compensation Mix

The chart below demonstrates our commitment to pay for performance. For 2010, 87 percent of our CEO’s target compensation and, on average, 73 percent for other NEOs, including the CFO, was based on Company performance and was therefore at-risk. Importantly, base salary comprises a relatively small portion of our NEOs’ compensation.

LOGO

Role of the Management Development and Compensation Committee

The Committee is responsible for the Company’s executive compensation program, including the design elements of our program. The Committee approves:

 

  Ÿ  

Our compensation benchmarking process, as well as the companies used for comparison to ensure reasonableness and stability;

 

  Ÿ  

Overall effectiveness of our executive compensation program to ensure the design achieves our objectives;

 

  Ÿ  

Performance metrics and their respective weighting, as well as the companies against which we compare our relative performance;

 

  Ÿ  

SLT compensation, based on recommendations from the CEO; and

 

  Ÿ  

An annual evaluation of risk as it pertains to our Company-wide compensation plans and programs.

In addition, in a process organized by the Presiding Director, the Committee approves the CEO’s annual objectives and performance achievement, and recommends CEO compensation to the independent directors. The Committee reviews CEO performance semi-annually in July and in December. The Committee recommends the CEO’s annual incentive award and base salary merit increase to the Board based on its assessment of his performance achievement. All elements of CEO pay are approved by the independent directors of the Board.

 

35


Table of Contents

Role of Compensation Consultants

The Committee relies on its independent, external compensation consultant, Mr. James F. Reda, to inform its decision-making process. The Committee has sole authority for retaining and terminating its consultant, as well as approving the terms of engagement, including fees. Mr. Reda works exclusively for the Committee and provides no services to the Company. The Company retains Towers Watson to advise on program design, provide and analyze benchmarking data, apprise management of evolving practices and trends, and perform other consulting services as needed.

Role of Executive Officers in Compensation Decisions

The CEO makes recommendations to the Committee concerning the strategic direction of our executive compensation program. The Committee works closely with Mr. Paul Karre, Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Communications, who is responsible for making recommendations to the Committee concerning program design and administration, and with the General Counsel, who provides legal advice to the Committee concerning disclosure obligations, governance and its oversight responsibilities.

Annually, the CEO reviews the performance of SLT members against their individual, pre-established performance objectives and discusses his assessment with the Committee. Each NEO’s pre-established objectives incorporate both qualitative and quantitative measures. In this way, measurement of individual performance differs from measurement of Company performance, which is based exclusively on quantitative measures. Based on each NEO’s year-end performance evaluation, the CEO, in consultation with Mr. Karre, recommends to the Committee any base salary increase and annual incentive award payment. Ultimately, the Committee takes into account the CEO’s recommendation, as well as input from its compensation consultant, in approving each SLT member’s compensation. The CEO does not participate in any Committee meetings or deliberations that involve his own compensation.

 

36


Table of Contents

Part II: Pay for Performance Analysis

In addition to the benchmarking process described in Part I, the Committee reviews our CEO’s actual pay in relation to the Company’s performance to ensure alignment.

While there are many companies that we could compare ourselves to based on industry, revenue or other criteria, we conduct our pay-for-performance review against our CCG because it is the group against which we benchmark our program design and targeted pay levels.

Each point on the chart below represents a CCG CEO’s three-year realizable compensation (the compensation actually paid including the economic value of equity-based grants) relative to his or her company’s three-year performance in Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) over the period 2007-2009.

Compared to our CCG, we paid our CEO at the 40th percentile while the Company delivered TSR at the 40th percentile. The Committee believes this graph clearly illustrates an appropriate correlation between our CEO’s pay and the Company’s performance.

LOGO

 

About this graph:

This graph is based on the 2010 proxy filings of our CCG.

Total Shareholder Return reflects share price appreciation, adjusted for dividends and stock splits.

Realizable pay consists of: 1) actual base salary paid over the three-year period, 2) actual STI payouts over the three-year period, and 3) the 12/31/09 market value of equity grants as listed:

 

  ü in-the-money value of stock options granted over the three-year period

 

  ü service-based restricted stock awards granted over the three-year period; and

 

  ü performance-based incentives: i) as paid, for grant cycles beginning and ending between 2007 and 2009; and ii) as granted, for performance cycles that have not yet been completed, assuming target performance.

The CEOs at three CCG companies served fewer than three years; therefore, the data reflects awards for their respective years of service.

 

37


Table of Contents

Part III: Elements of Our Executive Compensation Program

Overview

The primary elements of our executive compensation program are base salary, annual incentive compensation under our Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”), long-term incentive compensation under our Performance Share Plan (“PSP”), and benefits.

Total Direct Compensation (“TDC”)

TDC is the combination of fixed and variable compensation. Other compensation elements, such as benefits and perquisites, are not part of TDC, but the Committee reviews these elements also.

LOGO

Base Salary

Base salaries represent the only fixed element of TDC. Annually, the Committee evaluates whether or not to award merit increases based on individual performance and also determines whether market-based adjustments are necessary. In 2010, all SLT members, with the exception of Mr. Pacheco, received base salary merit increases and/or market-based adjustments. The 2010 base salary adjustments for each NEO are described in Part IV.

In February 2011, the Committee awarded base salary increases effective April 1, 2011, to our NEOs, as follows: Mr. Faraci, 5 percent increase to $1,391,000; Mr. Nicholls, 9.2 percent increase to $710,000; Ms. Roberts, 3.1 percent increase to $700,000; and Mr. Kadien, 3.0 percent increase to $587,100. No base salary increase was recommended for Mr. Pacheco for 2011.

Variable Compensation: Overview and How We Assess Performance

We do not have guaranteed bonuses. Variable compensation is pay at risk and it is tied directly to both Company and individual performance. Company performance is based on the achievement of specific financial goals described below. Individual performance is rewarded upon achievement of specific pre-established objectives or priorities. Other equity awards may be granted from time to time under very limited circumstances to address specific recruitment, retention or other recognition efforts.

 

Plan type    IP Incentive Plan    Performance Metrics
     

Short-term Incentive Plan

   Management Incentive Plan or MIP    Free Cash Flow

Absolute ROI

ROI to Peers

     

Long-term Incentive Plan

   Performance Share Plan or PSP    ROI to Peers

TSR to Peers

     

Other Equity Award Programs

  

Service-based Restricted and Unrestricted Stock/Units

Discontinued Programs:

Ÿ     Stock Options

Ÿ    Executive Continuity Awards

   Not applicable

 

38


Table of Contents

How and Why We Chose Our Performance Metrics and Peer Groups

Our incentive compensation plans are designed around achievement of pre-established performance objectives that will drive improved financial performance of the Company. The Committee evaluates the appropriateness of the performance metrics, and makes adjustments based on the financial objectives most critical to the Company’s success. For example, in 2010, the Committee added a third performance metric to our annual cash incentive plan – absolute return on investment – in order to drive focus in this key area. We explain below why the Committee chose the performance metrics we use for our incentive compensation plans.

 

 

2010 ROI PEER GROUP

 

Domtar Inc.

MeadWestvaco Corp.

M-real Corp.

Mondi Group

Packaging Corporation of America

Smurfit Kappa Group

Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

Stora Enso Corp.

Temple-Inland, Inc.

UPM-Kymmene Corp.

 

2010 TSR PEER GROUP

 

Alcoa Inc.

AbitibiBowater Incorporated

Domtar Inc.

Dow Chemical Company

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

MeadWestvaco Corp.

M-real Corp.

Mondi Group

Norske Skog

Packaging Corporation of America

S&P 100 Index

S&P Basic Materials Index

Sappi Limited

Smurfit Kappa Group

Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

Stora Enso Corp.

Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget

Temple-Inland, Inc.

United States Steel Corp.

UPM-Kymmene Corp.

 

 

Free Cash Flow 1 is a measure of a company’s ability to generate cash and is an important indicator of its stock value. Focusing our leaders on generating Free Cash Flow is important to maintain a strong balance sheet, pay dividends, repay debt, maintain our assets and make investments for future growth.

Return on Investment (“ROI”) 2 measures a company’s profitability and is an indicator of a company’s ability to use its assets and resources to generate returns on invested capital. Earning an ROI target that is at least equal to or greater than our cost of capital is necessary for the Company to create long-term value for our shareowners.

Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) 3 reflects share price appreciation and dividends paid. TSR can be used to compare the performance of companies’ stocks over time, and we measure our relative TSR position over a three-year period against our TSR Peer Group. This is a key financial measure that aligns our long-term incentive pay with creating value for our shareowners.

Why We Use Different Peer Groups

In the chart below, we explain below why we use different peer groups for compensation benchmarking and measuring Company performance in our incentive plans.

 

Peer Group   Composition   Rationale

CCG

 

• Includes 20 companies from many industries

 

    Companies range in size from approximately 50 to 200 percent of our revenue, which puts us in the mid-range

  These are the companies against which we are likely to compete for executive talent

ROI Peers

 

• Includes global industry competitors

  These are the companies against which we compete for customer business

TSR Peers

 

• Broader cross-section of basic materials companies engaged in global manufacturing and capital-intensive businesses

  These are the companies against which we compete for investment dollars, and two indices: the S&P 100 and the S&P Basic Materials Index

 

1 For purposes of the incentive compensation plans discussed here, Free Cash Flow is calculated as Cash Flow before Dividends (but including special items and discontinued operations) as shown in the Company’s Statement of Cash Flow as “Cash provided by operations” less “Invested in capital projects.” Cash received from the Alternative Fuel Mixture Tax Credits and cash benefits from Cellulosic Biofuel Tax Credits are excluded from the calculation of Free Cash Flow for purposes of determining achievement of the Free Cash Flow metric.

