DEF 14A
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant x
Filed by a Party other than the
Registrant o
Check the appropriate box:
|
|
|
o Preliminary
Proxy Statement |
|
|
x Definitive Proxy
Statement |
o Definitive
Additional Materials |
o Soliciting
Material Pursuant to Rule 14a-11(c) or Rule 14a-12 |
o Confidential,
for the Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule
14a-6(e)(2)) |
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
o Fee computed on
table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.
|
|
(1) |
Title of each class of securities to which 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: |
|
|
o |
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|
o |
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.: |
Notice of Annual Meeting
and Proxy Statement
March 14, 2007
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Johnson & Johnson will
be held on Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. at
the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Two Albany Street, New Brunswick, New
Jersey, to:
|
|
|
|
1. |
Elect Directors; |
|
2. |
Ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the
Companys independent registered public accounting firm for
2007; and |
|
3. |
Transact such other business, including action on shareholder
proposals, as may properly come before the meeting. |
Shareholders are cordially invited to attend the meeting.
Please note our Admission Card procedures:
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a registered shareholder, there is a box on the proxy
card which you should mark to request an Admission Card if you
plan to attend. |
|
|
|
If you are a registered shareholder and vote by the Internet or
telephone, there will be applicable instructions to follow when
voting to indicate if you would like to receive an Admission
Card. |
|
|
|
If you are a shareholder whose shares are not registered in your
own name and you plan to attend, you must request an Admission
Card by writing to the Office of the Corporate Secretary,
Johnson & Johnson, One Johnson & Johnson
Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. Evidence of your stock
ownership, which you can obtain from your bank or stockbroker,
must accompany your letter. |
If you are unable to attend the meeting, you will be able to
access the meeting on the Internet. The Company will broadcast
the meeting as a live Webcast through the Johnson &
Johnson Web site at www.jnj.com. The Webcast will remain
available for replay for three months following the meeting.
Visit the Johnson & Johnson Web site at
www.jnj.com and click on the Calendar of Events in the
Investor Relations section for details.
|
|
|
By order of the Board of Directors, |
|
|
Steven M. Rosenberg
|
|
Secretary |
YOU CAN VOTE IN ONE OF FOUR WAYS:
|
|
(1) |
Visit the Web site noted on your proxy card to vote via the
Internet; |
|
(2) |
Use the toll-free telephone number on your proxy card to vote by
telephone; |
|
(3) |
Sign, date and return your proxy card in the enclosed envelope
to vote by mail; or |
|
(4) |
Attend the meeting in person. |
Shareholders are invited to visit the Corporate Governance
section of our
Web site at www.investor.jnj.com/governance.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
33 |
|
|
34 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
37 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
47 |
GENERAL INFORMATION
Shareholders Entitled to Vote. Holders of record
of shares of the Common Stock of the Company at the close of
business on February 27, 2007 are entitled to notice of and
to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders and at any and all
adjournments or postponements of the meeting. Each share
entitles its owner to one vote. The holders of a majority of the
shares entitled to vote at the meeting must be present in person
or represented by proxy in order to constitute a quorum for all
matters to come before the meeting. On the record date there
were 2,894,964,666 shares outstanding.
Other than the election of Directors, which requires a plurality
of the votes cast, each matter to be submitted to the
shareholders requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the
votes cast at the meeting. For purposes of determining the
number of votes cast with respect to a particular matter, only
those cast For or Against are included.
Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted only for purposes
of determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting.
How to Vote. Shareholders of record (that is,
shareholders who hold their shares in their own name) can vote
any one of four ways:
|
|
|
(1) By Internet: Go to the Web site listed on
your proxy card to vote through the Internet. You will need to
follow the instructions on your proxy card and the Web site. If
you vote through the Internet, you may incur telephone and
Internet access charges. |
|
|
(2) By Telephone: Call the toll-free number on
your proxy card to vote by telephone. You will need to follow
the instructions on your proxy card and the voice prompts. |
|
|
(3) By Mail: Sign, date and return your proxy
card in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. If you sign and
return your proxy card but do not give voting instructions, the
shares represented by that proxy will be voted as recommended by
the Board of Directors. |
|
|
(4) In Person: Attend the Annual Meeting, or
send a personal representative with an appropriate proxy, to
vote by ballot. |
If you vote by the Internet or telephone, your electronic vote
authorizes the named proxies in the same manner as if you
signed, dated and returned your proxy card. If you vote by
the Internet or telephone, do not return your proxy card.
