matx_Current_Folio_DEF14A

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))

Definitive Proxy Statement

Definitive Additional Materials

Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12

 

Matson, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

 

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

 

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

No fee required.

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

 

(1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

 

 

 

 

(2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

 

 

 

 

(3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange 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 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

MATSONBlack_HI

Matson, Inc.

1411 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819

March 12, 2018

To the Shareholders of Matson, Inc.:

You are invited to attend the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Matson, Inc.  (“Matson” or the “Company”), to be held in the Bankers Club on the 30th Floor of the First Hawaiian Center, 999 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, on Thursday, April 26, 2018  at 8:30 a.m., Hawaii Standard Time.  At the meeting, we will have the opportunity to discuss the Company’s financial performance during 2017, and our future plans and expectations.

We have elected to provide access to our proxy materials over the internet under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s  “notice and access” rules.  On or around March 12, 2018, we expect to distribute to our shareholders either (i) a copy of our Proxy Statement, the accompanying proxy card and our annual report or (ii) the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) only.  The Notice contains instructions for how to access our Proxy Statement and annual report over the Internet and how to request a paper copy of the Proxy Statement and annual report.

Your vote is important – no matter how many or how few shares you may own.  Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, please read the Proxy Statement and vote as soon as possible.  You may vote via the Internet, by telephone or, if you receive printed proxy materials, by mailing a proxy card.  Instructions for Internet and telephone voting are included in your proxy card and the Proxy Statement (if you receive your materials by mail).  Any shareholder attending the Annual Meeting may vote in person even if a proxy has been returned.

Thank you for your continued support of Matson.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Picture 13

 

 

 

MATTHEW J. COX
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 


 

Table of Contents

MATSONBlack_HI

Matson, Inc.

1411 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Matson, Inc. will be held in the Bankers Club on the 30th Floor of the First Hawaiian Center, 999 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, on Thursday, April 26, 2018  at 8:30 a.m., Hawaii Standard Time, to:

1.

Elect the seven directors named in the proxy statement to serve until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified;

2.

Approve, on an advisory basis, executive compensation;

3.

Ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018; and

4.

Transact such other business as properly may be brought before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

The Board of Directors has set the close of business on February 23,  2018  as the record date for the meeting.  Owners of Matson, Inc. stock at the close of business on that date are entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the meeting.  Shareholders will be asked at the meeting to present valid photo identification.  Shareholders holding stock in brokerage accounts must present a copy of a brokerage statement reflecting stock ownership as of the record date.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR SHARES BE REPRESENTED AT THE MEETING.  WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE PROMPTLY VOTE VIA THE INTERNET OR BY TELEPHONE, OR IF YOU RECEIVE PRINTED PROXY MATERIALS, BY MAILING THE PROXY CARD.

 

 

 

By Order of the Board of Directors,

 

F:\RACHEL\RCL Personal\RCL signatures\Sig2.tif

 

RACHEL C. LEE

Corporate Secretary

March 12, 2018

 

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS

FOR THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON APRIL 26, 2018

The Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders, Proxy Statement and the

Annual Report to Shareholders are available at www.proxyvote.com.

 


 

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING 

1

PROPOSAL 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS 

5

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 

9

Director Independence 

9

Board Leadership Structure 

9

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight 

9

Pay Risk Assessment 

10

Board of Directors and Committees of the Board 

10

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Processes 

11

Corporate Governance Guidelines 

11

Compensation of Directors 

12

Director Share Ownership Guidelines 

13

Communications with Directors 

13

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS 

13

CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 

14

Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers 

14

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance 

15

Certain Relationships and Transactions 

15

Code of Ethics 

16

Code of Conduct 

16

Executive Officers 

16

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION 

18

Compensation Discussion and Analysis 

18

Compensation Committee Report 

29

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation 

29

Summary Compensation Table 

30

Grants of Plan-Based Awards 

30

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End 

32

Option Exercises and Stock Vested 

33

Pension Benefits 

33

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation 

35

Other Potential Post-Employment Payments 

35

PROPOSAL 2 – ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION 

40

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT 

41

PROPOSAL 3 – RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

42

OTHER BUSINESS 

42

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2019 

42

SHAREHOLDERS WITH THE SAME ADDRESS 

43

COPIES OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10‑K 

43

 

 


 

Table of Contents

MATSONBlack_HI

Matson, Inc.

1411 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819

PROXY STATEMENT

Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Thursday, April 26, 2018

The Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors” or the “Board”) of Matson, Inc.  (“Matson” or the “Company”) is soliciting your proxy to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., Hawaii Standard Time, and any adjournment or postponement of that meeting (the “Annual Meeting”).  The Annual Meeting will be held at the Bankers Club on the 30th Floor of the First Hawaiian Center, 999 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii.  This Proxy Statement and the accompanying proxy card and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders were first mailed or otherwise made available, on or about March 12,  2018, to shareholders of record as of February 23,  2018, the record date for the Annual Meeting.

In accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), instead of mailing a printed copy of our proxy materials to each shareholder of record, we are furnishing proxy materials on the Internet.  On or around March 12,  2018, we mailed to our shareholders (other than to certain registered holders, certain street name shareholders, or those who previously requested electronic or paper delivery) a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, which contains instructions as to how you may access and review on the Internet all of our proxy materials, including this Proxy Statement and our annual report.  The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials also instructs you as to how you may vote your proxy on the Internet.  If you would prefer to receive printed proxy materials, please follow the instructions for requesting printed materials contained in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.  This process is designed to expedite shareholders’ receipt of proxy materials, lower the cost of the Annual Meeting and help conserve natural resources.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Who may attend the Annual Meeting?

All shareholders are invited to attend the Annual Meeting.  If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in the name of your broker, bank or other nominee, you must bring proof of ownership (e.g., a current broker’s statement) in order to be admitted to the Annual Meeting.

Who is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting?

You are entitled to receive notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting if you own shares of Matson common stock at the close of business on February 23,  2018, the record date for the Annual Meeting.  At the close of business on the record date, there were 42,650,152 shares of Matson common stock issued and outstanding.  Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted on at the Annual Meeting.

What matters will be voted on at the Annual Meeting?

There are three proposals scheduled to be considered and voted on at the Annual Meeting:

·

Election of seven directors;

·

Advisory vote to approve executive compensation;  and

1


 

Table of Contents

·

Ratification of appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018.

What are the Board’s voting recommendations?

The Board recommends that you vote as follows:

·

“FOR” each of the seven nominees for director;

·

“FOR” the approval, on an advisory basis, of our executive compensation; and

·

“FOR” the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018.

How do I vote by proxy before the Annual Meeting?

If you are a shareholder of record, you may submit a proxy via the Internet, by telephone or by mail.

·

Submitting a Proxy via the Internet:  You can submit a proxy via the Internet until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (5:59 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time), on April 25, 2018, by accessing www.proxyvote.com and following the instructions you will find on the website.  You will need the control number provided on your proxy card or Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.  Internet proxy submission is available 24 hours a day.  You will be given the opportunity to confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.

·

Submitting a Proxy by Telephone:  You can submit a proxy for your shares by telephone until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (5:59 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time), on April 25,  2018, by calling 1‑800‑690‑6903.  Telephone proxy submission is available 24 hours a day.  Easy-to-follow voice prompts allow you to submit a proxy for your shares and confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.  You will need the control number provided on your proxy card or Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.

·

Submitting a Proxy by Mail:  If you choose to submit a proxy by mail, simply mark your proxy card, date and sign it, and return it in the postage paid envelope provided with the proxy card to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, New York 11717.

By casting your vote in any of the ways listed above, you are authorizing the individuals listed on the proxy to vote your shares in accordance with your instructions.  You may also attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person.

If you are a “street name” holder, you must provide instructions on voting to your broker, bank, trust or other nominee holder.

What is the difference between a “shareholder of record” and a “street name” holder?

These terms describe how your shares are held.  If your shares are registered directly in your name with our independent transfer agent and registrar, Computershare Shareowner Services LLC, you are a “shareholder of record”.  If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage, bank, trust or other nominee as a custodian, you are a “street name” holder and you are considered the “beneficial owner” of the shares.  As the beneficial owner of shares, you have the right to direct your broker, trustee or nominee how to vote your shares, and you will receive separate instructions from your broker, bank or other holder of record describing how to vote your shares.

How many proxy cards might I receive?

You could receive multiple proxy cards if you hold your shares in different ways (e.g., joint tenancy, trusts and custodial accounts) or in multiple accounts.  If your shares are held in “street name”, you will receive your proxy card or other voting information from your broker, bank, trust or other nominee, and you will return your proxy card or cards to such broker, bank, trust or other nominee.  You should complete and sign each proxy card you receive, unless you are a “shareholder of record” and you elect to vote via the Internet or by telephone.

2


 

Table of Contents

Can I vote my shares in person at the Annual Meeting?

Yes.  If you decide to join us in person at the Annual Meeting and you are a “shareholder of record”, you may vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting.  If you hold your shares as a “street name” holder and wish to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from your broker, bank, trust or other nominee, giving you the right to vote the shares at the Annual Meeting.  You will be unable to vote your shares at the Annual Meeting without a legal proxy.

Can I revoke my proxy or change my vote after I have submitted a proxy?

You may revoke your proxy or change your vote at any time before it is exercised by:

·

delivering to the Corporate Secretary a written notice of revocation, dated later than the proxy, before the vote is taken at the Annual Meeting;

·

delivering to the Corporate Secretary an executed proxy bearing a later date, before the vote is taken at the Annual Meeting;

·

submitting a proxy on a later date via the Internet or by telephone (only your last Internet or telephone proxy will be counted), before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (5:59 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time), on April 25,  2018; or

·

attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person (your attendance at the Annual Meeting, in and of itself, will not revoke the proxy).

Any written notice of revocation, or later dated proxy, should be delivered to:

Rachel C. Lee

Corporate Secretary

Matson, Inc.

555 12th Street

Oakland, California 94607

(510) 628‑4000

Alternatively, you may hand deliver a written revocation notice, or a later dated proxy, to the Corporate Secretary at the Annual Meeting before we begin voting.

If your shares are held by a bank, broker or other nominee, you must follow the instructions provided by the bank, broker or other nominee if you wish to revoke your proxy or change your vote.

What constitutes a quorum for the Annual Meeting?

In order to take action on the proposals at the Annual Meeting, a quorum, consisting of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote as of the record date, must be present in person or by proxy.  Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted as shares that are present for purposes of determining quorum.

What are the voting requirements for each of the proposals?

Provided a quorum is present:

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors:  Directors will be elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the shares entitled to vote in the election of directors.  A  “plurality” voting standard means that the seven nominees who receive the most “for”  votes cast will be elected as directors.  As discussed below in the section “Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance Guidelines”, the Company has a “plurality plus” policy in uncontested director elections.

Proposal 2 – Advisory vote to approve Executive Compensation:  The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve the advisory vote to approve executive compensation.

3


 

Table of Contents

Proposal 3 – Ratification of the appointment of Deloitte and Touche LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2018:  The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to ratify the appointment of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

What is a broker “non-vote”?

A broker “non-vote” occurs when a broker or other nominee who holds shares for a beneficial owner is unable to vote those shares for the beneficial owner because the broker or other nominee does not have discretionary voting power for the proposal and has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares.  Brokers will have discretionary voting power to vote shares for which no voting instructions have been provided by the beneficial owner only with respect to the proposal to ratify the appointment of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.  Brokers will not have such discretionary voting power to vote shares with respect to the election of directors or the advisory vote to approve executive compensation.

How will abstentions and broker non-votes affect the votes?

Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the voting results for any matter, as they are not considered to be votes cast.

How will my shares be voted if I give my proxy but do not specify how my shares should be voted?

If you provide specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with your instructions.  If you hold shares in your name and sign and return a proxy card without giving specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted “FOR” each of the director nominees named in this Proxy Statement and “FOR”  Proposals 2 and 3,  in accordance with the Board’s recommendations.

Who will count the votes?

At the Annual Meeting, votes will be counted by an election inspector from the Company.  Such inspector will be present at the Annual Meeting to process the votes cast by our shareholders, make a report of inspection, count the votes cast by our shareholders and certify as to the number of votes cast on each proposal.

Who will conduct the proxy solicitation and how much will it cost?

We are soliciting proxies from shareholders on behalf of our Board and will pay for all costs incurred by it in connection with the solicitation.  In addition to solicitation by mail, the directors, officers and employees of Matson and its subsidiaries may solicit proxies from shareholders in person or by telephone, facsimile or email without additional compensation other than reimbursement for their actual expenses.

We have retained Alliance Advisors, a proxy solicitation firm, to assist us in the solicitation of proxies for the Annual Meeting.  We will pay Alliance Advisors a fee of approximately $5,500 and reimburse the firm for reasonable out‑of‑pocket expenses.

Arrangements also will be made with brokerage firms and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for the forwarding of solicitation material to the beneficial owners of stock held of record by such persons, and we will reimburse such custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the forwarding of solicitation materials to the beneficial owners of our stock.

Where can I find the voting results of the Annual Meeting?

We will announce preliminary voting results at the Annual Meeting and publish final results on a Form 8‑K filed with the SEC within four business days after the Annual Meeting.

If you have any questions about voting your shares or attending the Annual Meeting, please call our Corporate Secretary at (510) 628‑4000 or Alliance Advisors toll free at (855)‑723‑7816.

4


 

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The number of directors is currently fixed at seven.  Jeffrey N. Watanabe,  having reached the mandatory retirement age under the Company’s Bylaws, is not standing for reelection at the 2018 Annual Meeting.  Our Board extends its gratitude to Mr. Watanabe for his leadership and dedication.  If elected, each Director nominee will serve until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified.

Director Nominees and Qualification of Directors

The nominees of the Board of Directors are the seven persons named below.  The Board of Directors believes that all nominees will be able to serve.  However, if any nominee should decline or become unable to serve for any reason, the proxy holder will vote your shares to approve the election of any replacement nominee proposed by the Board of Directors or just for the remaining nominees, leaving a vacancy.  Alternatively, the Board of Directors may reduce the size of the Board.

The following table provides the name, age (as of March 12,  2018) and principal occupation of each person nominated by the Board of Directors, their business experience during at least the last five years, the year each was first elected or appointed a director (including to predecessor companies) and qualifications of each director.  Our Board members have a diverse range of perspectives and are knowledgeable about our businesses.  Each director contributes in establishing a Board climate of trust and respect, where deliberations are open and constructive.  In selecting nominees, the Board has considered these factors and has reviewed the qualifications of each nominee, which includes the factors reflected below:

 

 

 

 

Picture 17

W. Blake Baird
Age: 57
Director Since: 2006

 

 

·

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Terreno Realty Corporation, San Francisco, California (NYSE:TRNO) (real estate investment trust) (“Terreno”)  since February 2010;

·

Managing Partner and Co-Founder of Terreno Capital Partners LLC (real estate investment) from September 2007 to February 2010;

·

President of AMB Property Corporation (“AMB”) (real estate investment trust), now known as Prologis, Inc. (NYSE:PLD), from January 2000 to December 2006 and Director of AMB from May 2001 to December 2006; and

·

Director of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (NYSE:SHO) (lodging real estate investment trust) since April 2016.

Director Qualifications

As Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Terreno, a publicly traded real estate investment trust, and as a former President and director of AMB, a large, publicly traded real estate investment trust, now known as Prologis, Inc.,  Mr. Baird brings to the Board experience in managing complex business organizations that, among other business activities, lease real estate to logistics companies.  This experience has provided Mr. Baird with financial expertise and he has been designated by the Board of Directors as an Audit Committee Financial Expert.  In addition, Mr. Baird has business operating experience in the Company’s port markets and also in China, Japan and Singapore, which are important shipping nations.

 

5


 

Table of Contents

 

 

Picture 18

Michael J. Chun
Age: 74
Director Since: 1990

 

 

·

Retired President and Headmaster of The Kamehameha Schools Kapālama Campus, Honolulu, Hawaii (educational institution) from June 1988 to June 2012; and

·

Director of Bank of Hawaii Corporation (NYSE:BOH) (regional commercial bank) since April 2004.

Director Qualifications

As retired President and Headmaster of The Kamehameha Schools and its flagship campus at Kapālama, Oahu, Hawaii, a nationally recognized educational institution with a multi-billion dollar endowment and a presence extending throughout the South Pacific and Asia, Dr. Chun’s knowledge of and insights about Hawaii and Matson’s operating markets inform Matson’s strategic priorities.  He has an active involvement in Hawaii’s business community and community organizations, and as a former associate professor in engineering and public health at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, his teaching and research accomplishments provide extensive knowledge of Micronesia and the South Pacific. Dr. Chun also has public company board experience, both with the Company since 1990 and with Bank of Hawaii Corporation since 2004 and its banking subsidiary, Bank of Hawaii, Hawaii’s second largest financial institution, since 1993.

 

 

Picture 19

Matthew J. Cox
Age: 56
Director Since: 2012

 

 

·

Chairman of the Board since April 2017 and Chief Executive Officer since June 2012;

·

Chairman and CEO of Matson’s subsidiary, Matson Navigation Company, Inc.  (“MatNav”) since June 2012;

·

President of MatNav from October 2008 to April 2017;

·

Variety of positions, including Vice President, Refrigerated Containers, at American President Lines (“APL”) (global container transportation company) from 1987 to 1999; and

·

Director of First Hawaiian, Inc. (NASDAQ:FHB) (bank holding company) since 2016 and its direct wholly owned subsidiary,  First Hawaiian Bank, since 2014.

Director Qualifications

As a member of Matson’s senior management team for over 16 years and with more than 30 years of transportation and logistics experience, Mr. Cox brings to the Board an in-depth knowledge of all aspects of the Company’s operations, and is knowledgeable about Matson’s operating markets through his Matson, APL and other experience and his involvement in the Hawaii business community and local community organizations.

 

6


 

Table of Contents

 

 

Picture 20

Thomas B. Fargo
Age: 69
Director Since: 2011

 

 

·

Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., Newport News, Virginia (NYSE:HII) (military shipbuilder) since March 2011;

·

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, from May 2002 to March 2005;

·

John M. Shalikasvili Chair in National Security Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research from 2010 to March 2016;

·

Owner, Fargo Associates, LLC (defense and homeland/national security consultancy) since 2005;

·

Director, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (NYSE:HE) (“HEI”)  (electric utility/banking), since March 2005, and former director of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”), a subsidiary of HEI, from March 2005 to January 2017;  and

·

Director, The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. (NYSE:GBX) (transportation equipment and services) since July 2015.

Director Qualifications

Through his various executive and leadership roles, Admiral Fargo brings to the Board experience in maritime and military operations and in managing complex business organizations.  He is knowledgeable about Hawaii and Matson’s operating markets through his involvement in the Hawaii business community and local community organizations.  Admiral Fargo also has extensive diplomatic, business and policy experience in Asia.  As the senior military commander in East Asia and the Pacific, he was responsible for U.S. security arrangements and engagement with the respective governments of the region.  He also has public company board experience via his service on a number of publicly traded companies, including Huntington Ingalls Industries, where he is Chairman of the Board, The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., and HEI.

 

 

 

Picture 2

Mark H. Fukunaga
Age: 62
Director Since: 2018 Nominee

 

 

·

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Servco Pacific Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii (automotive, insurance and home, school & office supplies) since March 1994.

·

Mr. Fukunaga was recommended to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for nomination as a director by one of the non-management independent directors.

Director Qualifications

As the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Servco Pacific Inc., a company with operations in automotive distribution and retailing, appliance distribution, commercial insurance brokerage, and investments in venture capital and private equity, Mr. Fukunaga brings to the Board extensive operating experience and leadership skills.  He is knowledgeable about Hawaii and Matson’s operating markets through his involvement in the Hawaii business community and local community organizations.  In addition, Mr. Fukunaga has extensive business experience in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, Asia and the Pacific Rim.

 

7


 

Table of Contents

 

image1.jpeg

Stanley M. Kuriyama
Age: 64
Director Since: 2016

 

 

·

Chairman of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii (NYSE:ALEX) (real estate and construction company) since June 2012; and

·

Chief Executive Officer of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. from January 2010 to December 2015; Director of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. from January 2010 through June 2012; and executive Chairman of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. from January 2016 to December 2016.

Director Qualifications

As the Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.,  Mr. Kuriyama brings to the Board an in‑depth knowledge of Hawaii and Matson’s operating markets.  From September 2009 to June 2012, he also served as a Director and Chairman of the Board of the Company’s subsidiary, Matson Navigation Company, Inc., prior to the Company’s separation from Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and is knowledgeable about all aspects of the Company’s operations. Mr. Kuriyama also has extensive involvement in the Hawaii business community and local community organizations.

 

 

 

Picture 22

Constance H. Lau
Age: 65
Director Since: 2004

 

 

·

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of HEI, Honolulu, Hawaii (NYSE:HE) (electric utility/banking) since May 2006; and

·

Chairman of the Boards and Director of American Savings Bank, F.S.B. (“ASB”) and HECO, subsidiaries of HEI, since May 2006.

Director Qualifications

As President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of HEI, a large, publicly-traded Hawaii corporation, and as Chair of the Board of HEI’s banking and utility subsidiaries, Ms. Lau brings to the Board experience with capital intensive infrastructure and regulated industries as well as in managing complex business organizations.  She also serves as Chair, National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which advises the President of the United States on the security of critical infrastructure sectors, including transportation, and their information systems.  In addition, Ms. Lau has extensive experience in the banking industry and has been designated by the Board of Directors as an Audit Committee Financial Expert.  She also is knowledgeable about Hawaii and Matson’s operating markets through her involvement in the Hawaii business community and local community organizations, including serving as chair of the Consuelo Foundation, which focuses on charitable efforts in the Philippines.

 

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” each of the seven nominees for director.

8


 

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Director Independence

The NYSE listing standards and our Corporate Governance Guidelines require that a majority of our Board of Directors and every member of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees be “independent”.  The Board has reviewed each of its current directors and the additional nominee for director, and has determined that all of such individuals, with the exception of Mr. Cox, who is an executive officer of Matson, are independent under NYSE rules.  The Board has also determined that Walter A. Dods, Jr., who retired from the Board in April 2017 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age under the Company’s Bylaws, was independent under NYSE rules.  In making its independence determinations, the Board considered the transactions, relationships or arrangements described below in “Certain Information Regarding Directors and Executive Officers—Certain Relationships and Transactions”, as well as the following, none of which the Board deemed to be material to Matson. Dr. Chun—Matson’s banking relationships with Bank of Hawaii, an entity of which Dr. Chun is a director; Mr. Dods—Matson’s banking relationships with First Hawaiian Bank, an entity of which Mr. Dods is a director; Admiral Fargo—Matson’s banking relationships with American Savings Bank, the corporate parent of which Admiral Fargo is a director; Mr. Fukunaga—Matson’s commercial relationships with Servco Pacific Inc., of which Mr. Fukunaga is chairman and chief executive officer;  Ms. Lau—Matson’s banking relationships with American Savings Bank, the corporate parent of which Ms. Lau is the president, chief executive officer, and a director; and Mr. Watanabe—Matson’s banking relationships with American Savings Bank, an entity of which Mr. Watanabe is a director.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board recognizes that one of its key responsibilities is to evaluate and determine the optimal leadership structure to best serve the interests of shareholders.  The Board understands that there is no single, generally accepted approach to providing Board leadership.  Given the dynamic and competitive environment in which we operate, the right Board leadership structure may vary as circumstances warrant.