 

2

For purposes of the incentive compensation plans discussed here, ROI is calculated as after-tax operating earnings (including both earnings from continuing and discontinued operations up through the date of sale) before the impact of special items, divided by average capital employed. Capital employed is total assets, less short-term, non-interest-bearing liabilities. The ROI metric excludes the impact of special items, such as gains or losses associated with asset sales, asset impairments, restructuring costs, changes in pension funding, significant out-of-period or “one-off” items. Income received due to Alternative Fuel Mixture Tax Credits and from Cellulosic Biofuel Tax Credits is excluded from the calculation of ROI for purposes of determining achievement of the ROI metric because we have classified it as a special item. We calculate International Paper’s ROI and our peer companies’ ROI using the same methodology.

 

3

For purposes of the incentive compensation plans discussed here, TSR is calculated as the change in the Company’s common stock price during the performance period plus the impact of any dividends paid and reinvested during the performance period. For all companies in our TSR Peer Group, both the beginning and ending common stock prices used are the average closing price of the 20 trading days immediately preceding the beginning and ending of the performance period. We calculate International Paper’s TSR and our peer companies’ TSR using the same methodology.

 

39


Table of Contents

Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”)

Overview

The MIP is an annual, cash-based incentive plan designed to motivate employees to achieve our most critical short-term financial goals. In 2010, the MIP award pool, described below, was distributed among approximately 2,900 employees.

2010 Company Performance Metrics and Performance Achievement

The Company continued its focus on ROI in the 2010 MIP, incorporating both absolute and relative ROI into the plan design, along with an absolute Free Cash Flow metric. The Committee believed that the combination of these metrics would continue to focus our leaders on improving the Company’s ROI as well as its cash generation capabilities, which were critical during the economic recovery in 2010. The chart below describes the specific design elements.

 

2010

MIP Performance Metrics

 

Metric

Weight

 

Threshold
Performance

Payout %

 

Target

Performance

Payout %

 

Maximum

Performance

Payout %

       

Free Cash Flow

  33.3%  

Achieve $1.1B

50%

 

Achieve $1.5B

100%

 

Achieve $2.0B

185%

       

Absolute ROI

  33.3%  

3.8% ROI

50%

 

4.4% ROI

100%

 

7.0%

185%

       

ROI to Peers (performance rank)

  33.3%  

Rank 6 of 11

50%

 

Rank 5 of 11

100%

 

Rank 1 of 11

185%

     

ROI Stretch Goal

  30%   Achieve 8% ROI – adds 30% to total award pool

For 2010, the possible MIP award pool ranged from 0 to 185 percent of the aggregate target award, up to a maximum of 215 percent if the Company achieved ROI equal to or greater than 8 percent. This Stretch Goal of 8 percent ROI was designed to achieve an ROI equivalent to the Company’s cost of capital, which is a key business goal for the Company.

At its February 2011 meeting, the Committee evaluated the Company’s 2010 financial performance achievement and approved the overall Company performance of 129.4 percent, as illustrated below.

 

2010

MIP Performance Metrics

 

Metric

Weight

   

Actual

Performance

Attainment

    Target Award
Earned
   

Weighted

Target Award
Earned

 
       

Free Cash Flow (1)

    33.3%        $1.6B        117.0%        39.0%   
       

Absolute ROI (2)

    33.3%        5.96%        151.1%        50.4%   
       

ROI to Peers (performance rank)

    33.3%        3 of 11        120.0%        40.0%   
   

Overall Company Performance (3)

  

            129.4%           

1 – The Committee excluded the following sources and uses of cash for purposes of calculating performance achievement under the Free Cash Flow metric:

(i)  $1.0 billion paid in contributions to the Retirement Plan in 2010 (net of tax benefit);

(ii)  $0.1 billion in cash received by the Company from the U.S. federal government for the Alternative Fuel Mixture Tax Credits and Cellulosic Biofuel Tax Credits; and

(iii)  $0.2 billion of cash received from sales of real property.

2 – The Committee also excluded earnings received from sales of real property in calculating performance achievement under the Absolute ROI metric.

3 – 8% ROI Stretch Goal was not achieved

2010 Award Pool Calculation

The Company’s MIP target award pool is equal to the sum of each MIP-eligible employee’s target award based on his or her position level in the Company. To calculate the final award pool, the target award pool is multiplied

 

40


Table of Contents

by the Company’s 2010 performance achievement of 129.4 percent, resulting in a final award pool of $112,500,000. Under our 2010 MIP, the Committee has the discretion to decrease but not to increase the final award pool. In 2010, the Committee did not exercise any negative discretion.

Individual MIP Awards

For all 2,900 MIP-eligible employees, their respective awards are based on Company and individual performance. For all vice presidents and above, Company performance achievement determines 70 percent of their individual awards and achievement of individual, pre-established performance objectives determines the other 30 percent. The CEO has discretion to recommend an award above the calculated award in recognition of exceptional individual performance. The MIP award paid to each of our NEOs is described in Part IV.

2011 MIP Plan Design

Under the 2011 MIP, the award pool will be determined by assessing the Company’s financial performance against two metrics: (i) absolute ROI and (ii) Free Cash Flow. The Committee decided to no longer use relative ROI in the MIP. The Committee also added a provision that enables it to exercise limited discretion to increase the award pool by no more than 25 percent, provided that the total award pool does not exceed the maximum amount permitted under the 2011 MIP.

Performance Share Plan (“PSP”)

Overview

The PSP is a long-term, equity-based incentive plan designed to motivate employees to create long-term shareowner value. PSP awards are granted annually to approximately 1,000 management-level employees based on position level in the Company and satisfactory performance evaluations. PSP awards are earned over three years based on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR. Awards are paid in shares of Company stock and, if any, earned dividends.

The actual number of shares paid to each employee is based solely on Company performance achievement that is measured in four separate segments: three one-year segments, and one three-year segment. The Committee approves the Company’s performance achievement at the end of each segment, and the resulting award is “banked” for each employee. The Committee does not have discretion to adjust the performance achievement upward for any segment, but may adjust it downward in the event the Company experiences negative ROI or negative TSR.

The Committee believes that using a segmented approach focuses leaders on long-term shareowner value creation, and requires the Company to outperform against our peers in all four segments to achieve a maximum payout. This segmented approach is shown graphically below.

LOGO

 

41


Table of Contents

Company Performance Metrics and Objectives

In 2010, the PSP continued to focus on relative performance in ROI and TSR as shown below. Our officers’ awards are more heavily weighted to TSR compared to other employees’ awards. We believe that our most senior leaders, who more directly influence the strategic direction of the Company, should have a greater percentage of their PSP awards tied to TSR as it aligns their pay with the long-term interests of the Company and our shareowners.

 

2010-2012

PSP Performance Metrics

  Metric Weight   Performance Objective
  Officers   Non-
Officers
 

Threshold

Payout %

 

Target

Payout %

 

Maximum

Payout %

ROI to Peers

  50%   75%   Rank 5 of 11

50%

  Rank 4 of 11

100%

  Rank 1 of 11

200%

TSR to Peers

  50%   25%   Rank 13 of 21

25%

  Rank 10 of 21

100%

  Rank 1 of 21

200%

     

ROI Stretch Goal

  30%   Achieve 8% ROI – adds 30% to total payout

Payout Calculation

Based on market data, each PSP participant has a target award based on his or her position level. The actual number of shares paid may be higher or lower than the target award based solely on the Company’s performance achievement. Possible payouts under the 2010 PSP range from 0 percent to 200 percent of the target award, with a possible additional 30 percent added (resulting in 230 percent) if the Company achieves ROI equal to or greater than 8 percent. Like the MIP, this Stretch Goal is designed to reward our leaders for achieving cost of capital returns.

2008 – 2010 PSP Payout

For the 2008 - 2010 PSP, the Committee exercised its discretion to reduce the PSP payout for Segment Four by 25 percent for all participants based on the Company’s negative TSR in Segment Four. The performance achievement approved by the Committee is shown in the chart below. The 2008 - 2010 PSP award paid to each of our NEOs is described in Part IV.

 

2008-2010

PSP Performance Metrics

 

Metric Weight

Officers

 

Segment One

2008

 

Segment Two

2009

 

Segment Three

2010

 

Segment Four

2008-2010

 
         

ROI to Peers

  50%   Ranked 4 of 11

50%

  Ranked 3 of 11

75%

  Ranked 3 of 11

75%

   

 

Ranked 3 of 11

75%

  

  

         

TSR to Peers A

  50%   Ranked 10 of 22

50%

  Ranked 5 of 20

70%

  Ranked 18 of 20

0%

   

 

Ranked 10 of 20

37.5% B

  

  

   

Total Segment Performance

  100%   145%   75%     112.5%   
   

2008—2010 PSP Payout for Officers C

  108.13%        

A - AbitibiBowater and Smurfit Stone were removed from TSR peers due to bankruptcy

B – 25% reduction made to Segment 4 due to negative TSR

C –8% ROI Stretch Goal was not achieved

2011 PSP Plan Design

There are no changes to the performance measures under the 2011-2013 PSP.

The Committee approved a threshold payout of 25 percent in the ROI component of the 2011 PSP if the Company achieves a rank of six of 11. The Committee believes that incorporating a threshold payout at the median rank is appropriate. Market practice is typically to pay an award at target if median performance is achieved.