If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other
holder of record (that is, street name), you will
receive instructions from the holder of record that you must
follow in order for your shares to be voted. Internet and
telephone voting also will be offered to shareholders owning
shares through most banks and brokers.
Changing Your Vote. You may change your vote at
any time before the proxy is exercised. If you voted by mail,
you may revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted by
executing and delivering a timely and valid later-dated proxy,
by voting by ballot at the meeting or by giving written notice
to the Secretary. If you voted by the Internet or telephone you
may also change your vote with a timely and valid later Internet
or telephone vote, as the case may be, or by voting by ballot at
the meeting. Attendance at the meeting will not have the effect
of revoking a proxy unless you give proper written notice of
revocation to the Secretary before the proxy is exercised or you
vote by written ballot at the meeting.
Proxy Solicitation. The accompanying proxy is
solicited by the Board of Directors of the Company. This Proxy
Statement is being mailed to the shareholders on or about
March 14, 2007 concurrently with the mailing of the
Companys 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders. In addition
to this solicitation by mail, several regular employees of the
Company may solicit proxies in person or by telephone. The
Company has also retained the firm of Georgeson Shareholder
Communications, Inc. to aid in the solicitation of brokers,
banks and institutional and other shareholders for a fee of
approximately $15,000, plus reimbursement of expenses. All costs
of the solicitation of proxies will be borne by the Company. On
the accompanying proxy, a shareholder may substitute the name of
another person in place of those persons presently named as
proxies. In order to vote, a substitute must present adequate
identification to the Secretary before the voting occurs.
2
Electronic Delivery of Proxy Materials and Annual
Report. This Proxy Statement and the Companys 2006
Annual Report are available on the Companys Web site
at www.jnj.com. Instead of receiving paper copies of next
years Proxy Statement and Annual Report in the mail,
shareholders can elect to receive an e-mail message which will
provide a link to these documents online. By opting to access
your proxy materials online, you will save the Company the cost
of producing and mailing documents to you, reduce the amount of
mail you receive and help preserve environmental resources.
Johnson & Johnson shareholders who have enrolled in the
electronic proxy delivery service previously will receive their
materials online this year.
Shareholders of record may enroll in the electronic proxy and
Annual Report access service for future Annual Meetings of
Shareholders by registering online at
www.computershare.com/US/ecomms. If you vote by Internet,
simply follow the prompts that will link you to that Web site.
Beneficial, or street name, shareholders who wish to
enroll in electronic access service should review the
information provided in the proxy materials mailed to them by
their bank or stockbroker.
Reduce Duplicate Mailings. The Company is required
to provide an Annual Report to all shareholders who receive this
Proxy Statement. If you are a shareholder of record and have
more than one account in your name or at the same address as
other shareholders of record, you may authorize the Company to
discontinue duplicate mailings of future Annual Reports. To do
so, mark the designated box on each proxy card for which you
wish to discontinue receiving an Annual Report. If you are
voting by the Internet or telephone you can either follow the
prompts when you vote or give the Company instructions to
discontinue duplicate mailings of future Annual Reports. Street
name shareholders who wish to discontinue receiving duplicate
mailings of future Annual Reports should review the information
provided in the proxy materials mailed to them by their bank or
stockbroker.
Johnson & Johnson Employee Savings Plans.
If you are an employee and hold shares in one of the
Johnson & Johnson employee savings plans, you will
receive one proxy card which covers those shares held for you in
your savings plan, as well as any other shares registered in
your own name. If you vote by Internet, telephone or mail as
described above by 5:00 p.m. on April 24, the Trustee
of your savings plan will vote your shares as you have directed.
In accordance with the terms of the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan and the Johnson & Johnson Puerto Rico
Retirement Savings Plan, if you hold shares in either Plan and
do not vote, the Plan Trustee will vote your shares in direct
proportion to the shares held in that Plan for which votes will
be cast. If you hold shares in any other Johnson & Johnson
employee savings plan, including the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan for Union Represented Employees, and do not vote,
the Plan Trustee will not vote your shares. Participants in the
Johnson & Johnson employee savings plans may attend the
Annual Meeting. However, shares held in those plans can only be
voted as described in this paragraph, and cannot be voted at the
meeting.