The Company’s Bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines provide the Board flexibility to determine whether it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to have a combined or separate Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).  In April 2017, the Board combined the Chairman and CEO roles and designated a Lead Independent Director.  The Board chose this leadership structure because it provides unified leadership and accountability in quickly and seamlessly identifying and carrying out the strategic priorities of the Company.  With its Lead Independent Director, this governance structure also provides a form of leadership that allows the Board to function independently from management, capable of objective judgment regarding management’s performance, and enables the Board to fulfill its duties effectively and efficiently.  The Lead Independent Director has significant responsibilities, which are set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, including:

·

Consults with the Chairman on agendas and meeting schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items;

·

Consults with the Chairman on information sent to the Board;

·

Facilitates the process for the Board’s self-evaluation;

·

Presides at Board meetings in the absence of the Chairman;

·

Presides at executive sessions of non-management directors;

·

Has authority to call meetings of the independent directors;

·

Serves as liaison between the independent directors and the Chairman and CEO; and

·

If appropriate, and in coordination with executive management, be available for consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

The Board believes that the Company and its shareholders continue to be best served at this time by having Matthew J. Cox serve as the Chairman and CEO, and Jeffrey N. Watanabe serve as the Lead Independent Director.  The independent directors intend to designate a director to serve as the new Lead Independent Director following Mr. Watanabe’s retirement from the Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

The Board has oversight of the risk management process, which it administers in part through the Audit Committee.  One of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities involves discussing policies regarding risk assessment and risk management.

9


 

Table of Contents

Risk oversight plays a role in all major Board decisions and the evaluation of risk is a key part of the decision-making process.  For example, the identification of risks and the development of sensitivity analyses are key requirements for capital requests that are presented to the Board.

This risk management process occurs throughout all levels of the organization, but is also facilitated through a formal process in which a risk management working group and a risk management steering committee (comprised of senior management) meet regularly to identify and address significant risks.  Risk management is reflected in the Company’s compliance, auditing and risk management functions, and its risk-based approach to strategic and operating decision-making.  Management reviews its risk management activities with the full Board of Directors on a regular basis.  The Board periodically receives various reports on risk-related matters, including presentations by senior management that cover an overview of the risk management program and include risk management perspectives from each of Matson’s business segments in the companywide strategic plan.

Pay Risk Assessment

In 2017, management worked with the Compensation Committee and Exequity LLP, an independent executive compensation consulting firm retained by the Compensation Committee, to review all Company incentive plans and related policies and practices, and the overall structure of total pay, pay mix, the risk management process and related internal controls.

The Company concluded that the risks arising from our incentive compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Board of Directors and Committees of the Board

The Board of Directors held eight meetings during 2017.  In conjunction with six of these meetings, the non‑management directors of Matson met in formally-scheduled executive sessions, led by the independent Chairman of the Board or Lead Independent Director, as applicable.  In 2017, all directors attended more than 75% of the aggregate meetings of the Board of Directors and the Committees of the Board on which they served.  In addition, Matson’s directors are strongly encouraged to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders.  All of the directors attended the 2017 Annual Meeting.

The Board of Directors has an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, each of which is governed by a charter, which is available on the corporate governance page of Matson’s website at www.matson.com.  The composition of each committee is set forth below:

 

Audit

Compensation

Nominating and Corporate
Governance

W. Blake Baird

 

Michael J. Chun

 

Chair

Matthew J. Cox

 

 

 

Thomas B. Fargo

 

 

Stanley M. Kuriyama

 

 

 

Constance H. Lau

Chair

 

Jeffrey N. Watanabe

 

Chair

 

Audit Committee:  Each member is an independent director under the applicable NYSE listing standards and SEC rules.  In addition, the Board has determined that Ms. Lau and Mr. Baird are “Audit Committee Financial Experts” under SEC rules.  The duties and responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors, and are summarized in the Audit Committee Report, which appears in this Proxy Statement.  The Audit Committee met five times during 2017.

Compensation Committee:  Each member is an independent director under the applicable NYSE listing standards.  The Compensation Committee has general responsibility for management and other salaried employee compensation and benefits, including incentive compensation and stock incentive plans, and for making recommendations on director compensation to the Board.  The Compensation Committee may form subcommittees and delegate such authority as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate, subject to any restrictions by law or listing standard.  For further information on the processes and procedures for consideration of executive compensation, see the “Executive Compensation – 

10


 

Table of Contents

Compensation Discussion and Analysis”  section of this Proxy Statement.  The Compensation Committee met four times during 2017.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:  Each member is an independent director under the applicable NYSE listing standards.  The functions of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee include recommending to the Board individuals qualified to serve as directors; recommending to the Board the size and composition of committees of the Board and monitoring the functioning of the committees; advising on Board composition and procedures; reviewing corporate governance issues; overseeing the annual evaluation of the Board; and ensuring that an evaluation of management occurs.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met three times during 2017.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Processes

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee identifies potential nominees by asking current directors to notify the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of qualified persons who might be available to serve on the Board.  From time to time, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also engages firms that specialize in identifying director candidates.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended by shareholders.  In considering such candidates, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will take into consideration the needs of the Board and the qualifications of the candidate.  To have a candidate considered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, a shareholder must submit a written recommendation that meets the requirements of the Company’s Bylaws, including the name of the shareholder, evidence of the shareholder’s ownership of Matson stock (including the number of shares owned and the length of time of ownership), the name of the candidate, the candidate’s qualifications to be a director and the candidate’s consent for such consideration.

The shareholder recommendation and information described above must be sent to the Corporate Secretary at 555 12th Street, Oakland, California 94607.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee believes that the minimum qualifications for serving as a director are high ethical standards, a commitment to shareholders, a genuine interest in Matson and a willingness and ability to devote adequate time to a director’s duties.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also may consider other factors it deems to be in the best interests of Matson and its shareholders, including whether nominees possess such knowledge, experience, skills, expertise and diversity to enhance the Board’s ability to manage and direct the business and affairs of the Company, including, when applicable, to enhance the ability of committees of the Board to fulfill their duties and/or to satisfy any independence requirements imposed by law, regulation or NYSE rules.  While the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does not have a written diversity policy, it considers diversity of knowledge, skills, professional experience, education, expertise, and representation in industries relevant to the Company, as important factors in its evaluation of candidates.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews annually with the Board the composition of the Board as a whole and recommends any measures to be taken so that the Board reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise and diversity.

Once a potential candidate has been identified by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews information regarding the person to determine whether the person should be considered further.  If appropriate, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may request information from the candidate, review the person’s accomplishments, qualifications and references, and conduct interviews with the candidate.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s evaluation process does not vary based on whether or not a candidate is recommended by a shareholder.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines to assist the Board in the exercise of its responsibilities and to promote the more effective functioning of the Board and its committees.  The guidelines provide details on matters such as:

·

Goals and responsibilities of the Board;

·

Selection of directors, including the Chairman of the Board and the Lead Independent Director;

11


 

Table of Contents

·

Board membership criteria and director retirement age;

·

Stock ownership guidelines;

·

Director independence and executive sessions of non-management directors;

·

Board self-evaluation;

·

Board compensation;

·

Board access to management and outside advisors;

·

Board orientation and continuing education; and

·

Leadership development, including annual evaluations of the CEO and management succession plans.

“Plurality Plus” Policy.  Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that any director nominee who receives a greater number of “withhold” votes than “for” votes in an uncontested election is required to tender his or her resignation for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider the resignation offer and recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject the resignation offer, or whether other action should be taken.  The Board will consider the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and will determine whether or not to accept the resignation offer.  Full details of this policy are set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are available on the corporate governance page of Matson’s corporate website at www.matson.com.

Compensation of Directors

The following table summarizes the compensation paid by Matson to directors for services rendered during 2017:

2017 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name

    

Fees Earned
or Paid in Cash
($)

    

Stock Awards
($)(1)(2)

    

All Other
Compensation
($)(3)

    

Total
($)

(a)

 

(b)

 

(c)

 

(g)

 

(h)

W. Blake Baird

 

88,000 

 

100,014 

 

4,506 

 

192,520 

Michael J. Chun

 

90,000 

 

100,014 

 

11,296 

 

201,310 

Walter A. Dods, Jr.

 

45,767 

 

— 

 

22,236 

 

68,003 

Thomas B. Fargo

 

80,500 

 

100,014 

 

1,933 

 

182,447 

Stanley M. Kuriyama

 

71,500 

 

100,014 

 

1,669 

 

173,183 

Constance H. Lau

 

96,500 

 

100,014 

 

4,506 

 

201,020 

Jeffrey N. Watanabe

 

112,500 

 

100,014 

 

— 

 

212,514 


(1)

Represents the aggregate grant-date fair value of restricted stock unit awards granted in 2017  in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Stock Compensation.  Each director was granted approximately $100,000 in restricted stock units.  At the end of 2017,  Messrs. Baird and Kuriyama,  and Ms. Lau each had 3,084 restricted stock units; Dr. Chun had 8,877 restricted stock units; Admiral Fargo had 12,822 restricted stock units; and Mr. Watanabe had 15,400 restricted stock units.

(2)

Options have not been granted to directors since 2007.  No directors had any stock options awards outstanding at the end of 2017.

(3)

Represents dividend equivalent amounts payable upon vesting of restricted stock units and, in the case of Mr. Dods, also includes the appraised value of $15,000 for a painting from Matson’s surplus collection given to Mr. Dods upon his retirement from the Board of Directors.

For 2017, non-employee directors received cash retainers as follows, all of which were pro-rated and paid quarterly.  All non-employee directors other than Mr. Dods received an annual cash retainer of $70,000 for their service on the Board.

12


 

Table of Contents

Mr. Dods received a pro-rated cash retainer of $43,767 for serving as non-executive Chairman of the Board for a portion of the year. Mr. Watanabe received a pro-rated cash retainer of $22,500 for serving as Lead Independent Director for a portion of the year. Ms. Lau received an annual cash retainer of $19,000 for serving as Chair of the Audit Committee.  All other Audit Committee members received an annual cash retainer of $9,000. Dr. Chun received an annual cash retainer of $12,500 for serving as Chair of the Compensation Committee.  All other Compensation Committee members received an annual cash retainer of $7,500. Mr. Watanabe received an annual cash retainer of $11,000 for serving as Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.  All other Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee members received an annual cash retainer of $6,000.  For any telephonic or in-person board meetings in excess of seven meetings, a per meeting fee of $1,500 was paid to each director who attended such meetings.  Directors who are employees of Matson or its subsidiaries did not receive compensation for serving as directors.  Non-employee directors may defer half or all of their annual cash retainer and meeting fees until retirement or until a later date they may select; Ms. Lau deferred all of her annual cash retainer and meeting fees in 2017.

Under the terms of the 2016 Incentive Compensation Plan, an automatic grant of approximately $100,000 in restricted stock units was awarded to each director who is elected or reelected as a non-employee director at each Annual Meeting of Shareholders.  These awards have 100% cliff vesting on the earlier of the grant date anniversary or the next annual shareholders meeting following the date of the grant.  Non-employee directors may defer all or a portion of their vested shares until cessation of board service or the fifth anniversary of the award date, whichever is earlier. Mr. Watanabe elected to make such a deferral in 2017.