 

42


Table of Contents

The Committee also moved away from restricted stock in the PSP to lighten administrative costs and ensure consistency both within and outside the U.S. Beginning with the 2011 PSP, grants will be made in performance-based restricted stock units (“PSUs”). The PSP will continue to be paid in unrestricted shares of Company stock.

Also in 2011, the Committee established a new methodology for setting the target values of equity awards, providing a more consistent method in utilizing market data. Under the new methodology, the target value is established based on an evaluation conducted by Towers Watson of the three-year CCG median long-term incentive levels, expressed as a percentage of base salary mid-point for each position level. This value is then compared to the general industry median long-term incentive values for reasonableness. This methodology is intended to smooth market volatility in long-term incentive values from year to year. The 90-day average share price of the Company’s common stock is used to determine the target number of PSUs to be granted. Based on the Committee’s compensation review used to establish 2011 targeted TDC levels, the Committee approved 2011-2013 PSP target awards for the NEOs.

Other Equity Awards

Grants of Stock and Restricted Stock / Units

Other types of equity awards, such as grants of stock, restricted stock awards (“RSAs”) or restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are used infrequently for purposes of recruitment, retention or recognition. Vesting provisions for these awards vary on a case-by-case basis, but in all cases are forfeited if the participant terminates employment prior to vesting. Grants of stock awarded for recognition may vest immediately or over time.

In connection with a significant leadership restructuring in 2010, Mr. Pacheco and Mr. Kadien, both of whom are NEOs for the first time this year, received an RSA grant upon accepting their new positions.

Discontinued Stock Option Program

We moved away from using stock options as part of our long-term incentive program for officers in 2004 and for all other employees in 2005. We now instead rely solely on performance-based equity awards under the PSP. Stock options were previously awarded semi-annually with an exercise price equal to the closing price of our common stock on the date immediately preceding Committee approval.

Although no new stock options have been granted since 2005, the program allows employees with outstanding options to obtain additional options, provided they exercise using a stock-swap method. This feature, referred to as a “reload,” allows a participant to receive up to a maximum of three automatic grants of additional options. Reloads are only available on the number of shares tendered to cover the purchase price of the shares.

Participants, including our NEOs, continue to hold previously awarded outstanding stock options. Options remain exercisable for their full 10-year term, unless an employee is terminated or voluntarily leaves (other than in the event of death, disability or retirement eligibility), in which case the options expire immediately or within 90 days after termination, depending on the date the stock options were granted. All outstanding options for our NEOs, described in the “Outstanding Equity Awards” Table, will expire by October 2014. Currently, no options are “in the money.”

Discontinued Executive Continuity Awards Program (“ECAs”)

This award program has been discontinued. In the past, we awarded Executive Continuity Awards (“ECAs”) to certain senior officers to encourage employment through retirement. No ECAs have been granted since 2000, and the CEO holds the only outstanding ECA, described in the “Outstanding Equity Awards” Table.

Executive Benefits

With the exception of Mr. Pacheco, who works outside the U.S. and is not a U.S. citizen or resident, the NEOs, together with the other members of the SLT, generally participate in the same health and retirement programs as other U.S. salaried employees. The Company continues to review its benefit programs, including active and retiree health benefits, to determine if changes are necessary or advisable.

 

43


Table of Contents

Health and Retirement Benefits

Health benefits are offered to all salaried U.S. employees and the Company pays a significant portion of the costs to provide those benefits. We do not offer any supplemental health care benefits to the SLT, and those employees who earn more than $150,000 per year pay, on average, 25 percent more for comparable plans than employees who earn less than $75,000 per year.

The Company also provides attractive retirement benefits that help the Company remain competitive in the market for top talent. In addition to our tax-qualified 401(k) savings plan, we provide retirement benefits to our salaried U.S. employees, including the SLT, with the exception of Mr. Pacheco because he works outside the U.S. and is not a U.S. resident or citizen, as follows:

 

  Ÿ  

For employees hired prior to July 1, 2004: retirement benefits are provided under the Retirement Plan and the Pension Restoration Plan.

 

  Ÿ  

For employees hired on or after July 1, 2004: employees have a retirement savings account funded by the Company through the Salaried Savings Plan and, if applicable, the Deferred Compensation Savings Plan.

We offer the Pension Restoration Plan to supplement the Retirement Plan for employees whose compensation is greater than the limits set by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for qualified retirement plans. Absent this plan, certain employees would not achieve a retirement benefit commensurate with their earnings during the course of their careers with us.

Members of the SLT may receive their non-qualified pension benefits under the Unfunded Supplemental Retirement Plan for Senior Managers (“SERP”). We have offered the SERP since 1983 to recruit and retain senior and mid-career executives. Following the Committee’s review of the SERP in 2005, the benefit formula was reduced for all new entrants into the program after June 30, 2004. The Committee continues to review the market competitiveness of the formula for new entrants into the SERP.

SERP participants become vested upon reaching age 55 with 5 years of service and, once vested, are eligible to receive their SERP benefit following retirement at the earlier of age 55 with 10 years of service or age 65 with five years of service. As described following the “Pension Benefits” Table on page 68, SERP benefits are calculated under one of three formulas, depending on the dates of the participant’s employment and SERP eligibility.

Retiree Medical Benefits

We offer retiree medical benefits to U.S. salaried employees, including our SLT, who are eligible to begin receiving retirement benefits under the Retirement Plan or who are at least age 55 and have 10 years of service when they terminate employment. The Company no longer subsidizes the cost of these benefits for employees who were hired on or after January 1, 2004. For employees whose years of age and service were equal to 60 on January 1, 2004, the Company continues to offer a limited subsidy. Mr. Faraci, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Kadien are each eligible for the Company subsidy because they met the age and service requirements on January 1, 2004.

We also offer a Retiree Medical Savings Plan (“RMSP”) to U.S. salaried employees. Upon reaching age 45, employees may contribute to an RMSP account, and the contributions are credited with a Company match. Amounts contributed to the RMSP may be used to reimburse the cost of retiree medical coverage. Each of the NEOs, with the exception of Mr. Pacheco, who does not participate in the medical plans for U.S. salaried employees, is eligible to participate in the RMSP.

Salaried Savings Plan (“SSP”) and Deferred Compensation Savings Plan (“DCSP”)

The Company maintains a tax-qualified Salaried Savings Plan (“SSP”) for U.S. salaried employees. Under the SSP, participants may defer compensation for retirement up to the limits set by the IRS.

In addition, the Company offers an unfunded, non-qualified Deferred Compensation Savings Plan (“DCSP”) for employees whose compensation is higher than the compensation limit set by the IRS for tax-qualified plans. The DCSP permits additional deferrals up to 85 percent of compensation, including base salary and MIP, beyond the contribution limits set by the IRS.

 

44


Table of Contents

Deferred amounts under both the SSP and DCSP are credited with Company matching contributions equal to 70 percent of the participant’s contributions up to 4 percent of their compensation, plus 50 percent of contributions up to an additional 4 percent of compensation.

Amounts deferred in the DCSP earn returns based on investment options modeled after the investment funds in the SSP elected by the participant. Details regarding the DCSP follow the “Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation” Table on page 71.

Salaried Employee Severance Plan

The Company provides severance to employees who are involuntarily terminated. SLT members participate in the same Salaried Employee Severance Plan that covers all U.S. salaried employees. The plan provides a lump sum payment equal to two weeks’ salary for every year or partial year of service. Under certain circumstances, supplemental severance may be paid. Supplemental severance is limited by the Board policy described on page 59.

Employees are eligible for severance if they are terminated through no fault of their own and sign a termination agreement acceptable to the Company. The termination agreement includes confidentiality provisions, as well as restrictive covenants, as appropriate.

Executive Perquisites

Based on a 2008 Committee review, most perquisites previously provided to officers were discontinued. The Company presently offers no perquisites to our officers other than those granted to grandfathered participants in our Executive Supplemental Life Insurance Program (“ESIP”), described below. The CEO is permitted personal use of Company aircraft and automobile. The Board policy limiting this CEO perquisite is described in Part V. In addition, employees serving as expatriates, such as Mr. Pacheco, are provided standard benefits and perquisites under our Global Mobility Policy, which establishes many of the benefits and perquisites provided to employees during a long-term or short-term international assignment.

Executive Supplemental Life Insurance (“ESIP”)

This benefit is closed to new participants effective January 1, 2008. The ESIP provides an individually owned, permanent life insurance policy with a pre-retirement death benefit equal to two times annual salary and a cash value accumulation designed to provide a post-retirement death benefit equal to one times final salary. The Company pays the full premium cost, and participants are responsible for the income tax due on the premiums. Participants are permitted to make voluntary premium contributions to pre-fund additional post-retirement coverage.

Change in Control Agreements

The Company has entered into change in control agreements with certain executives that provide severance and other benefits in the event of a change in control of the Company. Our Board believes that maintaining change in control agreements is a sound business practice that protects shareowner value prior to, during and after a change in control, and allows us to recruit and retain top executive talent. Our program is only available to the SLT, except for those vice presidents grandfathered in the program as of February 2008. Each member of the SLT is covered by the same form of agreement.

We believe that this program aligns executive and shareowner interests by enabling leaders of the Company to focus on the interests of shareowners and other constituents when considering a potential change in control, without undue concern for their own financial and employment security.

In the Board’s ongoing oversight of this program, the Board modified the program in 2010 to eliminate the excise tax gross-up provision, replacing it instead with a “best net” calculation. Under this “best net” approach, the Company will, prior to making any payments, perform a calculation comparing:

 

  (i) the net benefit after payment of excise tax by the executive that would be applied, and

 

  (ii) the resulting net benefit if the payment had been limited to the extent necessary to avoid the imposition of an excise tax

 

45


Table of Contents

to determine the higher resulting “net” benefit payable under the agreement. Benefits are not payable unless an irrevocable release of any employment-related claims is signed. This change reflects a best practice in the marketplace. In no event will the Company pay a gross-up for excise taxes.