Shareholder Proposals. To be included in the Board
of Directors Proxy Statement and proxy card for the 2008
Annual Meeting of Shareholders, a shareholder proposal must be
received by the Company on or before November 15, 2007. In
addition, under the terms of the Companys By-Laws, a
shareholder who intends to present an item of business at the
2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (other than a proposal
submitted for inclusion in the Companys proxy materials)
must provide notice of such business to the Company on or before
November 15, 2007. Proposals and other items of business
should be directed to the attention of the Secretary at the
principal office of the Company, One Johnson & Johnson
Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933.
ITEM 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Nominees. There are 11 nominees for election as
Directors of the Company to hold office until the next Annual
Meeting and until their successors have been duly elected and
qualified.
If the enclosed proxy is properly executed and received in time
for the meeting, it is the intention of the persons named in the
proxy to vote the shares represented thereby for the persons
nominated for election as Directors unless authority to vote
shall have been withheld. If any nominee
3
should refuse or be unable to serve, an event which is not
anticipated, the proxy will be voted for such person as shall be
designated by the Board of Directors to replace such nominee or,
in lieu thereof, the Board of Directors may reduce the number of
Directors.
All of the nominees were elected to the Board at the last Annual
Meeting and all are currently serving as Directors of the
Company. In keeping with the Boards policy on retirement
of Directors, Mrs. Ann Dibble Jordan, elected to the Board
in 1981, will not stand for re-election. Mr. Robert J.
Darretta, retired Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and
Member of the Executive Committee, elected to the Board in 2002,
retired from the Board as of March 1, 2007.
Following are summaries of the background, business experience
and descriptions of the principal occupations of the nominees.
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Sue Coleman,
Ph.D., President, University of Michigan.
Dr. Coleman, 63, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2003 and is a member of the Audit Committee and the Science
& Technology Advisory Committee. She has served as President
of the University of Michigan since August 2002, after having
served as President of the University of Iowa from 1995 to July
2002. In addition to her current position as President,
Dr. Coleman is a professor of biological chemistry in the
University of Michigan Medical School and a professor of
chemistry in the University of Michigan College of Literature,
Science and the Arts. Prior to 1995, Dr. Coleman served as
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the
University of New Mexico, Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies
& Research and Associate Provost and Dean of Research at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a member of the
biochemistry faculty and an administrator at the Cancer Center
of the University of Kentucky in Lexington. Elected to the
National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine in
1997, Dr. Coleman is a Fellow of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Dr. Coleman is a Director of
Meredith Corporation and a Trustee of the John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation. |
|
|
|
|
|
James G. Cullen,
Retired President and Chief Operating Officer, Bell Atlantic
Corporation.
Mr. Cullen, 64, was elected to the Board of Directors in
1995 and is the Presiding Director of the Board, Chairman of the
Audit Committee and a member of the Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Cullen retired as
President and Chief Operating Officer of Bell Atlantic
Corporation (communications) in 2000. He had assumed those
positions in 1998, after having been Vice Chairman since 1995
and, prior to that, President since 1993. He was President and
Chief Executive Officer of Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. from
1989 to 1993. He is a Director of Neustar, Inc. and Prudential
Life Insurance Company and a Director and non-executive Chairman
of Agilent Technologies, Inc. |
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael M. E. Johns, M.D.,
Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, Emory
University; Chief Executive Officer of the Robert
W. Woodruff Health Sciences Center, Emory University;
Chairman of Emory Healthcare, Emory University.
Dr. Johns, 65, was elected to the Board of Directors in 2005 and
is a member of the Compensation & Benefits Committee and the
Science & Technology Advisory Committee. He has served since
June 1996 as Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and
Chief Executive Officer of the Robert W. Woodruff Health
Sciences Center, Emory University; and Chairman of Emory
Healthcare, Emory University. As the Executive Vice President
for Health Affairs of Emory University, he oversees Emory
Universitys widespread academic and clinical programs in
health sciences and leads strategic planning initiatives for
both patient care and research. In addition, since 1996, Dr.
Johns has served as the Chairman of the Board of Emory
Healthcare, the largest health care system in Georgia. From 1990
to 1996, Dr. Johns served as Dean of the Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine and Vice President of the Medical Faculty at
Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Johns is Immediate Past Chair
of the Council of Teaching Hospitals, a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of the
Institute of Medicine. He is a member of the editorial board of
the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and
chairs the Publication Committee of the journal Academic
Medicine. Dr. Johns is a Director of Genuine Parts
Company. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arnold G. Langbo,
Retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
Kellogg Company.