Directors have business travel accident coverage of $200,000 for themselves and $50,000 for their spouses while accompanying directors on Matson business.  They also may participate in the Company’s matching gifts program for employees, in which the Company matches contributions to qualified cultural and educational organizations up to a maximum of $3,000 annually.

Director Share Ownership Guidelines

The Board has a Share Ownership Guideline Policy that encourages each non-employee director to own Matson common stock (including restricted stock units) with a value of five times the amount of the current cash retainer within five years of becoming a director.  All non-employee directors have met the established guidelines.

Communications with Directors

Shareholders and other interested parties may contact any of the directors, or the independent directors as a group, by mailing correspondence “c/o Matson Law Department” to Matson’s corporate offices at 555 12th Street, Oakland, California 94607.  The Law Department will forward such correspondence to the appropriate director(s).  However, the Law Department reserves the right not to forward any offensive or otherwise inappropriate materials.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS

The following table lists the names and addresses of the only shareholders known by Matson to have owned beneficially more than five percent of Matson’s common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2017, the number of shares they beneficially own, and the percentage of outstanding shares such ownership represents, based upon the most recent reports filed with the SEC.  Except as indicated in the footnotes, such shareholders have sole voting and dispositive power over shares they beneficially own.

 

 

 

 

 

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

    

Amount of
Beneficial Ownership

    

Percent of
Class

BlackRock, Inc.
55 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10055

 

5,885,662 

(a)  

13.85 

 

 

 

 

 

The Vanguard Group
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, PA 19355

 

3,953,731 

(b)  

9.31 

 

 

 

 

 

13


 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

    

Amount of
Beneficial Ownership

    

Percent of
Class

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.
100 E. Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202

 

3,344,145 

(c)  

7.87 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc.
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 300
San Mateo, CA 94402

 

2,824,507 

(d)  

6.65 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensional Fund Advisors LP
Building One
6300 Bee Cave Road
Austin, TX  78746

 

2,579,738 

(e)  

6.07 

 

 

 

 

 

Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC
725 S. Figueroa Street, 39th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017

 

2,295,999 

(f)  

5.40 


(a)

As reported in Amendment No. 9  to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 19,  2018  (the “BlackRock 13G”). According to the BlackRock 13G, as of December 31, 2017,  BlackRock, Inc. has sole voting power over 5,806,597 shares and sole dispositive power over all 5,885,662 shares, and does not have shared voting or shared dispositive power over any shares.

(b)

As reported in Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 13G filed  with the SEC on February 9,  2018 (the “Vanguard 13G”). According to the Vanguard 13G, as of December 31, 2017,  The Vanguard Group has sole voting power over 60,702 shares, sole dispositive power over 3,893,214 shares, shared dispositive power over 60,517 shares and shared voting power over 500 shares.

(c)

As reported in Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018 (the “T. Rowe Price 13G”).  According to the T. Rowe Price 13G, as of December 31, 2017, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. has sole voting power over 661,944 shares and sole dispositive power over all 3,344,145 shares, and does not have shared voting or shared dispositive power over any shares.

(d)

As reported in Amendment No. 2 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018 (the “Fuller & Thaler 13G”).  According to the Fuller & Thaler 13G, as of December 31, 2017, Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. has sole voting power over 2,770,275 shares and sole dispositive power over all 2,824,507 shares, and does not have shared voting or shared dispositive power over any shares.

(e)

As reported in Amendment No. 7 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 9, 2018 (the “Dimensional Fund 13G”).  According to the Dimensional Fund 13G, as of December 31, 2017,  Dimensional Fund Advisors LP has sole voting power over 2,478,482 shares and sole dispositive power over all 2,579,738 shares (subject to the provision of Note 1 of the Dimensional Fund 13G), and does not have shared voting or shared dispositive power over any shares.

(f)

As reported in a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018 (the “Hotchkis and Wiley 13G”).  According to the Hotchkis and Wiley 13G, as of December 31, 2017, Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC has sole voting power over 1,867,699 shares and sole dispositive power over all 2,295,999 shares, and does not have shared voting or shared dispositive power over any shares.

CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers

The following table shows the number of shares of Matson common stock beneficially owned as of February 23,  2018 by each director and nominee, by each Named Executive Officer (as defined below), and by directors, nominees and

14


 

Table of Contents

executive officers as a group.  Except as indicated in the footnotes, directors, nominees and executive officers have sole voting and dispositive power over shares they beneficially own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name or Number in Group

    

Number of Shares Owned (a)

    

Restricted Stock
Units and
Stock Options(b)

    

Total

    

Percent of
Class

 

W. Blake Baird

 

12,499 

 

3,084 

 

15,583 

 

*

 

Michael J. Chun

 

44,576 

 

8,877 

 

53,453 

 

*

 

Matthew J. Cox

 

217,533 

 

107,660 

 

325,193 

 

*

 

Thomas B. Fargo

 

11,025 

 

12,822 

 

23,847 

 

*

 

Mark H. Fukunaga

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

*

 

Stanley M. Kuriyama

 

29,848 

 

3,084 

 

32,932 

 

*

 

Constance H. Lau

 

46,419 

 

3,084 

 

49,503 

 

*

 

Jeffrey N. Watanabe

 

15,584 

 

15,400 

 

30,984 

 

*

 

Joel M. Wine

 

93,667 

 

110,214 

 

203,881 

 

*

 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

27,277 

 

17,168 

 

44,445 

 

*

 

Ronald J. Forest

 

69,420 

 

54,166 

 

123,586 

 

*

 

John Lauer

 

11,866 

 

16,071 

 

27,937 

 

*

 

15 Directors, Nominees, and Executive Officers as a Group

 

671,319 

 

386,340 

 

1,057,659 

 

2.48 

%


(a)

Amounts include shares as to which directors, nominees and executive officers have shared voting and dispositive power, as follows:  Dr. Chun and spouse—8,363 shares, and Mr. Forest and spouse—63,042 shares.

(b)

Amounts include shares deemed to be owned beneficially by directors, nominees and executive officers because they may be acquired within 60 days from February 23,  2018 through the exercise of stock options.

*Represents less than 1%  of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as of February 23,  2018.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) requires Matson’s directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of Matson’s common stock, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC.  Based solely on a review of those reports provided to us and any written representations that no other reports were required, Matson believes that, during fiscal 2017, its directors and executive officers and persons who own more than 10% of Matson’s common stock filed all reports required to be filed under Section 16(a) on a timely basis, except that Ms. Lau filed a Form 4 on January 26, 2018 reporting the acquisition of 1,000 shares on August 30, 2017.

Certain Relationships and Transactions

Matson has adopted a written policy under which the Audit Committee must pre-approve all related person transactions that are disclosable under SEC Regulation S-K, Item 404(a).  Prior to entering into a transaction with Matson, directors and executive officers (and their family members) and shareholders who beneficially own more than five percent of Matson’s common stock must make full disclosure of all facts and circumstances to the Law Department.  The Law Department then determines whether such transaction requires the approval of the Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee considers all of the relevant facts available, including (if applicable) but not limited to:  the benefits to the Company; the impact on a director’s independence in the event the person in question is a director, an immediate family member of a director or an entity in which a director is a partner, shareholder or executive officer; the availability of other sources for comparable products or services; the terms of the transaction; and the terms available to unrelated third parties or to employees generally.  The Audit Committee will approve only those related person transactions that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The Audit Committee has established written procedures to address situations when approvals need to be sought between meetings.  Whenever possible, proposed related person transactions will be included as an agenda item at the next scheduled Audit Committee meeting for review and approval.  However, if it appears that a proposed related person transaction will occur prior to the next scheduled Audit Committee meeting, approval will be sought from Audit Committee members between meetings.  Approval by a majority of the Audit Committee members will be sufficient to approve the

15


 

Table of Contents

related person transaction.  If a related person transaction is approved in this manner, the action will be reported at the next Audit Committee meeting.

Ms. Lau, a director of Matson, is President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of HEI, as well as Chairman of the Board of American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a subsidiary of HEI.  American Savings Bank currently has a 5.38%  participation in the Company’s $650,000,000, five-year unsecured revolving credit facility.  The credit facility, including American Savings Bank’s participation, was entered into in the ordinary course of business; was made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable loans with persons not related to the lender; and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features. Ms. Lau abstained from voting when the Board approved the amendment and restatement of the revolving credit facility in 2017.

Mr. Fukunaga, a director of Matson, is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and owns more than 10% of the common stock, of Servco Pacific Inc. (“Servco”).  In 2017, Matson provided shipping services to or for the benefit of Servco for approximately $223,500.  Servco’s annual revenue is over $1 billion.  The transactions between Servco and Matson were conducted in the ordinary course of business on standard commercial terms.

The parents of Vicente S. Angoco, the Senior Vice President, Pacific of Matson, own and operate a company which provides drayage of some Matson containers in Guam.  The approximate dollar value of the payment from Matson in connection with this service in 2017  was $630,700.  The brother of Mr. Angoco owns and operates a company with which the Company contracts for chassis repair and maintenance services in Guam.  The approximate dollar value of the payment from Matson in connection with this service in 2017  was $910,600.  The brother-in-law of Mr. Angoco owns and operates a company with which the Company contracts for the provision of temporary and contract workers in Guam.  The approximate dollar value of the payment from Matson in connection with this service in 2017  was $566,700. Mr. Angoco has no monetary or other interest in any of the businesses described above.

Code of Ethics

Matson has adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to the CEO, the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and the Controller.  A copy of the Code of Ethics is posted on the corporate governance page of Matson’s corporate website, www.matson.com.  Matson intends to disclose any changes in or waivers from its Code of Ethics by posting such information on its website.

Code of Conduct

Matson has adopted a Code of Conduct, which is applicable to all directors, officers and employees, and is posted on the corporate governance page of Matson’s corporate website.  Matson intends to disclose any changes in its Code of Conduct or waivers from its Code of Conduct granted to directors or executive officers by posting such information on its website.

Executive Officers

The name of each executive officer of Matson (in alphabetical order), age (in parentheses) as of March 12,  2018, and present and prior positions with Matson and business experience for the past five years are given below.  Generally, the term of office of executive officers is at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.

Vicente S. Angoco, Jr. (51):  Senior Vice President, Pacific since June 2012; Senior Vice President, Pacific of MatNav since January 2011; Vice President, Pacific of MatNav, March 2008 – January 2011; General Manager, Guam and Micronesia of MatNav, December 2006 – March 2008; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 1996.

Matthew J. Cox (56):   Chairman of the Board since April 2017 and Chief Executive Officer since June 2012; President, June 2012 – April 2017; Chairman and CEO of MatNav since June 2012;  President of MatNav,  October 2008 – April 2017; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of MatNav,  July 2005 – September 2008; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2001.

Ronald J. Forest (62):   President since April 2017; Senior Vice President, Operations, June 2012 – April 2017;  President of MatNav since April 2017; Senior Vice President, Operations of MatNav, April 2003 – April 2017; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 1995.

16


 

Table of Contents

Kenneth J. Gill (50):  Vice President, Alaska since June 2015; Senior Director of Operations, Horizon Lines, Inc.,  June 2013 – May 2015; Director of Operations, Horizon Lines, Inc., 2009 – June 2013; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2004.

Peter T. Heilmann (49):  Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer since April 2017; Secretary, May 2012 – January 2018; Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, March 2014 – April 2017; Senior Vice President and General Counsel of MatNav since March 2014; Chief Administrative Officer of MatNav since April 2017; Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of MatNav, May 2012 – February 2014; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2012.