Benefits Available Upon Termination of Employment Following Change in Control

As shown in greater detail in the “Potential Payments Upon Change in Control” Table, our change in control agreements provide the following benefits to the SLT only if they are terminated by the new employer within two years of a change in control of the Company. The following benefits are payable only if both a change in control and termination of employment occur (“double trigger” benefits):

 

  Ÿ  

Cash severance payment equal to three times the sum of base salary plus target MIP;

  Ÿ  

Prorated MIP for the year of termination of employment (based on target achievement if the employee is terminated in the same year as the change in control, or based on actual achievement if the employee is terminated in the year following the change in control);

  Ÿ  

SERP participants whose benefit is calculated under Formula A will receive a benefit equal to the higher of (i) 50 percent of compensation, or (ii) the SERP benefit that would be paid absent a change in control but with three additional years of service and age. SERP participants whose benefit is calculated under Formula B will receive their benefit calculated under the Pension Restoration Plan that would be paid absent a change in control but with three additional years of service and age.

  Ÿ  

Medical and dental insurance for three years, and retiree medical coverage, if eligible; and

  Ÿ  

A calculation will be made under the “best net” approach.

Benefits Available upon Change in Control

The following benefits are payable upon a change in control and do not require termination of employment:

 

  Ÿ  

PSP shares vest and are paid based on actual achievement (for banked segments) or target (for open periods);

  Ÿ  

Service-based restricted stock awards (including executive continuity awards) vest and become unrestricted; and

  Ÿ  

SERP participants whose benefit is calculated under Formula A will vest in their benefit and the minimum benefit will increase from 25 percent of compensation to 50 percent of compensation.

We offer these limited single-trigger benefits to ensure that executives receive the benefit of their efforts prior to a change in control. In light of the difficulty in determining relative performance achievement in our PSP following a change in control of the Company, we provide for payment of banked PSP segments (at actual achievement) and open PSP segments (at target). Further, in light of the seniority of our covered executives, and their proximity to retirement age, we believe that increasing their pension protection provides appropriate retirement security in their employment following a change in control.

 

46


Table of Contents

Part IV: NEO Compensation

Overview

In this Part IV, we describe the Committee’s 2010 compensation decisions with respect to each NEO, other than the CEO, and its recommendations to the Board concerning the CEO. We also include a description of each NEO’s accomplishments considered by the Committee when making its compensation decisions.

Comparison of CEO’s Compensation to Other NEO’s Compensation

We do not have a policy that would dictate a specific ratio of CEO compensation to other NEOs or the SLT. Generally, we base our compensation decisions on principles of internal equity. The difference that exists between our CEO’s compensation and our other NEOs is based on the complexity of the CEO’s leadership responsibilities for the global enterprise.

2010 Targeted Compensation Mix versus 2010 Actual Compensation

In the compensation review used to establish our 2010 TDC levels, the target TDC of each NEO, except for Mr. Faraci and Mr. Pacheco, was 25 to 28 percent below CCG median. Mr. Faraci’s compensation fell 17 percent below the CCG median, which is within our defined market range. There was insufficient comparable data available within our CCG to evaluate Mr. Pacheco’s position at the time we conducted the study.

We illustrate targeted compensation versus actual compensation in the individual graphs for each NEO below.

The “Target” column includes:

  (i) 2010 actual base salary paid;

 

  (ii) target MIP; and

 

  (iii) the target value of the 2008-2010 PSP granted in 2008.

The “Actual” column represents what we believe is the appropriate way to illustrate actual pay earned, and includes:

  (i) 2010 actual base salary paid;

 

  (ii) 2010 MIP paid in February 2011; and

 

  (iii) 2008-2010 PSP valued and paid in February 2011.

In comparing the following charts to the Summary Compensation Table, you will see that the value shown for the “equity awards” differs. Equity awards granted in 2010 are shown in the Summary Compensation Table, while equity awards valued and paid in 2011 for performance or service periods ending in 2010 are shown in the charts below. We value the equity awards for the 2008-2010 PSP in the following charts based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on February 4, 2011, the trading day immediately preceding the date the MDCC approved payout of the PSP award.

 

 

In the following charts for each NEO,

the total amounts in the “Actual” column

are greater than the total amounts in the “Target” column

because both the Company and each NEO

exceeded targets.

 

 

47


Table of Contents
2010 CEO Compensation Decisions

LOGO

 

John V. Faraci has over 36 years of service with the Company and has served as Chairman and CEO since November 2003. Earlier in 2003, he was elected president of International Paper, and he served as executive vice president and chief financial officer from 2000 to 2003. From 1999 to 2000, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. From 1995 to 1999, he was Chief Executive Officer and managing director of Carter Holt Harvey Ltd., a former majority-owned subsidiary of International Paper located in New Zealand.

 

     
         
Element of Compensation   Compensation Amount   Rationale
2010 Base Salary  

$1,324,500

(5% increase, effective April 2010)

 

This increase reflects Mr. Faraci’s accomplishments in 2009, and brings his base salary closer to midpoint of the position level within our Company’s salary structure. Mr. Faraci’s base salary was below the midpoint as his salary had not been increased since 2007.

 

2010 MIP Award  

$2,250,000

 

(129.4% combined Company and individual performance achievement)

 

Mr. Faraci’s MIP payout was based on the Company’s financial performance and his individual achievements. Among the achievements considered by the Committee in its CEO evaluation and its compensation recommendations to the Board were:

 

Ÿ     Led the Company to strong performance achievement of key financial measures including EBITDA, EPS and Cash Flow

 

Ÿ     Reduced operating costs, which offset higher input costs

 

Ÿ    Led the Company to achieve ROI equal to cost-of-capital in the second half of 2010, positioning the Company to reach this key goal in 2011

 

Ÿ     Identified key strategic options and developed an analysis of implications of the options for the Board’s consideration

 

Ÿ     Demonstrated excellent leadership in executing the reorganization of the SLT and in promoting and developing the Company’s talent

 

Ÿ     Continued to build Board engagement and improve processes to facilitate a strong and effective Board

 

Mr. Faraci’s payout of 129.4% of target was equal to the Company’s overall MIP performance achievement as described in Part III.

 

2008-2010 PSP Payout  

249,795 shares

(valued at $7,299,010)

  PSP payout of 108.13% is based solely on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR described in Part III.

 

48


Table of Contents

The chart below compares Mr. Faraci’s 2010 actual compensation paid against targeted compensation levels.

LOGO

 

49


Table of Contents
2010 CFO Compensation Decisions

LOGO

   Our CFO, Tim S. Nicholls, has over 19 years of service with the Company. Mr. Nicholls has served as our CFO since December 2007. Mr. Nicholls previously served as vice president and executive project leader of IP Europe during 2007, and vice president and CFO of IP Europe from 2005 to 2007. He was also president of Weldwood (formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of International Paper located in Vancouver, Canada) from 2002 to 2005.
     
           
Element of Compensation    Compensation Amount    Rationale
2010 Base Salary   

$650,000

(19% increase, effective April 2010)

  

Mr. Nicholls’ base salary increase reflects his promotion in recognition of his increased experience in the role of CFO and brings Mr. Nicholls closer to the median of the CCG for the CFO position and the midpoint of the position level within our salary structure.

 

2010 MIP Award   

$782,800

 

(130.9% combined
Company and individual
performance achievement)

  

Mr. Nicholls’ MIP payout was based on the Company’s financial performance and his individual achievements. Among the achievements considered by the Committee were:

 

Ÿ     Led the Company’s reorganization of the Finance function in over 100 facilities to improve efficiency and reduce overhead cost

 

Ÿ     Demonstrated excellent leadership to improve credit ratings and position with rating agencies

 

Ÿ     Executed excellent cash management and allocation decisions regarding restoration of the Company’s dividend to shareowners and voluntary contributions to the pension plan

 

2008-2010 PSP Payout   

40,638 shares

(valued at $1,187,442)

   PSP payout of 108.13% is based on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR described in Part III.

 

50


Table of Contents

The chart below compares Mr. Nicholls’ 2010 actual compensation paid against targeted compensation levels.

LOGO

 

51


Table of Contents
2010 Compensation Decisions: Maximo Pacheco

LOGO

  Mr. Maximo Pacheco has over 16 years of service with the Company and has been leading our business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”), as well as serving as a director of our Ilim joint venture in Russia, since January 2010. In 2004, Mr. Pacheco was named executive president of IP Brazil and Latin America, based in Sao Paulo. He joined IP in 1994 as executive vice president for Chile and Latin America at Carter Holt Harvey.
     
         
Element of Compensation   Compensation Amount   Rationale
2010 Base Salary  

$653,050

(no base salary increase)

  Mr. Pacheco’s base salary remained consistent with prior contractual agreements and was set forth in his letter of understanding effective in January 2010 when he accepted an expatriate assignment in Europe.
2010 MIP Award  

$540,500

 

(174.6% combined
Company and individual performance achievement)

 

Mr. Pacheco’s MIP payout was based on the Company’s financial performance and his individual achievements. Among the achievements considered by the Committee were:

 

Ÿ     Led IP EMEA to achieve excellent financial performance in EBIT and ROI, including record earnings in 2010

 

Ÿ     Achieved strong volume growth in key businesses

 

Ÿ    Achieved excellent safety results

 

Ÿ     Demonstrated excellent leadership in quickly adapting to new role and developing key relationships to collaborate on strategic initiatives

 

Ÿ     Active involvement in Russia as a member of the Ilim Board of Directors

 

2008-2010 PSP Payout  

25,819 shares

(valued at $754,431)

  PSP payout of 108.13% is based on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR described in Part III.
2010 Restricted Stock Award  

15,000 shares vested on January 1, 2010, representing 20% of the 2010 grant

(valued at $401,700)

  This RSA grant was made January 1, 2010, in recognition of additional responsibilities upon assuming an expanded expatriate assignment.