John P. Lauer (57):   Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer since April 2017; Senior Vice President, Ocean Services, March 2015 – April 2017;  Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of MatNav since April 2017; Senior Vice President, Ocean Services of MatNav, March 2015 – April 2017;  Vice President, Transpacific Services of MatNav, 2012 – March 2015; Director, Transpacific Services of MatNav, 2010 – 2012; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2007.

Rusty K. Rolfe (60):  Senior Vice President since June 2012; President of Matson Logistics, since July 2012; Executive Vice President, Matson Logistics, August 2011 – July 2012; Executive Vice President, Matson Integrated Logistics, April 2006 – August 2011; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2001.

Joel M. Wine (46):  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since September 2011; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MatNav since June 2012; first joined Matson or a subsidiary in 2011.

17


 

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”), Matson explains the material elements of its 2017 compensation practices for the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table on page 30 (collectively, the “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs”).  The NEOs for 2017 are:

·

Matthew J. Cox, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer,

·

Joel M. Wine, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,

·

Ronald J. Forest, President,

·

Peter T. Heilmann, Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, and

·

John P. Lauer, Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer.

Executive Summary

For 2017, Matson produced net income of $232.0 million, or $5.37 per diluted share, as compared to net income of $81.4 million, or $1.87 per diluted share, generated in 2016.  The net income and earnings per share in 2017 benefitted from a one-time, non-cash adjustment of $155.0 million and $3.59 per diluted share, respectively, as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) of $296.0 million in 2017 was modestly higher than the $290.0 million recorded in 2016.  A reconciliation of our GAAP to non-GAAP results can be found in Exhibit A to this Proxy Statement.  Matson performed well in 2017 with strong demand in the China service and higher operating results from the Company’s joint venture interest in SSA Terminals, LLC. Operationally, Matson continued to make progress on its Hawaii vessel construction program and on its Sand Island crane upgrades, both of which are expected to strengthen the Company’s market leading position and drive increased efficiency in the years ahead.

The Company’s 2017 results generally exceeded the annual performance measures that were incorporated into the Board of Directors approved 2017‑2019 Operating Plan.  Additionally, Matson’s three-year performance for the period ended December 31, 2017 under the equity compensation program exceeded target performance, as set in the 2015‑2017 Operating Plan.  Each operating plan is Matson’s tactical and strategic view of future performance, and contains a three-year projection of financial and operating results, the key elements of which are incorporated as performance targets in the Company’s incentive compensation plans, as discussed in this CD&A.

As tax reform was not taken into consideration when the various performance goals for the NEOs were set, in accordance with the Cash Incentive Plan (“CIP”), 2017 cash incentive payouts were determined without taking into account the impact of federal tax reform on the Company’s financial results.  Similarly, in accordance with the Performance Share award provisions under the 2016 Incentive Compensation Plan and its predecessors (the “2016 Plan”), the 2015‑2017 equity award settlement did not take into consideration the impact of the Horizon Lines and Span Alaska acquisitions, the Kanaloa class vessel construction, a non-trust post-retirement adjustment, and tax reform on the Company’s financial results.

Pay for Performance.  In line with Matson’s continued emphasis on managing a compensation program that links pay to performance, compensation awarded to the NEOs for 2017 performance reflected Matson’s financial results:

·

Annual Cash Incentive:  Above target performance of the overall Company goals and above target performance of individual goals resulted in payouts for NEOs ranging from approximately 134% to 139% of their respective targets.  See “Components of Executive Compensation — Annual Cash Incentives”.

·

2015‑2017 Performance Shares:  Matson’s Performance Share award plan (“Performance Shares”) is focused on multi-year performance over a three-year measurement period with vesting determined based on the average annual return on invested capital (“ROIC”) and three-year cumulative total shareholder return (“TSR”).  Extraordinary performance of the Company’s average ROIC offset by low relative TSR positioning resulted in payouts for NEOs of 153% of their respective targets.  See “Components of Executive Compensation — Equity-Based Compensation”.

18


 

Table of Contents

Matson’s Compensation Philosophy

The objective of Matson’s executive compensation program is to help attract, retain and motivate talented executives who provide strong leadership for Matson and develop and execute effective strategies that maximize long-term shareholder value.  The program is designed to be market competitive and emphasize pay-for-performance by making the majority of NEO compensation “at risk”.  This is accomplished by aligning incentive pay with the achievement of key annual and long-term operating goals, growth in shareholder value and individual performance.  In 2017, 80% of Mr. Cox’s and approximately 65% of the other NEO’s target total direct compensation was based on annual and long-term incentive pay opportunities.  The material elements of total direct compensation for Matson’s NEOs are base salaries, annual cash incentives and equity incentives.  Annual equity awards are split evenly between time-based restricted stock units (“time‑based RSUs”) and Performance Shares that are measured over a 3‑year performance period.  NEOs are also eligible for retirement, severance and change in control termination benefits and participate in other employee health and welfare programs.

All elements of executive compensation are generally benchmarked against the 50th percentile of competitive market practices.  However, market data is only one of many factors considered in determining individual executive pay, including demonstrated performance, experience in the position, scope of impact and internal equity with other executives.

In order to promote the compensation philosophy described above, Matson continues to monitor its existing pay practices, as highlighted below, to ensure that it adopts the best practices to the extent they are aligned to the business goals and strategy of the Company, as well as shareholder interests.

Promote Good Pay Practices

    

Discourage Bad Pay Practices

Change in control agreements that include double triggers requiring both a change in control event and termination of employment before any severance payments can be made.

Pay package for Mr. Cox that is in line with the Company’s peer group.

Multiple, balanced different performance metrics to determine incentive payments in annual and long-term incentive awards.

Vesting of 50% of annual equity award is tied to achievement of specified performance goals.

Share ownership requirements for senior executives and board members.

Minimum vesting periods of three years on all equity awards to senior executives.

Clawback policy that applies to all senior management.

Policy prohibiting hedging and other speculative transactions involving Company stock.

 

×No employment contracts with any executive officer.

×No guaranteed bonus payments to senior executives.

×No bonus payouts that are not tied to performance.

×No single trigger vesting of equity in change of control.

×No pension payouts that are not proportional to pension payouts to employees generally.

×No excessive perquisites.

×No excessive severance or change in control provisions.

×No tax reimbursements or gross-ups.

×No dividend or dividend equivalents paid on unvested Performance Shares.

×No unreasonable internal pay disparity.

×No re-pricing or replacing of underwater stock options, without prior shareholder approval.

 

Matson’s Continued Focus on Pay-for-Performance

Say-on-Pay Vote Frequency.  At the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, an advisory vote affirmed Matson’s practice of conducting Say-on-Pay votes annually, with over 76%  of votes cast voting in favor of a one-year frequency.

Say-on-Pay Vote in 2017.  Also at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, an advisory vote approved the compensation of the NEOs with over 96%  of votes cast voting in favor of the executive compensation program.  The Compensation Committee took these results into consideration and concluded it should continue to apply the same basic compensation philosophy.  It also determined that it should continue to look for opportunities to make improvements in the executive pay programs, as it has in previous years.

Pay-for-Performance Emphasis.  The following features of the NEOs’ compensation structures, which were first implemented in 2013, continued to be applied in the 2017 executive compensation program, emphasizing Matson’s focus on pay-for-performance:

19


 

Table of Contents

·

Performance Metrics are Aligned with Shareholder Value.  Matson’s performance-based awards are determined using the following performance metrics:  EBITDA for the Company’s annual incentive plan and ROIC and TSR relative to peer indices for the Company’s Performance Shares.  These performance metrics align with Matson’s strategic objectives for profitable growth, efficient use of capital and increasing the value of Matson’s common stock for shareholders.  The financial performance metrics used for annual cash and long-term incentive compensation are also different in order to avoid focusing the NEOs’ attention on a single performance goal at the expense of achieving other important goals for maximizing the long-term value of the Company for shareholders.

·

Multi-Year Performance Periods to Emphasize Long-Term Growth.  Matson grants Performance Shares focused on multi-year performance over a three-year measurement period with vesting determined at the end of the period based on average annual ROIC and three-year cumulative TSR relative to the companies comprising the S&P Transportation Select Industry Index and S&P MidCap 400 Index.  The three-year performance period is intended to encourage Matson’s NEOs to focus on growth of the Company and shareholder value over a multi‑year period of time.  Performance Shares granted in 2017 will not be settled until 2020 following the end of the three-year performance period (FY 2017‑19), based on financial performance during this three-year performance period.

·

No Stock Option Grants.  With its continued emphasis on granting awards that contain specific performance goals, such as the Performance Shares, Matson again did not grant stock options to its NEOs in 2017.

Compensation Decision Process

Role of the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee of Matson’s Board makes all decisions about the compensation of Matson NEOs.  The process that it follows is different for Mr. Cox from the process for all other NEOs.

Determining CEO Compensation.  For decisions affecting the CEO’s compensation, the Board has a formal performance review process which starts at the beginning of the year with an analysis and establishment of the CEO’s future performance goals.  In January 2017, Mr. Dods, in his role as Chairman of the Board, directed this process in developing the CEO’s objectives. Mr. Dods reviewed a variety of factors, including the CEO’s prior performance objectives, the CEO’s achievement of those objectives, the performance of the Company, the Company’s current Operating Plan, as well as the Compensation Committee’s independent consultant’s market analysis and recommendations of CEO pay, including target annual incentive levels and equity grants.

Following the analysis and review process, Mr. Dods received input from the Board of Directors, after which the Board finalized the CEO’s annual performance objectives.  The objectives for any given year include, but are not limited to, achieving the annual operating plan results, any growth initiatives, other strategic initiatives, and the CEO’s core responsibilities.  The objectives are documented as part of setting the CEO’s annual compensation package.

After completion of the fiscal year, an assessment of the CEO’s performance against the objectives set at the beginning of the year is conducted.  In January 2018, Mr. Watanabe performed this step in his role as Lead Independent Director. Mr. Watanabe and the Compensation Committee evaluated the CEO’s performance and provided their assessment to the full Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors discussed the results of the assessment, including the areas of greatest strength and areas where improvements could be made.  The result of this process is subsequently considered by the Compensation Committee in determining the CEO’s actual salary for the next fiscal year, payout of the CEO’s annual incentive award and sizing of future equity grants.

Determining Compensation of other NEOs.  For decisions affecting the compensation of the other NEOs, the Compensation Committee follows a similar process, but takes into consideration recommendations made by Mr. Cox.

In evaluating pay actions and the mix of pay elements for all NEOs (including Mr. Cox), the Compensation Committee reviews:

·

A summary of the value of all compensation elements provided to the executive during the year;

·

Competitive market peer group and broader industry survey data;

·

Health and welfare benefits and retirement plan balances;

20


 

Table of Contents

·

Prior compensation decisions for the past five years through tally sheets;

·

Business strategic goals and performance expectations;

·

Expected and actual Company and individual performance; and

·

Insight from the shareholder Say-on-Pay vote results.

The Compensation Committee uses the above information to evaluate the following:

·

Alignment of the pay program with the Compensation Committee’s commitment to pay for performance;

·

Consistency with competitive market practices;

·

Reasonableness and balance of pay elements as they relate to pay risk;

·

Year-to-year pay movement for each NEO to ensure it reflects any variations in annual performance and market conditions;

·

Internal pay equity with other executives based on individual performance, job scope and impact; and

·

The effect of potential future payments, awards and plan design changes on the executive’s total pay package.

Role of the CEO. Mr. Cox recommends annual compensation actions for other NEOs to the Compensation Committee.  In consultation with each NEO, Mr. Cox develops individual performance plans that serve as the basis for the determination of annual incentive awards.  After the completion of the fiscal year,  Mr. Cox reviews executive officer performance relative to individual goals and Company performance and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee about the officer’s incentive award.  In addition to performance results, Mr. Cox considers any changes in job scope, merit increase guidelines and market pay studies to recommend changes in base salary, annual cash incentive awards and equity awards for Compensation Committee approval.

Role of Independent Consultant.  The Compensation Committee believes that using an independent compensation consultant is important in developing executive compensation programs that are reasonable, consistent with Matson’s pay philosophy and market competitive.  Since the end of 2012, the Compensation Committee has retained Exequity LLP, an independent executive compensation consulting firm, to provide executive compensation services.  Exequity reports directly to the Compensation Committee and the Compensation Committee Chairman pre-approves all executive compensation engagements, including the nature, scope and fees of assignments.  Exequity advised the Compensation Committee on all aspects of executive compensation including the following during 2017:

·

Recommended peer group assessment criteria and identified and recommended potential peer companies;

·

Provided information on trends and regulatory developments for executive compensation;

·

Evaluated the size and structure of the components of Matson’s executive compensation program relative to the Company’s peer group and broader market practices;

·

Reviewed and commented on recommendations regarding executive pay, including target annual incentive levels and equity grants;

·

Reviewed compensation risk assessment;

·

Assessed Board pay levels, reviewed the structure of Board compensation, and provided recommended adjustments; and

·

Reviewed and assisted in the preparation of the executive compensation disclosure in the annual proxy statement.

21


 

Table of Contents

In the course of fulfilling these responsibilities, a representative of Exequity attended all Compensation Committee meetings during the year, participated in executive sessions of the Compensation Committee without management present, and met with management from time to time to gather relevant information and provide input in assessing management proposals.  The Compensation Committee’s executive compensation decisions, including the specific amounts paid to Matson’s executive officers, are made through the exercise of its own judgment and may reflect factors and considerations other than the information and recommendations provided by Exequity, including the executive’s role and organizational impact, experience, tenure, sustained performance over time, and internal pay relationships.  Exequity has not provided any other services to the Compensation Committee and has received no compensation other than with respect to the services described above.

Pursuant to SEC rules, the Company has assessed the independence of Exequity and concluded that no conflict of interest exists that would prevent Exequity from independently representing the Compensation Committee.

Role of Management.  Management assists the Compensation Committee in its role of determining executive compensation in a number of ways, including:

·

Providing management’s perspective on compensation plan structure and implementation;

·

Identifying appropriate performance measures and establishing individual performance goals that are consistent with the Board-approved Operating Plan;

·

Providing the data used to measure performance against established goals, with Mr. Cox providing perspective on individual executive performance and compensation amounts; and

·

Providing recommendations, based on information provided by Exequity, regarding pay levels for NEOs in 2017 on the basis of plan formulas, salary structures and Mr. Cox’s assessment of individual officer performance.

Role of Market Data.  As there are few companies directly comparable to Matson in business mix, size and location of operation, based on the recommendation of Exequity, the Compensation Committee used a combination of peer group proxy statement data and published general industry survey data as a benchmark reference in the 2017 compensation decision-making process.  This competitive market data provides only one of many factors the Compensation Committee considers in assessing and determining appropriate pay levels as it exercises its business judgment.  Other factors the Committee considers include Matson’s pay philosophy, incumbent job scope of responsibility, tenure, organization impact, internal equity, Company and individual performance, and historical pay actions.

Exequity conducted an independent review of the peer group and established the following selection criteria to develop a recommended peer group for the Compensation Committee’s approval:

·

Transportation-related companies (including air freight, airline, marine, railroad, trucking and logistics management operations);

·

Companies with similar size characteristics, including annual revenues generally within one-half to two times Matson’s annual revenue and having a market capitalization that is generally less than five times Matson’s market capitalization; and

·

Additional companies that may be outside these size parameters but have other relevant business and operating characteristics to Matson and are influenced by similar economic and regulatory factors.

Based on these factors, Exequity recommended and the Compensation Committee approved a peer group of the following nineteen public transportation-related companies (“peer group”) for pay comparisons starting in 2016 for 2017 pay assessments:

ArcBest Corporation

Kirby Corporation

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

Landstar System, Inc.

Bristow Group, Inc.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

Echo Global Logistics

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.

 

22


 

Table of Contents

Genesee & Wyoming Inc.

Saia, Inc.

Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.

SEACOR Holdings Inc.

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.

Swift Transportation Company

Hub Group, Inc.

Tidewater Inc.

Knight Transportation, Inc.

Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Kansas City Southern

 

Matson is between the 45th and 55th percentiles of this peer group in revenue and market capitalization.  Given the limited number of relevant publicly traded transportation companies similar enough to Matson’s profile to serve as meaningful comparisons, the Compensation Committee believes the peer group recommended by Exequity provides a reasonable basis for analyzing compensation for Matson’s NEOs.  The Compensation Committee will continue to collect general industry data for similar revenue size companies as additional reference for competitive market analysis, particularly for NEOs other than Mr. Cox, given the limited number of similarly sized companies in the peer group and competition for talent with other industry segments.

Components of Executive Compensation

The material elements of compensation for Matson’s NEOs are base salaries, annual bonuses and equity incentives.  NEOs also are eligible for retirement, severance and change in control termination benefits and participate in other employee benefit programs.

Base SalarySalary is intended to provide a minimum fixed rate of pay which comprises less than 35% of an NEO’s target total direct compensation.  Salary increases can be awarded in recognition of superior performance, organizational advancement and increasing levels of responsibility, as well as projections for market movement and merit guidelines established for the organization.  Generally, base salaries for Matson’s NEOs are based on the Compensation Committee’s determination of appropriate salary levels, taking into consideration peer group and survey information, Mr. Cox’s recommendations (for NEOs other than himself), the executive’s role in the organization, his performance during the prior fiscal year and relative pay position to other Matson executives.  In 2017, in connection with Matson’s overall merit program, the Compensation Committee increased the base salaries for all NEOs, including Mr. Cox, by 3% to keep up with inflation and general market practices.  Additionally, upon their respective promotions to President, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, the Compensation Committee increased base salary 43% for Mr. Forest, 5% for Mr. Heilmann and 8% for Mr. Lauer.

Annual Cash IncentivesAnnual incentives for NEOs are provided through the Cash Incentive Plan.  The CIP was designed to align performance incentives at all participating organization levels, to motivate executives to contribute to the Company’s success and reward them if they achieve specific pre-established corporate and individual goals.  These goals are established in February of each year based on the use of the metrics described below.

Weighting of Goals.  The weighting of the corporate and individual goals depends on the executive’s position and responsibilities.  The intention is to place a significant portion of the awards on the financial results of the Company, but balance that with important strategic and operating goals that have been established for the year through the individual portion.  The 2017 weighting is as follows:

Weighting of 2017 CIP Goals for NEOs

 

 

 

 

 

NEO

    

Corporate

    

Individual

Matthew J. Cox

 

70%

 

30%

Joel M. Wine

 

70 

 

30 

%Ronald J. Forest

 

70%

 

30%

Peter T. Heilmann

 

70 

 

30 

%John P. Lauer

 

70%

 

30%

 

Determination of Annual Cash Incentive Award.  Each component – corporate and individual – is evaluated against the respective performance goals.  There are three levels of award opportunities for each component:  threshold, target and extraordinary.  In 2017, the target award opportunity levels for NEOs ranged from 70% to 100% of salary, which is consistent with competitive market targets.  If a threshold goal is not achieved, there is no payout for that component.  If threshold goals are achieved, a participant receives 50% of the target award opportunity set for that component.  If target or extraordinary goals are achieved, a participant receives 100%  or 200%, respectively, of the target award opportunity for that

23


 

Table of Contents

component. Awards are prorated for performance between the threshold, target and extraordinary levels, as applicable.  No additional award is provided for performance above the extraordinary goal level.  The maximum achievable award in the aggregate is 200% of the NEO’s target award opportunity.

Mr. Cox reviews the annual individual incentive award calculations for each individual other than himself and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding payouts.  For Mr. Cox’s individual incentive award calculation, the Lead Independent Director reviews Mr. Cox’s individual performance achievement and provides the results to the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee reviews and approves all awards and has discretion to modify recommended awards to take into consideration factors it believes appropriately reflect the performance of the Company and the individual.  Such factors vary, but may include, for individuals, adjustments for an executive taking on temporary but significant responsibilities in addition to his normal job role, or for the Company or a business unit, adjustments for extraordinary or unusual events.

Company Performance.  The corporate component measure in 2017 was based on the 2017‑2019 Operating Plan approved by the Board of Directors and was weighted 100% on consolidated EBITDA performance, subject to any adjustments made to accurately reflect the Company’s 2017 performance.  Any adjustments are at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee.  EBITDA was selected as the CIP corporate performance measure because the Company believes it best reflects the annual operating results of business execution and profitability levels.  The Company believes that EBITDA is a critical annual operating performance measure and, in combination with the multi-year performance measures of ROIC and TSR (described below in “Performance Shares”), provides focus and alignment with shareholder interests.

Annual incentive goals at threshold, target and extraordinary (maximum) are approved by the Compensation Committee in February of each year. The 2017 annual corporate and business unit targets reflected the Company’s Board‑approved Operating Plan.  When establishing the Operating Plan, management and the Board of Directors consider the historical performance of the Company, external elements such as economic conditions and competitive factors and Company capabilities.  In 2017, the Compensation Committee set threshold performance at 90% of plan target and extraordinary performance at 120% of target for EBITDA results.  The threshold and extraordinary goals were determined on the basis of the level of difficulty in achieving the target objective as well as establishing a reasonable range of performance variability around the Operating Plan target.

For determination of CIP award levels for 2017, the Company’s operating performance was compared to the performance goals approved by the Compensation Committee in February 2017.  Corporate goals and the actual result were as follows:

Company Performance Results Related to the 2017 CIP

Corporate Goal

    

Threshold

    

Target

    

Extraordinary

    

Actual

EBITDA (000s)

 

$

257,670 

 

$

286,300 

 

$

343,560 

 

$

296,037 

 

Individual Performance.  In addition to the corporate performance goal, 30% of each NEO’s 2017 award under the CIP was based on achieving individual goals, which reflect the NEO’s position in the Company and the activities of the NEO’s business function.  Individual goals contain performance metrics and are reviewed by the Compensation Committee each year. Performance against individual goals is assessed at threshold, target and extraordinary levels; achievement of some but not all individual goals can result in a partial payout.  The primary individual NEO goals are listed below.