 

52


Table of Contents

The chart below compares Mr. Pacheco’s 2010 actual compensation paid against targeted compensation levels.

LOGO

 

53


Table of Contents
2010 Compensation Decisions: Carol Roberts

LOGO

   Ms. Carol L. Roberts has over 29 years of service with the Company. She leads our industrial packaging group (“IPG”), which represents a significant part of the Company’s assets. Ms. Roberts began her career with International Paper in 1981 as an associate engineer at a mill in Mobile, Alabama. Ms. Roberts was named vice president of our industrial packaging business in 2000 and took on her current role as senior vice president in late 2005.
   
           
Element of Compensation    Compensation Amount    Rationale
2010 Base Salary   

$679,000

(25% increase, effective
April 2010)

   Ms. Roberts’ base salary increase reflects her expanded responsibilities following the acquisition of Weyerhaeuser’s industrial packaging business and market levels for comparable CCG positions.
2010 MIP Award   

$1,073,500

 

(210.7% combined
Company and individual
performance achievement)

  

Ms. Roberts’ MIP payout was based on the Company’s financial performance and her individual achievements. Among the achievements considered by the Committee were:

 

Ÿ     Provided strategic and tactical leadership to IPG, which resulted in above target business EBIT and ROI results

 

Ÿ     Led IPG to achieve better than anticipated integration synergies from the Weyerhaeuser acquisition

 

Ÿ     Implemented business improvement initiatives across IPG

 

Ÿ     Demonstrated excellent leadership in promoting and developing IPG talent

 

Ms. Roberts’ MIP payout includes a recognition award recommended by the CEO for her outstanding leadership and results related to the synergies achieved following the Company’s acquisition of Weyerhaeuser’s containerboard, packaging and recycling business in August 2008

 

2008-2010 PSP Payout   

49,124 shares

(valued at $1,435,403)

   PSP payout of 108.13% is based on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR described in Part III.

 

54


Table of Contents

The chart below compares Ms. Roberts’ 2010 actual compensation paid against targeted compensation levels.

LOGO

 

55


Table of Contents
2010 Compensation Decisions: Tom Kadien

LOGO

   Mr. Thomas G. Kadien has over 32 years of service with the Company. He has led our consumer packaging business as well as our businesses in Asia since January 2010. He also has responsibility for the global supply chain operations group, including transportation and procurement, in Memphis. He previously led our North American distribution business, xpedx, from 2005 to 2009, and served as president of IP Europe from 2003 to 2005.
     
           
Element of Compensation    Compensation Amount    Rationale
2010 Base Salary   

$570,000

(14% increase, effective
April 2010)

   Mr. Kadien’s base salary increase reflects, based on market, his new global responsibilities following his transition to lead both our consumer packaging and IP Asia businesses.
2010 MIP Award   

$596,200

 

(149.6% combined
Company and individual performance achievement)

  

Mr. Kadien’s MIP payout was based on the Company’s financial performance and his individual achievements. Among the achievements considered by the Committee were:

 

Ÿ     Assumed oversight of IP Asia and consumer packaging business and quickly led IP Asia to achieve strong financial results

 

Ÿ     Achieved record EBITDA and highest ROI since 1995 in the coated paperboard business in the second half of 2010

 

Ÿ     Demonstrated excellent leadership in quickly adapting to new role and learning key business objectives in order to develop long-range strategic initiatives in key growth markets

 

2008-2010 PSP Payout   

40,638 shares

(valued at $1,187,442)

  

PSP payout of 108.13% is based on the Company’s performance achievement in relative ROI and relative TSR described in Part III.

 

2010 Restricted Stock Award   

20,000 shares vested on
December 31, 2010, representing 100% of the 2010 grant

 

(valued at $552,675)

  

This RSA grant was made in recognition of additional responsibilities upon assuming a new assignment to lead the consumer packaging business and IP Asia.

 

 

56


Table of Contents

The chart below compares Mr. Kadien’s 2010 actual compensation paid against targeted compensation levels.

LOGO

 

57


Table of Contents

Part V: Other Governance and Compensation Related Matters

Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plans

In 2010, our executive officers were permitted to establish trading plans established under Section 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act. Each executive enters into his or her own pre-determined plan, which includes specific instructions for the broker to exercise stock options and/or sell Company stock on the open market. The purpose of these plans is to permit the executive to diversify his or her holdings of Company stock during periods in which the executive would otherwise be unable to buy or sell such stock because he or she possessed material, non-public information about the Company. As of April 2011, four of our NEOs, Mr. Faraci, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Pacheco, and Ms. Roberts, and two other SLT members, had entered into trading plans in consultation with their respective financial advisors.

Officer Stock Ownership Requirements

All of our officers are expected to hold shares of our common stock with a minimum market value based on a multiple of base pay. This policy is intended to align our officers’ interests with those of our shareowners and encourage long-term shareowner value creation by requiring officers to have a significant equity stake in the Company. Our stock ownership requirements are based on position level:

 

Position Level    Ownership
Requirement
 

Chief Executive Officer

     5x base pay   

Senior Vice President

     2x base pay   

Vice President

     1x base pay   

Officers are expected to meet the ownership requirements within four years of election, appointment or promotion. Stock ownership is reviewed annually by the Committee to assure compliance. As of our last annual evaluation, all SLT members were in compliance.

With appropriate approval, an officer may be granted an exception to the stock ownership requirement for financial hardship. Additionally, the ownership requirements are waived during the 12-month period preceding an announced retirement. An officer who is not in compliance and who has not obtained a waiver for hardship is prohibited from selling Company stock until the next annual ownership evaluation.

Board Policy on Personal Use of Company Aircraft and Automobile

The Board continues to believe that the CEO should use Company aircraft and a Company car for business continuity and efficiency purposes. Use of the Company aircraft allows the CEO to be available at all times for business needs, whether on business or personal travel.

Based on the CEO’s recommendation, the Board authorized the Company to enter into a Time Sharing Agreement commencing on December 16, 2010, with the CEO so that he may reimburse the Company for personal use above $75,000 per year.

The Company also provides the CEO with a car and driver. Any amount associated with personal use that the CEO does not reimburse is imputed income to him (not grossed up for taxes), and is disclosed in the “All Other Compensation” Table. Mr. Faraci reimbursed the Company for all costs associated with the car and driver in 2010.

Additionally in 2010, the Company revised its approach to evaluating CEO travel in order to reflect the true cost to the Company of personal use of Company aircraft. As a result, the amount disclosed in the 2010 “All Other Compensation” Table is $1,320,625, including $387,411 for personal aircraft use. For comparison purposes, we retroactively applied this revised methodology for the years 2008 and 2009, as shown below.

 

Restated Personal Use of Corporate Aircraft and Vehicle

Year   

Original

Disclosure

  

Revised

Methodology

2009

   $212,906    $244,290

2008

   $258,524    $347,976

 

58


Table of Contents

Clawback or Forfeiture of Incentive Awards

Both MIP and PSP awards are subject to a clawback provision contained in our plan documents. Under this clawback provision, if the Company’s financial statements are restated as a result of errors, omission, or fraud, the Committee may, in its discretion, based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the restatement, require some or all participants to return all or a portion of their award to the Company.

In addition, both MIP and PSP awards may be forfeited in the event a participant engages in conduct that is detrimental to the business interest or reputation of the Company. Additionally, an SLT member who does not provide one-year’s notice of retirement may forfeit his or her MIP and PSP awards.

Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements

The Company maintains Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements with leaders of the Company to protect confidential information and trade secrets from unauthorized use or disclosure. Each of our NEOs has entered into a Non-Competition Agreement and a Non-Solicitation Agreement. Violation of these agreements results in clawback or forfeiture of incentive compensation awards.

Board Policy on Severance Agreements with Senior Officers

A supplemental severance payment to the CEO must be approved by the independent directors of the Board. A supplemental severance payment to any other executive officer must be approved by the Committee. Moreover, pursuant to a 2005 Board policy, the supplemental severance, plus severance under the Salaried Employee Severance Plan, may not exceed two times base salary plus target MIP for the year in which the termination occurs. This limit does not apply to other benefits that may be payable, such as restricted stock, PSP, retirement benefits, or post-termination benefits that are available to employees generally, such as continued medical and dental benefits. Any severance amount greater than the amount described above must be approved in advance by our shareowners.

Prohibition on Repricing

We do not backdate or reprice equity grants. Our incentive compensation plan provides that stock options may not be repriced, directly or indirectly, without the prior consent of the Company’s shareowners. The exchange of an “underwater” option (i.e., an option having an exercise price in excess of the current market value of the underlying stock) for another award would be considered an indirect repricing and, therefore, would require the prior consent of our shareowners.

Equity Grant Practices

The Company does not have any program, plan or practice to time, and has not timed, equity grants in coordination with the release of material non-public information. The Company does not grant equity awards based on our stock price.