 

 

 

NEO

    

Individual Goals

Matthew J. Cox

 

Perform core CEO responsibilities effectively

 

 

Hawaii service vessel transition

 

 

Achieve Guam service strategic initiatives

 

 

Achieve Company’s cost reduction and margin improvement initiatives

 

 

 

Joel M. Wine

 

Perform core CFO responsibilities effectively

 

 

Implement effective planning and forecasting department organizational and process improvements

 

 

Lead strategic growth initiatives and other critical initiatives within the Company

 

 

Manage and improve the Company’s debt capital structure

 

 

Achieve Company’s cost reduction and margin improvement initiatives

 

 

 

 

24


 

Table of Contents

Ronald J. Forest

 

Achieve operations expense and income objectives

 

 

Achieve capital plan, dry-dock plan, vessel maintenance & repair plan and hull & machinery insurance reserve objectives

 

 

Achieve service objectives

Manage Company’s new vessel program

Lead Company’s steamship recycling strategy

Achieve Company’s cost reduction and margin improvement initiatives

 

 

 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

Oversee resolution of government investigations, general claims & litigation matters and mitigate future litigation risks through compliance

 

 

Manage and oversee legal aspects of significant corporate initiatives

 

 

Perform core Corporate Secretary responsibilities effectively

 

 

Oversee general regulatory compliance and the Company’s efforts related to the Jones Act

Achieve Company’s cost reduction and margin improvement initiatives

 

 

 

John P. Lauer

 

Achieve Guam market share objectives

Implement Alaska freight forwarder strategy

 

 

Improve forecasting process and accuracy

 

 

Develop commercial strategic initiatives

 

 

Achieve Company’s cost reduction and margin improvement initiatives

Total Performance for 2017.  Actual CIP awards earned versus target averaged approximately 136%  of the overall targeted goal payouts and were as follows:

2017 CIP Payouts for NEOs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEO

    

2017
Target
Award

    

Actual
Award for
2017

    

% of
Target

    

Corporate
Performance

    

Corporate Component
Payout (1)
(70% Weighting)

    

Overall
Individual
Performance
Rating

    

Individual

Component
Payout
(30% Weighting)

Matthew J. Cox

 

$

772,500 

 

$

1,044,033 

 

135 

%  

103.4 

%  

$

632,678 

 

Slightly Below
Extraordinary

 

$

411,356 

Joel M. Wine

 

$

350,737 

 

$

481,911 

 

137 

%  

103.4 

%  

$

287,254 

 

Slightly Below
Extraordinary

 

$

194,657 

Ronald J. Forest

 

$

350,000 

 

$

467,776 

 

134 

%  

103.4 

%  

$

286,650 

 

Slightly Below
Extraordinary

 

$

181,126 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

$

280,000 

 

$

387,870 

 

139 

%  

103.4 

%  

$

229,320 

 

Slightly Below
Extraordinary

 

$

158,550 

John P. Lauer

 

$

248,500 

 

$

337,712 

 

136 

%  

103.4 

%  

$

203,522 

 

Slightly Below
Extraordinary

 

$

134,190 


(1)

103.4% consolidated EBITDA performance resulted in a 117.0% corporate component payout.

Equity-Based Compensation: The equity portion of the total compensation program is designed to:

·

Align management and shareholder interests;

·

Provide incentive to achieve strategic operating goals and increase shareholder value over the longer-term; and

·

Motivate and retain Matson’s executives.

Performance Shares.  In 2017, Matson continued the use of Performance Share awards focused on multi-year performance over a three-year measurement period.  Settlement of the Performance Shares granted in 2017 is determined after the end of the three-year performance period (i.e., December 31, 2019).  The actual number of shares that vest is based on Matson’s three-year annual average ROIC performance against pre-established goals approved by the Compensation Committee in January 2017 (the primary performance measure) and Matson’s TSR as measured against the S&P Transportation Select Industry Index and S&P MidCap 400 Index over the three-year period (the performance modifier).  The total number of Performance Shares earned may range from zero to 200% of the target grant size based on the Company’s primary performance measure results and then that percentage is further adjusted +/- 25% based on the TSR performance

25


 

Table of Contents

modifier results.  No Performance Shares will vest sooner than three years from the date of grant except in connection with the occurrence of a change in control of the ownership of Matson under certain circumstances.

On December 31, 2017, the performance period for the 2015‑2017 Performance Share grant ended.  For determination of the Performance Share award levels, the Company’s ROIC and TSR performance were compared to the performance goals approved by the Compensation Committee in January 2015.  ROIC is defined as (1) net income after-tax plus (2) after-tax interest expense divided by (3) average debt plus average total shareholders’ equity, subject to any adjustments made to accurately reflect the Company’s performance.  Any adjustments are at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee.  2015‑2017 ROIC performance excludes any financial impact related to the Horizon Lines and Span Alaska acquisitions, the Kanaloa class vessel construction, a non-trust post-retirement adjustment, and tax reform in accordance with the terms of the Performance Share award provisions.  Corporate goals and the actual results were as follows:

Company Performance Results Related to the 2015‑2017 Performance Share Awards

Corporate Goals

    

Threshold

    

Target

    

Extraordinary

    

Actual

3‑Year Average ROIC

 

9.6%

  

12.0%

  

14.4%

  

14.4% 

3‑Year Relative TSR – MidCap 400

 

25th

 

50th

 

75th

 

19th

3‑Year Relative TSR – Transportation

 

25th

 

50th

 

75th

 

28th

 

Settlement of 2015‑2017 Performance Share Grant.  Actual Performance Share awards earned versus target were 152.9%, as follows:

2015‑2017 Performance Share Award Settlement for NEOs

NEO

    

2015‑2017
Target
Award (#)

    

ROIC
Performance

    

ROIC
Payout
%

    

TSR
Performance

    

TSR Modifier %
Applied to
ROIC
Payout %

    

2015‑2017
Actual
Award (#)

Matthew J. Cox

 

33,104 

 

119.7 

%  

199 

%  

19th/28th

 

‑23 

%  

50,617 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel M. Wine

 

8,276 

 

119.7 

%  

199 

%  

19th/28th

 

‑23 

%  

12,655 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronald J. Forest

 

4,138 

 

119.7 

%  

199 

%  

19th/28th

 

‑23 

%  

6,328 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

5,518 

 

119.7 

%  

199 

%  

19th/28th

 

23

%  

8,438 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John P. Lauer

 

4,138 

 

119.7 

%  

199 

%  

19th/28th

 

‑23 

%  

6,328 

 

Pursuant to the vesting provisions of the 2015‑2017 Performance Share grants, time-based vesting of the awards occurred on January 28, 2018, while approval of the performance results associated with the awards took place on January 24, 2018.  Therefore, the awards are included in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End table of this Proxy Statement.

Restricted Stock Units.  In 2017, the Company granted time-based RSUs to the NEOs.  Time-based RSU grants align participant interests directly with shareholders and are intended to focus the efforts of executives on improving long‑term stock price performance, increasing executive beneficial share ownership and strengthening retention of participants through a three-year vesting period, prorated on the basis of the number of full or partial months employed during the vesting period.

Equity-based grants are generally considered and granted annually in January by the Compensation Committee. Mr. Cox makes recommendations for each NEO (other than himself) to the Compensation Committee, which retains full discretion to set the grant amount.  In determining the type and size of a grant to an executive officer, the Compensation Committee generally considers, among other things:

·

Company and individual performance;

·

The executive officer’s current and expected future contributions to the Company;

26


 

Table of Contents

·

Effect of a potential award on total compensation and pay philosophy;

·

Internal pay equity relationships;

·

Competitive market data;

·

Potential dilutive impact on shareholders and available share pool; and

·

Size and potential value of recent equity grants outstanding.

Standard equity grants were made to executives at Matson’s  January 2017 Compensation Committee meeting and NEO grants were allocated 50/50 between Performance Shares and time-based RSUs.  In recognition of their respective promotions, Messrs. Forest, Heilmann and Lauer were granted additional equity in April 2017, also allocated 50/50 between Performance Shares and time-based RSUs.

2017 Equity Awards for NEOs

 

 

Annual Equity Award(1)

 

 

NEO

    

Performance
Shares

    

Time–Based
RSUs

    

Total Equity Value

Matthew J. Cox

 

$

1,200,000 

 

$

1,200,000 

 

$

2,400,000 

Joel M. Wine

 

$

300,000 

 

$

300,000 

 

$

600,000 

Ronald J. Forest

 

$

300,000 

 

$

300,000 

 

$

600,000 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

$

250,000 

 

$

250,000 

 

$

500,000 

John P. Lauer

 

$

250,000 

 

$

250,000 

 

$

500,000 


(1)

January awards totaled $300,000 for Mr. Forest, $400,000 for Mr. Heilmann, and $300,000 for Mr. Lauer. April awards totaled $300,000 for Mr. Forest, $100,000 for Mr. Heilmann, and $200,000 for Mr. Lauer.

Combination of Total Direct Pay ElementsThe Company’s combination of pay elements for its NEOs is designed to place the emphasis on incentive compensation, while at the same time focusing on long-term talent retention and maintaining a balanced program to ensure an appropriate relationship between pay and risk.  The Compensation Committee believes this is consistent with one of its key compensation objectives, which is to align management and shareholder interests.

Percentage of Target Total Direct Compensation Provided by Each Pay Element for 2017

 

 

2017 Pay Elements

NEO

    

Salary

    

Annual
Incentives

    

Long-Term
Incentives

Matthew J. Cox

 

20%

 

20%

 

60%

Joel M. Wine

 

35%

 

24%

 

41%

Ronald J. Forest

 

35%

 

24%

 

41%

Peter T. Heilmann

 

34%

 

24%

 

42%

John P. Lauer

 

34%

 

24%

 

42%

 

Retirement BenefitsMatson provides various benefit plans to meet the retirement needs of all employees, including NEOs.  Retirement plans are an important part of the Company’s total compensation program designed to provide executives with the ability to plan for their future while keeping them focused on Matson’s present success.  The Pension Benefits for 2017 table of this Proxy Statement provides a more detailed description and estimated values for each of the NEOs related to the Retirement Plan for Employees of Matson and Matson Excess Benefits Plan.  The basic objective of these plans is to provide long-term eligible employees with retirement benefits proportional to their cash-based compensation from Matson.

Matson Individual Deferred Compensation and Profit Sharing Plan:  The Company has a tax-qualified defined contribution retirement plan (the “Profit Sharing Retirement Plan”) available to all salaried non-bargaining unit employees.  In 2010, the Company suspended the profit sharing component of this plan and replaced it with a cash-based profit sharing incentive program, with an award of zero to three percent of eligible base salary.  This component provides for discretionary contributions to participants’ retirement savings account of up to three percent of compensation based on the degree of achievement of income before taxes as established in the Company’s annual Board-approved Operating Plan.  The resulting payout percentage for 2017 was 2.6%.  The Individual Deferred Compensation (401(k)) component of the Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, available to all salaried non-bargaining unit employees, provides for a discretionary match of the

27


 

Table of Contents

compensation deferred by a participant during the fiscal year. The matching contribution for 2017 applicable to most participants, including all of the NEOs, was 100% of a participant’s deferrals up to 3.0% of eligible compensation.  The value of the Company’s 2017 Individual Deferred Compensation matching contributions for NEOs is included in the Summary Compensation Table of this Proxy Statement.

Retiree Health and Welfare Plan:  The Company provides NEOs with the same retiree medical and life insurance benefits as are provided in general to all salaried non-bargaining unit employees.  These benefits are limited to only those employees (including NEOs) who joined the Company prior to January 1, 2008.  These benefits aid in retaining long-term service employees and provide for health care costs in retirement.  The Company limits its contribution towards the monthly premium, based on the employee’s age and years of service.  The benefits from this plan are reflected in the “Other Potential Post-Employment Payments” section of this Proxy Statement.  The plan was amended effective January 1, 2012 to allow for the continued eligibility under the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan for employees hired prior to January 1, 2008.

No Perquisites:  The Company provides no perquisites to the NEOs, with the exception of Company-provided parking.  The cost of parking in 2017 was substantially less than $10,000 for each NEO.