Annual equity grants (including pro rata grants for promotions and newly hired employees) under the PSP are approved at the Committee’s meeting in December. Having a pre-determined annual grant date minimizes any concern that grant dates could be selectively chosen based upon market price at any given time. Service-based restricted stock awards are used infrequently, and may be granted anytime during the year by Mr. Karre. An award to an SLT member requires approval of the Committee (or by the Board for an award to the CEO).

Deductibility of Executive Compensation

The Committee considers the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), which allows the Company to take an income tax deduction for compensation up to $1 million and for certain compensation exceeding $1 million paid in any taxable year to a “covered employee” as that term is defined in the Code. PSP awards and stock options have historically been awarded under a shareowner approved plan and based on achievement of pre-established performance objectives. Beginning in 2009, MIP awards are also intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Code Section 162(m). Accordingly, in 2010, each element of our NEOs’ incentive compensation was fully deductible by the Company.

 

59


Table of Contents

Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation

The Company withholds PSP shares payable to a participant at the statutory minimum withholding rate to pay the participant’s federal income tax. However, SLT members may elect to have additional shares withheld (up to 85 percent of the earned award) for payment of taxes. Because we offer this option to our SLT, each of their PSP awards are considered “liability” awards for accounting purposes. This means that we re-measure the amount of the PSP liability at fair market value at each quarterly balance sheet date with the resulting income or expense recorded by the Company in the quarter.

The accounting treatment of stock-based compensation is not determinative of the type, timing, or amount of any particular grant made to our employees.

 

Compensation Committee Report

 

On behalf of the Board of Directors, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, referred to as the Committee, oversees the Company’s compensation programs. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement with the Company’s executive officers.

 

Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, and its proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed in connection with the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

 

This report shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this proxy statement into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such laws.

 

Management Development and Compensation Committee

 

William G. Walter, Chairman

  

Alberto Weisser

Samir G. Gibara

  

J. Steven Whisler

 

60


Table of Contents

Part VI: Additional Information about Our Executive Compensation

 

The following tables in this Part VI provide detailed information regarding compensation for our NEOs.

Summary Compensation Table

The table below shows base salary, stock awards under our PSP and, if applicable, RSA program, cash awards under our MIP, the change in pension value, and all other compensation to our NEOs for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

 

Name and Principal Position    Year     

Salary

($)

    

Stock
Awards

($)(1)

     Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(2)
    

Change in
Pension
Value

($)(3)

    

All Other
Compensation

($)(4)

    

Total

($)

 

John V. Faraci

     2010         1,308,725         7,424,073         2,250,000         5,545,920         1,320,625         17,849,343   

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

     2009         1,261,400         2,397,230         2,727,400         5,125,575         683,576         12,195,181   
     2008         1,261,400         7,072,821         1,575,000         4,091,943         441,614         14,442,778   

Tim S. Nicholls

     2010         650,000         1,807,380         782,800         803,277         225,083         4,268,540   

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

     2009         545,000         534,502         780,000         545,005         51,968         2,456,475   
     2008         495,400         1,150,603         229,000         275,336         273,826         2,424,165   

Maximo Pacheco

     2010         653,050         2,812,093         540,500         856,100         655,171         5,516,914   

Senior Vice President

President IP Europe, Middle East, Africa and Russia

                                                              

Carol L. Roberts

     2010         679,000         1,604,367         1,073,500         1,597,086         181,630         5,135,583   

Senior Vice President

Industrial Packaging

     2009         541,700         471,417         800,000         969,079         85,763         2,867,959   
     2008         510,842         1,390,875         380,000         637,422         40,245         2,959,384   

Thomas G. Kadien

     2010         570,000         1,739,580         596,200         1,167,350         184,670         4,257,800   

Senior Vice President

Consumer Packaging & IP Asia

                                                              

 

(1) A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values for the 2010 fiscal year may be found in Note 17 to our audited financial statements beginning on page 87 of our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 25, 2011. The value shown is the aggregate grant date fair value of each NEO’s 2010-2012 PSP award computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 based on target levels of achievement. The amount shown for Mr. Pacheco and Mr. Kadien also includes the grant date fair value of a restricted stock award made to each in 2010. The maximum value of the stock awards based on achieving maximum Company performance is as follows Mr. Faraci: $17,075,367; Mr. Nicholls: $4,156,973; Mr. Pacheco: $3,856,764; Ms. Roberts: $3,690,043; and Mr. Kadien: $3,304,754.

 

(2) Represents the amount earned under the MIP based on Company and individual performance during the year shown, which is paid in February of the following year. The amount shown for Ms. Roberts includes the amount of her special award recommended by the CEO above her calculated award in recognition of her outstanding leadership and results related to the Weyerhaeuser acquisition. The special award was paid from the MIP award pool.

 

(3) Amounts shown in this column represent the change in accruals under our Retirement Plan, Pension Restoration Plan, and SERP as shown in the “Pension Benefits” Table. Importantly, the change in pension value is not currently paid to an executive as compensation, but is a measurement of the change in value of the pension from the prior year. Changes in value arise from additional benefit accruals for another year of service, changes in pensionable compensation, the decrease in the discount period and the impact of a change in the discount rate from the prior year’s measurement. The discount rate used is the same as the rate used by the Company for financial statement disclosure as of the end of the fiscal year. This rate is based on economic conditions at year-end.

The NEOs do not receive “preferential or above market” earnings on non-qualified deferred compensation. Accordingly, there is no amount included in this column for this type of earnings credit.

 

61


Table of Contents
(4) A breakdown of the “All Other Compensation” amounts for 2010 is shown in the following table:

 

Name  

Company
Matching
Contribution

 

($)(a)

   

Group Life
Insurance

 

($)(b)

   

Dividend
Realized

 

($)(c)

   

ESIP

 

($)(d)

   

Corporate
Aircraft and
Vehicle

 

($)(e)

   

Directors'
Charitable
Award
Program

 

($)(f)

   

Company
Matching
Gift

 

($)(g)

   

Amount
Related to
Overseas
Assignment

 

($)(h)

   

One-Time
Expenses

 

($)(i)

   

Total

 

($)(j)

 

John Faraci

    193,734        6,313        668,230        42,837        387,411        16,095        6,005        -        -        1,320,625   

Tim Nicholls

    37,760        3,138        86,531        18,471        -        -        10,008        69,175        -        225,083   

Maximo Pacheco

    -        3,152        77,527        25,696        -        -        -        350,335        198,461        655,171   

Carol Roberts

    32,592        3,275        123,011        16,704        -        -        6,048        -        -        181,630   

Thomas Kadien

    27,360        2,750        123,011        25,429        -        -        6,120        -        -        184,670   

 

  (a) Represents the Company match to the NEO’s contribution to the Salaried Savings Plan and Deferred Compensation Savings Plan, if applicable, as shown in the “Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan” Table.

 

  (b) Represents the Company’s annual premium payment for the NEO’s group life insurance benefit.

 

  (c) Represents dividends earned on the 2007-2009 PSP payout that were paid to the NEO in February 2010. We disclose the value of dividends realized as All Other Compensation because, pursuant to FASB ASC 718, we are disclosing the grant date fair value of the 2010-2012 award in the Summary Compensation Table, which does not include the value of dividends that were realized on the 2007-2009 PSP award upon payout in February 2010.

 

  (d) Represents the amount paid by the Company for the NEO’s executive supplemental insurance program (“ESIP”).

 

  (e) Represents the aggregate incremental cost to the Company of personal travel on Company aircraft. There is no expense related to personal use of the vehicle as Mr. Faraci fully reimbursed the Company for all related costs. We calculate the incremental cost of personal use of the Company aircraft based upon the per mile variable cost of operating the aircraft multiplied by the number of miles flown for personal travel by Mr. Faraci. The variable operating costs include fuel, maintenance, airway fees, user fees, communication, crew expenses, supplies and catering. We impute into Mr. Faraci’s income the value of personal use of the aircraft in accordance with IRS regulations. Mr. Faraci receives no tax gross-up on this imputed income. The amount of “All Other Compensation” in our Summary Compensation Table for the years 2008 and 2009 has been revised from previous disclosure to reflect an increased amount for personal use of Company aircraft of $89,452 for 2008 and $31,384 for 2009, in order to reflect the true cost to the Company of personal use under a revised methodology adopted by the Company in 2010.

 

  (f) Represents a ratable share of the Company’s total annual non-cash expense of the charitable award program described under “Director Compensation” attributable to directors who served during 2010. Mr. Faraci is eligible to participate in this program as a member of our Board. Mr. Faraci does not receive any other compensation as a member of our Board. The legacy director charitable award program was closed to new directors as of July 1, 2007.

 

  (g) Represents the Company’s 60% match of each NEO’s donation to the United Way of America as part of a Company-wide campaign.

 

  (h) Represents standard amounts payable under our Global Mobility Policy for expatriates. For Mr. Nicholls, this includes payment of taxes for income earned overseas prior to his assignment ending in 2008, for which tax returns have now been finalized. For Mr. Pacheco, this includes expenses for standard expatriate benefits, such as housing and vehicle, home leave travel, and payment of a tax equalization amount previously negotiated during his service in Brazil.

 

62


Table of Contents
  (i) Represents one-time expenses for Mr. Pacheco related to his relocation from Brazil to Belgium.

 

  (j) Represents the sum of columns (a) through (i).

Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 2010

The table below shows payout ranges for our NEOs under the 2010 MIP and 2010-2012 PSP, described in our CD&A. There were no stock options granted in 2010.

 

Name

 

Committee

Action

Date

(1)

   

Grant Date

   

Estimated Possible Payouts

Under Non-Equity

Incentive Plan Awards

   

Estimated Future Payouts

Under Equity

Incentive Plan Awards

   

All Other

Stock

Awards:

Number of

Shares of

Stock

(#)(3)

   

Grant
Date

Fair Value

of Stock

and

Option

Awards

($)(4)

 
     

Threshold

($)

   

Target

($)

   

Maximum

($)(2)

   

Threshold

(#)

   

Target

(#)

   

Maximum

(#)

     

John Faraci

                    289,858        1,738,800        3,738,420                                           
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                32,913        263,300        605,590                7,424,073   

Tim Nicholls

                    99,653        597,800        1,285,270                                           
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                8,013        64,100        147,430                1,807,380   

Maximo Pacheco

                    51,610        309,600        665,640                                           
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                3,563        28,500        65,550                803,593   
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                                        75,000        2,008,500   

Carol Roberts

                    84,917        509,400        1,095,210                                           
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                7,113        56,900        130,870                1,604,367   

Tom Kadien

                    66,413        398,400        856,560                                           
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                5,338        42,700        98,210                1,203,980   
    12/7/2009        1/1/2010                                                        20,000        535,600   

 

  (1) The 2010-2012 PSP grant is approved by the Committee for all NEOs (except Mr. Faraci, whose grant is approved by the full Board) at its December meeting, effective the first business day of the following calendar year.

 

  (2) Non-equity incentive plan awards are intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Code Section 162(m) and are awarded pursuant to the 2009 Incentive Compensation Plan approved by our shareowners. The maximum individual award under the Section 162(m) plan is capped at $10 million.

 

  (3) The amounts shown in this column reflect restricted stock awards granted to Mr. Pacheco and Mr. Kadien. Mr. Pacheco’s award vests in equal installments on January 1, 2010, through January 1, 2014. Mr. Kadien’s award was subject to one-year cliff vesting and vested on December 31, 2010.

 

  (4) The amounts shown in this column reflect the grant date fair value of the 2010-2012 PSP awards at target. The grant date fair value is determined pursuant to FASB ASC Topic 718, as explained in further detail in the narrative following this table. The grant date fair value of the restricted stock awards is based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the dates immediately preceding the effective dates of the grants.

Narrative to the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table

Estimated Possible Payouts under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards

These columns show the threshold, target and maximum payouts under the 2010 MIP. The actual amount paid is shown in the Summary Compensation Table.

The amount shown in the “Threshold” column is the amount that would be paid under the 2010 MIP if the Company achieved the minimum performance level required in at least one performance metric: Relative ROI, Absolute ROI or Free Cash Flow. Since each metric is evenly weighted at 33.3%, a threshold payout at 50% would result in weighted performance achievement of 16.67% (or one-half of 33.3%). Minimum performance in at least one objective is required to fund an MIP award pool.

 

63


Table of Contents

The amount shown in the “Maximum” column is the possible payout for each NEO based on maximum Company performance achievement (excluding any special recognition award that may be recommended by the CEO for exceptional individual performance, which awards are funded and limited by the aggregate MIP award pool). The amount is based on maximum Company performance of 215%, including the additional 30% award for achieving an ROI equal to or greater than 8%.

Estimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards

These columns show the threshold, target and maximum payouts under the 2010–2012 PSP.

The amount shown in the “Threshold” column is the number of shares each NEO would receive if the Company achieved the minimum performance level in either Relative ROI or Relative TSR to achieve a payout of 12.5% (which represents 25% threshold for TSR, which is weighted at 50%).

The amount shown in the “Maximum” column is the possible number of shares each NEO would receive based on maximum Company performance of 230%, which includes the additional 30% award for achieving an ROI equal to or greater than 8%.

Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards

The fair value shown of the target awards granted to each NEO under the 2010-2012 PSP is based on the fair value at grant per FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value is based on the closing stock price of our common stock on the date immediately preceding the grant date for the ROI component of the award. Valuing TSR is more complicated because the value must take into account the probable expense of the 2010-2012 PSP based on our expected future performance relative to the other companies in our TSR Peer Group. The market value of the TSR component is based on a Monte Carlo simulation as prescribed by FASB ASC Topic 718.

The amount ultimately paid to PSP participants may or may not be the same amount as the value shown in the table due to two factors: (1) the ultimate number of shares paid to our PSP participants will vary based on the relative performance of the Company to the other companies in our TSR and ROI Peer Groups; and (2) the value of the shares received by each participant is based on the fair value of the Company’s stock as of the effective date of the PSP award.

 

64


Table of Contents

Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2010

The following table shows the outstanding equity awards held by our NEOs as of December 31, 2010. Please refer to our CD&A for additional information regarding how shares are “banked” and paid under our PSP.

 

     Option Awards     Stock Awards  
Name   Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
(#)(1)
    Option
Exercise
Price ($)
   

Option

Expiration
Date

   

Number

of

Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested

(#)

   

Market Value
of
Shares or
Units of Stock
That Have Not
Vested

($)(2)

   

Equity
Incentive Plan
Awards:

 

Number of
Unearned
Shares, Units
or Other
Rights That
Have Not
Vested

(#)

   

Equity
Incentive Plan
Awards:

 

Market or
Payout Value
of Unearned
Shares, Units
or Other
Rights That
Have Not
Vested

($)(3)

 

John Faraci

                            434,696 (4)      11,841,110        311,060 (5)      8,529,750   
      9,000        35.05        4/10/2011        -        -        -        -   
      14,000        35.00        10/9/2011        -        -        -        -   
      37,500        41.40        4/9/2012        -        -        -        -   
      37,500        32.54        10/8/2012        -        -        -        -   
      53,000        34.96        4/8/2013        -        -        -        -   
      48,000        39.14        10/14/2013        -        -        -        -   

Tim Nicholls

                            77,960 (6)      2,123,629        73,467 (7)      2,012,584   
      2,500        35.05        4/10/2011        -                           
      2,500        35.00        10/9/2011        -                           
      5,375        41.40        4/9/2012        -                           
      9,000        39.14        10/14/2013        -                           

Maximo Pacheco

                            103,859 (8)      2,829,115        33,130 (9)      907,993   
      6,000        41.40        4/9/2012        -        -        -        -   
      6,000        32.54        10/8/2012        -        -        -        -   
      6,000        34.96        4/8/2013        -        -        -        -   
      6,000        39.14        10/14/2013        -        -        -        -   

Carol Roberts

                            82,006 (10)      2,233,852        65,074 (11)      1,782,551   
      3,750        35.05        4/10/2011                                   
      3,750        35.00        10/9/2011                                   
      7,500        41.40        4/9/2012                                   
      7,500        32.54        10/8/2012                                   
      7,500        34.96        4/8/2013                                   
      11,000        39.14        10/14/2013                                   

Tom Kadien

                            71,216 (12)      1,939,920        54,250 (13)      1,490,976   
      7,950        35.05        4/10/2011                                   
      4,700        35.00        10/9/2011                                   
      10,000        41.40        4/9/2012                                   
      15,000        34.96        4/8/2013                                   
      15,000        39.14        10/14/2013                                   

 

(1) No stock options have been granted to the NEOs since 2004. All outstanding options, for all participants including our NEOs, are vested as of December 31, 2010.

 

(2) The market value is calculated based on the closing price of our common stock on December 31, 2010 of $27.24.

 

(3) The market value is calculated based on the closing price of our common stock on December 31, 2010 of $27.24 and the Monte Carlo simulation values for the fourth segments as of December 31, 2010 of $31.72 and $25.40 for the 2009 and 2010 awards, respectively. At the end of the applicable performance period, there is an adjustment based on the Company’s actual ROI and TSR performance.

 

(4)

Includes (i) an Executive Continuity Award (“ECA”) of 16,000 shares of restricted stock awarded for retention purposes that vest on February 16, 2013, based on attaining the age and service requirements, and

 

65


Table of Contents
 

(ii) 6,019 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares. The ECA program provides for a tandem grant of stock options and restricted stock in a 5:1 ratio (five options to one share). Upon vesting, the values of both the restricted shares and the stock options are calculated and Mr. Faraci is then entitled to receive either the shares or the options.

     The amount shown also includes (i) 383,718 shares of restricted stock awarded under the PSP that have been “banked” for 2008, 2009 and 2010, but remain unpaid until the end of the applicable, full three-year performance period, and (ii) 28,959 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends.

 

(5) The amount shown includes the following shares of restricted stock that remain subject to open PSP performance periods: (i) 104,500 shares of restricted stock awarded under the 2009-2011 PSP and (ii) 197,475 shares awarded under the 2010-2012 PSP and (iii) 9,085 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares.

 

(6) Includes (i) 72,809 shares of restricted stock awarded under the PSP that have been “banked” for 2008, 2009 and 2010, but remain unpaid until the end of the applicable, full three-year performance period, and (ii) 5,151 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends.

 

(7) The amount shown includes the following shares of restricted stock that remain subject to open PSP performance periods: (i) 23,300 shares awarded under the 2009-2011 PSP and (ii) 48,075 shares awarded under the 2010-2012 PSP and (iii) 2,092 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares.

 

(8) Includes (i) 39,866 shares of restricted stock awarded under the PSP that have been “banked” for 2008, 2009 and 2010, but remain unpaid until the end of the applicable, full three-year performance period, and (ii) a one-time restricted stock award of 60,000 shares vesting ratably on January 1 on each year 2011 through 2014, and (iii) 3,993 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends.