Severance Plan and Change in Control AgreementsThe Company maintains the Matson Executive Severance Plan (the “Severance Plan”) that covers each of the NEOs.  The Company has entered into change in control agreements (“Change in Control Agreements”) with all NEOs to retain talent during transitions due to a change in control of the ownership of the Company or other covered event, and to provide a competitive pay package.  Change in Control Agreements promote the continuation of management to ensure a smooth transition.  The Compensation Committee designed the agreement to provide a competitively structured program, and yet be conservative overall in the amounts of potential benefits.  The Compensation Committee’s decisions regarding other compensation elements are affected by the potential benefits under these arrangements, as the Compensation Committee considers how the terms of these arrangements and the other pay components interrelate.  These agreements and the Severance Plan are described in further detail in the “Other Potential Post-Employment Payments” section of this Proxy Statement.

CEO Pay Ratio

As a result of the recently adopted rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Company is required to disclose the CEO to median employee pay ratio.  The methodology management applied to determine the ratio is in accordance with the SEC’s guidance pursuant to Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K as detailed below.

Matson identified the median employee using total taxable wages as reported in Box 1 of the W‑2 for all employees employed on December 31, 2017.  As the Company’s total combined employee population in China (approximately 80 employees) and New Zealand (approximately 45 employees) totaled less than five percent of the global employee population (approximately 2,550 full-time, part-time and on-call employees), these foreign pay levels were excluded from the process used to determine the median employee.  For permanent employees newly hired in calendar 2017, total taxable wages were annualized for the year.

In determining the Summary Compensation Table Amount of pay for both Mr. Cox and the median employee, management employed the same methodology used for NEOs as set forth in the 2017 Summary Compensation Table of this Proxy Statement.  The Company’s contribution to employee health plans was also included.  As illustrated below, using the Total Pay amounts, Matson’s  2017 CEO to median employee pay ratio is 44:1.

CEO to Median Employee Pay Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Summary
Compensation
Table Amount

  

+

  

Company
Contributions
to Health Plans

  

=

  

Total Pay

CEO

 

$

4,446,440 

 

 

 

$

30,781 

 

 

 

$

4,477,221 

Median Employee

 

$

81,490 

 

 

 

$

20,478 

 

 

 

$

101,968 

 

Tax and Accounting Considerations

In evaluating the compensation structure, the Compensation Committee considers tax and accounting treatment, balancing the effects on the individual and the Company.  The Compensation Committee considers, among other items, deductibility of executive compensation, as limited by Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Our compensation

28


 

Table of Contents

program for 2017 was designed to allow our Compensation Committee to grant awards and pay compensation that was intended to be eligible for deductibility under Section 162(m) if certain conditions are met, though the Compensation Committee reserves the right to pay compensation not intended to comply with the provisions and limitations of Section 162(m).  The Compensation Committee will continue to evaluate program designs and the ability to maximize compensation tax deductibility in the future, taking into account recent developments, including the legislative amendments to Section 162(m).

Policies and Practices

Share Ownership Guidelines:  To enhance shareholder alignment and ensure commitment to longer-term decision‑making that enhances shareholder value, the Company has share ownership guidelines.  Executives are required to own a value of stock equal to the salary multiple below within a five-year period:

 

 

 

Position

    

Salary Multiple

Chairman & CEO

 

5X

Other NEOs

 

3X

 

Messrs. Cox, Wine and Forest have met their respective requirements.  The measurement periods for Messrs. Heilmann and Lauer started in 2014 and 2015, respectively, in connection with their promotions to executive officers, and they are on track to meet this requirement within the prescribed five-year period.

Equity Granting Policy: Equity awards are typically granted for current employees at the same time of year at the January Compensation Committee meeting, and the meeting is generally scheduled on the fourth Wednesday of the month. Equity grants for new hires or promoted employees are approved at regularly scheduled Compensation Committee meetings, which meetings are scheduled approximately 8‑12 months in advance of the meeting date.  The timing of these grants is made without regard to anticipated earnings or other major announcements by the Company.  For any outstanding stock options granted by the Company, the exercise price for stock option grants is the closing price on the date of the grant.

Policy Regarding Speculative Transactions and Hedging:  The Company has adopted a formal policy prohibiting directors, officers and employees from (i) entering into speculative transactions, such as trading in options, warrants, puts and calls or similar instruments involving Matson stock, or (ii) hedging or monetization transactions involving Matson stock.

Policy Regarding Recoupment of Certain Compensation:  The Company has adopted a formal “clawback” policy for senior management, including all NEOs.  Pursuant to such policy, the Company will seek to recoup certain incentive compensation, including cash bonuses and equity awards based upon the achievement of financial performance metrics, from executives in the event that the Company is required to restate its consolidated financial statements.

Compensation Risk Assessment:  Matson conducted a detailed compensation risk assessment and concluded that the risks arising from the Company’s compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the CD&A section of this Proxy Statement with management and, based on these discussions and review, it has recommended to the Board of Directors that the CD&A disclosure be included in this Proxy Statement.

The foregoing report is submitted by Dr. Chun (Chairman), Mr. Baird and Mr. Watanabe.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No member of the Compensation Committee is, or was during or prior to fiscal 2017, an officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.  None of the Company’s executive officers serves or served as a director or member of the compensation committee of another entity where an executive officer of such other entity serves or served as a director or member of the Compensation Committee of the Company.

29


 

Table of Contents

Summary Compensation Table

The following table summarizes the compensation paid by Matson to the NEOs in 2017, 2016 and 2015:

2017 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

Change in

    

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonqualified

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Equity

 

Deferred

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock

 

Option

 

Incentive Plan

 

Compensation

 

All Other

 

 

Name and

 

 

 

Salary

 

Bonus

 

Awards

 

Awards

 

Compensation

 

Earnings

 

Compensation

 

Total

Principal Position

 

Year

 

($)

 

($)

 

($)(1)

 

($)(2)

 

($)(3)

 

($)(4)

 

($)

 

($)

(a)

 

(b)

 

(c)

 

(d)

 

(e)

 

(f)

 

(g)

 

(h)

 

(i)

 

(j)

Matthew J. Cox

 

2017

 

766,442 

 

— 

 

2,412,048 

(5)  

— 

 

1,044,033 

 

140,087 

 

83,830 

(6)  

4,446,440 

Chairman and Chief Executive

 

2016

 

725,591 

 

— 

 

2,801,915 

 

— 

 

354,375 

 

187,192 

 

65,651 

 

4,134,724 

Officer 

 

2015

 

665,372 

 

— 

 

2,400,040 

 

— 

 

1,232,153 

 

66,775 

 

82,469 

 

4,446,809 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel M. Wine

 

2017

 

497,124 

 

— 

 

603,030 

(5)  

— 

 

481,911 

 

68,058 

 

36,990 

(6)  

1,687,113 

Senior Vice President and Chief

 

2016

 

482,699 

 

— 

 

850,540 

 

— 

 

199,204 

 

30,852 

 

25,519 

 

1,588,814 

Financial Officer

 

2015

 

477,564 

 

— 

 

600,010 

 

— 

 

651,289 

 

27,193 

 

36,693 

 

1,792,749 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronald J. Forest

 

2017

 

445,419 

 

— 

 

594,805 

(5)  

— 

 

467,776 

 

110,808 

 

29,947 

(6)  

1,648,755 

President

 

2016

 

337,427 

 

— 

 

400,315 

 

— 

 

81,613 

 

147,650 

 

16,296 

 

983,301 

 

 

2015

 

333,837 

 

— 

 

300,005 

 

— 

 

299,818 

 

31,620 

 

25,739 

 

991,019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter T. Heilmann

 

2017

 

390,928 

 

— 

 

499,874 

(5)  

— 

 

387,870 

 

44,789 

 

31,360 

(6)  

1,354,821 

Senior Vice President and Chief

 

2016

 

368,445 

 

— 

 

650,362 

 

— 

 

128,661 

 

24,799 

 

21,944 

 

1,194,211 

Administrative Officer

 

2015

 

366,210 

 

— 

 

400,055 

 

— 

 

426,112 

 

21,776 

 

28,862 

 

1,243,015 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John P. Lauer

 

2017

 

343,020 

 

— 

 

497,062 

(5)  

— 

 

337,712 

 

62,912 

 

25,083 

(6)  

1,265,789 

Senior Vice President and Chief

 

2016

 

315,810 

 

— 

 

400,315 

 

— 

 

32,225 

 

39,022 

 

13,653 

 

801,025 

Commercial Officer

 

2015

 

310,642 

 

— 

 

300,005 

 

— 

 

306,683 

 

13,394 

 

18,827 

 

949,551 


(1)

Represents the grant-date fair value of time-based RSUs and the grant-date fair value of Performance Shares (assuming the target level of performance is attained) for the fiscal year identified in column (b).

(2)

No stock option grants were made in 2015, 2016 or 2017.

(3)

Represents the NEO’s award under the CIP for the fiscal year identified in column (b) payable in cash in February of the following year.

(4)

All amounts are attributable to the aggregate change in the actuarial present value of the NEO’s accumulated benefit under all defined benefit and actuarial pension plans.

(5)

Includes the grant date fair value of Performance Shares at target of $1,212,037 for Mr. Cox, $303,019 for Mr. Wine, $294,794 for Mr. Forest, $249,819 for Mr. Heilmann, and $247,043 for Mr. Lauer.  The grant date fair value of these Performance Share awards at maximum are $3,030,111 for Mr. Cox, $757,546 for Mr. Wine, $737,004 for Mr. Forest, $624,548 for Mr. Heilmann, and $617,641 for Mr. Lauer.

(6)

Represents (i) dividends paid on unvested time-based RSUs ($56,063 for Mr. Cox, $16,089 for Mr. Wine, $10,490 for Mr. Forest, $13,074 for Mr. Heilmann, and $9,560 for Mr. Lauer), (ii) 401(k) match ($7,840 for Mr. Cox, $7,976 for Mr. Wine, $7,876 for Mr. Forest, $8,122 for Mr. Heilmann, and $6,604 for Mr. Lauer), and (iii) profit-sharing contributions ($19,927 for Mr. Cox, $12,925 for Mr. Wine, $11,581 for Mr. Forest, $10,164 for Mr. Heilmann, and $8,919 for Mr. Lauer) .

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table contains information concerning the equity and non-equity grants under Matson’s incentive plans during 2017 for the NEOs:

2017 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

All Other

    

Grant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock

 

Date Fair

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards:

 

Value of

 

 

 

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Number of

 

Stock

 

 

 

 

Under Non-Equity Incentive

 

Under Equity Incentive

 

Shares of

 

and

 

 

 

 

Plan Awards(1)

 

Plan Awards(2)

 

Stock or

 

Option

 

 

Grant

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

 

Units

 

Awards

Name

 

Date

 

($)

 

($)

 

($)

 

(#)

 

(#)

 

(#)

 

(#)(3)(4)

 

($)(5)

(a)

 

(b)

 

(c)

 

(d)

 

(e)

 

(f)

 

(g)

 

(h)

 

(i)

 

(l)

Matthew J. Cox

 

— 

 

386,250 

 

772,500 

 

1,545,000 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

6,095 

 

32,503 

 

81,258 

 

— 

 

1,212,037 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

32,503 

 

1,200,011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel M. Wine

 

— 

 

175,369 

 

350,737 

 

701,474 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

1,524 

 

8,126 

 

20,315 

 

— 

 

303,019 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

8,126 

 

300,012 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronald J. Forest

 

— 

 

175,000 

 

350,000 

 

700,000 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

762 

 

4,063 

 

10,158 

 

— 

 

151,509 

 

 

1/25/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

4,063 

 

150,006 

 

 

4/28/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

888 

 

4,732 

 

11,830 

 

— 

 

143,285 

 

 

4/28/2017

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

— 

 

4,732 

 

150,004 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30


 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

 

    

All Other

    

Grant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock

 

Date Fair

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards:

 

Value of

 

 

 

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Number of