 

(9) The amount shown includes the following shares of restricted stock that remain subject to open PSP performance periods: (i) 10,800 shares awarded under the 2009-2011 PSP and (ii) 21,375 shares awarded under the 2010-2012 PSP and (iii) 955 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares.

 

(10) Includes (i) 76,290 shares of restricted stock awarded under the PSP that have been “banked” for 2008, 2009 and 2010, but remain unpaid until the end of the applicable, full three-year performance period, and (ii) 5,716 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends.

 

(11) The amount shown includes the following shares of restricted stock that remain subject to open PSP performance periods: (i) 20,550 shares awarded under the 2009-2011 PSP and (ii) 42,675 shares awarded under the 2010-2012 PSP and (iii) 1,849 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares.

 

(12) Includes (i) 66,306 shares of restricted stock awarded under the PSP that have been “banked” for 2008, 2009 and 2010, but remain unpaid until the end of the applicable, full three-year performance period, and (ii) 4,910 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends.

 

(13) The amount shown includes the following shares of restricted stock that remain subject to open PSP performance periods: (i) 20,550 shares awarded under the 2009-2011 PSP and (ii) 32,025 shares awarded under the 2010-2012 PSP and (iii) 1,675 shares representing reinvested dividends on those shares.

 

66


Table of Contents

Stock Vested in 2010

The following table shows the amounts received upon vesting in 2010 of shares previously awarded under the PSP or our other restricted stock programs as described in our CD&A. There were no stock options exercised in 2010 by our NEOs.

 

     Stock Awards  
Name   Number of
Shares Acquired
on Vesting
(#)(1)
    Value
Realized
on Vesting
($)(2)
 

John Faraci

    283,530        6,427,029   

Tim Nicholls

    42,702        968,054   

Maximo Pacheco

    47,216        1,132,037   

Carol Roberts

    51,116        1,158,800   

Tom Kadien

    71,442        1,711,475   

 

(1) Amounts shown represent shares of restricted stock and shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends under the PSP that vested on February 8, 2010. The number of shares shown for Mr. Faraci includes 4,000 shares of unrestricted stock from an ECA that vested on February 16, 2010, including 1,864 shares earned in reinvested dividends. Mr. Pacheco also vested in 15,000 shares on January 1, 2010, and Mr. Kadien vested in 20,000 shares and 326 shares acquired in respect of reinvested dividends on December 31, 2010, each pursuant to the terms of his respective restricted stock award agreement.

 

(2) Represents the value of the vested shares based on our closing stock price on the date immediately preceding the vesting date of the award: $22.67 for the PSP shares, $22.57 for the shares acquired by Mr. Faraci under his ECA, $26.78 for shares acquired by Mr. Pacheco under his restricted stock award, and $27.19 for shares acquired by Mr. Kadien pursuant to his restricted stock award.

Pension Benefits in 2010

The following table shows the present value of benefits payable to our NEOs under our Retirement Plan, Pension Restoration Plan, or SERP at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The change in the present value of the accrued benefit is shown in the “Change in Pension Value” column of the Summary Compensation Table for 2010.

 

67


Table of Contents

All of our NEOs, except for Mr. Pacheco, are eligible for a benefit calculated under the Retirement Plan. Because Mr. Pacheco is neither a U.S. resident nor performing services in the U.S., he is not eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan or the Pension Restoration Plan. The NEOs, except for Mr. Pacheco, are also eligible for a benefit that is calculated under the Pension Restoration Plan formula. All of the NEOs, including Mr. Pacheco, are eligible for a benefit under the SERP formula. We amended the SERP to comply with Section 409A of the Code, effective January 1, 2008. As amended, the benefit under SERP Formula A is paid from the SERP, even if the applicable formula that determines the benefit is the formula under the Pension Restoration Plan. As a result of this change, the pension benefits shown below for Mr. Faraci and Mr. Kadien are shown as coming from the SERP rather than the Pension Restoration Plan. This differs from the pension benefits shown for Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Pacheco and Ms. Roberts, who became eligible for the SERP after July 1, 2004, and whose benefit is therefore calculated under SERP Formula B. Under Formula B, the portion of the benefit that is earned prior to SERP eligibility is paid under the Pension Restoration Plan, and the portion earned following SERP eligibility is paid from the SERP. No NEO received payments of a retirement benefit in 2010.

 

Name   Plan Name   Number of
Years of
Credited
Service in
2010
(#)
    12/31/2009
Present Value  of
Accumulated
Benefit
($) (1)
   

12/31/2010
Present Value of
Accumulated
Benefit

($) (2)

 

John Faraci

 

Retirement Plan

    36.33        1,292,809        1,530,899   
 

Pension Restoration Plan

    36.33                 
 

SERP

    36.33        24,954,450        30,262,280   
 

      Total

            26,247,259        31,793,179   

Tim Nicholls

 

Retirement Plan

    19.25        347,261        431,188   
 

Pension Restoration Plan

    19.25        332,275        366,399   
 

SERP

    19.25        746,961        1,432,187   
 

      Total

            1,426,497        2,229,774   

Maximo Pacheco

 

Retirement Plan

    16.75                 
 

Pension Restoration Plan

    16.75                 
 

SERP

    16.75        2,530,842        3,386,942   
 

      Total

            2,530,842        3,386,942   

Carol Roberts

 

Retirement Plan

    29.5        625,045        769,139   
 

Pension Restoration Plan

    29.5        479,369        527,197   
 

SERP

    29.5        2,259,862        3,665,026   
 

      Total

            3,364,276        4,961,362   

Tom Kadien

 

Retirement Plan

    31.58        786,582        946,848   
 

Pension Restoration Plan

    31.58                 
 

SERP

    31.58        3,535,225        4,542,309   
 

      Total

            4,321,807        5,489,157   

 

(1) The calculation of the present value of accumulated benefits as of December 31, 2009, assumes a discount rate of 5.80% for annuity payments and 3.30% for lump sum payments. The calculation further assumes benefit commencement at the earliest age at which the NEO would be entitled to an unreduced benefit (the earlier of age 61 and completion of 20 years of service or age 62 and completion of 10 years of service).

 

(2) The calculation of the present value of accumulated benefits as of December 31, 2010, assumes a discount rate of 5.60% for annuity payments and 3.10% for lump sum payments. The assumptions regarding the benefit commencement date are the same as described in footnote (1).

 

68


Table of Contents

Narrative to Pension Benefits Table

Retirement Plan of International Paper Company

Our Retirement Plan is a funded, tax-qualified plan that covers all U.S. salaried employees hired prior to July 1, 2004. U.S. employees hired on or after July 1, 2004, are eligible for a Company-paid retirement savings account in our Salaried Savings Plan and DCSP in lieu of participation in the Retirement Plan. All of our NEOs were hired prior to July 1, 2004, and, except for Mr. Pacheco, are eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan.

We calculate the benefit under the Retirement Plan at the rate of 1.67% of the participant’s average pensionable earnings received over the highest five consecutive calendar years of the last 10 calendar years, multiplied by his or her years of service, then reduced by a portion of Social Security benefits. We include as pensionable earnings the participant’s base salary plus MIP awards that were not deferred, up to the maximum limit set by the IRS.

International Paper Company Pension Restoration Plan for Salaried Employees

Our supplemental retirement plan for our salaried employees is an unfunded, non-qualified plan that covers all U.S. salaried employees hired prior to July 1, 2004. This plan augments our Retirement Plan by providing retirement benefits based on compensation that is greater than the limits set by the IRS. We include as eligible compensation under this plan the participant’s base salary plus MIP awards, including amounts deferred. All of our NEOs were hired prior to July 1, 2004, and, except for Mr. Pacheco, are eligible to participate in the Pension Restoration Plan.

We calculate the benefit under the Pension Restoration Plan in the same manner as the Retirement Plan, then reduce the benefit by the amount payable under the Retirement Plan.

The International Paper Company Unfunded Supplemental Retirement Plan for Senior Managers

Our SERP is an alternative retirement plan available to certain senior executives. SERP benefits vest once the participant reaches age 55 and has completed five years of service. The normal form of payment is a lump sum. We calculate benefits under the SERP under one of three formulas based on the participant’s date of hire and date of eligibility for SERP participation. Benefits are payable under the SERP on the later of the participant’s retirement date or the date six months following separation from service. We define “retirement date” as the date the participant reaches the earlier of age 55 with 10 years of service or age 65 with five years of service.

A participant who has announced retirement at least 12 months in advance has the right to lock-in a discount rate used to determine the amount of the lump sum payment based on the average for the month in which they choose to lock-in. In light of the volatility of the financial markets in 2010, we permitted vested participants to lock-in their interest rate by communicating to Mr. Karre, Senior Vice President, Human Resources & Communications, consideration of their retirement date. Both Mr. Faraci and Mr. Pacheco have locked-in the discount rate under this provision.

 

  Ÿ  

Participants eligible to participate prior to July 1, 2004 (Formula A):

 

       We calculate benefits under this formula as the greatest of (i) the sum of the benefits under our Retirement Plan and Pension Restoration Plan; (ii) the lesser of 3.25% of eligible compensation, defined below, multiplied by the participant’s years of service or 50% of eligible compensation, with both amounts reduced by a portion of Social Security benefits; or (iii) 25% of eligible compensation. The benefit payable under the SERP is reduced by the benefits payable under the Retirement Plan. In calculating benefits under (ii) and (iii), we include as eligible compensation the sum of (a) the participant’s highest annual base salary during any of the three consecutive calendar years prior to retirement and (b) the participant’s target MIP for the year of retirement. The benefit for Mr. Faraci and Mr. Kadien is calculated under SERP Formula A.