Mr. Langbo, 69, was elected to the Board of Directors in
1991 and is a member of the Nominating & Corporate
Governance Committee and Chairman of the Compensation &
Benefits Committee. Mr. Langbo retired as Chairman of the
Board of Kellogg Company (cereals and convenience foods) in
2000. He had held that position since 1992 after having been
President and Chief Operating Officer of Kellogg since 1990. He
also served as Chief Executive Officer from 1992 until 1999.
Mr. Langbo joined Kellogg Canada Inc. in 1956 and served in
a number of management positions in Canada and the United States
before being named President of Kellogg International in 1986.
Mr. Langbo is a Director of Weyerhaeuser Company and
Whirlpool Corporation. |
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Susan L. Lindquist,
Ph.D., Member and Former Director, Whitehead Institute for
Biomedical Research; Professor of Biology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Dr. Lindquist, 57, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2004 and is a member of the Science & Technology Advisory
Committee and the Public Policy Advisory Committee. Since 2001,
Dr. Lindquist has concurrently been affiliated with
Whitehead Institute, a non-profit, independent research and
educational institution, and served as a Professor of Biology at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Lindquist served
as Director of Whitehead Institute from 2001 to 2004 and
currently serves as a Member. In addition, she became a Member
of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in April 2006. Previously
she had been affiliated with the University of Chicago for over
20 years, most recently as the Albert D. Lasker Professor
of Medical Sciences in the Department of Molecular Genetics and
Cell Biology. Between 1988 and 2001, Dr. Lindquist was also
an Investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. She was
elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1996 and
the National Academy of Sciences in 1997, the American
Philosophical Society in 2003 and the Institute of Medicine in
2006. Dr. Lindquist has received the Dickson Prize in
Medicine (2002) and the Novartis Drew Award in Biomedical
Research (2000) and in 2002 was named by Discover Magazine
as one of the 50 most important women in science. She
is a Trustee of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories and a Founder of
FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a private start-up company. |
|
|
|
|
|
Leo F. Mullin,
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Delta Air Lines,
Inc.
Mr. Mullin, 64, was elected to the Board of Directors in
1999 and is a member of the Audit Committee and the Chairman of
the Public Policy Advisory Committee. Mr. Mullin retired as
Chief Executive Officer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (air
transportation) in January 2004 and Chairman in April 2004,
after having served as Chief Executive Officer of Delta since
1997 and Chairman since 1999. Mr. Mullin currently serves
as a Senior Advisor, on a part-time basis, to Goldman Sachs
Capital Partners, a private equity fund group. Mr. Mullin
was Vice Chairman of Unicom Corporation and its principal
subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison Company, from 1995 to 1997. He
was an executive of First Chicago Corporation from 1981 to 1995,
serving as that companys President and Chief Operating
Officer from 1993 to 1995, and as Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of American National Bank, a subsidiary of First Chicago
Corporation, from 1991 to 1993. Mr. Mullin is also a
Director of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and is a
member of both The Business Council and the Advisory Board of
the Carter Center. |
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christine A. Poon,
Vice Chairman, Board of Directors; Member, Executive
Committee.
Ms. Poon, 54, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2005. Ms. Poon joined the Company in 2000 as a Company
Group Chairman in the Pharmaceuticals Group. Ms. Poon
became a Member of the Executive Committee and Worldwide
Chairman, Pharmaceuticals Group in 2001, was named Worldwide
Chairman, Medicines & Nutritionals in 2003 and was appointed
Vice Chairman in January 2005. Prior to joining the Company, she
served in various management positions at Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company for 15 years, most recently as President of
International Medicines (1998-2000) and President of Medical
Devices (1997-1998). Ms. Poon is a Director at Fox Chase
Cancer Center and Prudential Life Insurance Company. |
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Prince,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup Inc.
Mr. Prince, 57, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2006 and is a member of the Compensation & Benefits
Committee and the Nominating & Corporate Governance
Committee. Mr. Prince has served as Chief Executive Officer
of Citigroup Inc. (financial services) since 2003 and as
Chairman since 2006. Before assuming his current position, he
served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Citigroups Global Corporate and Investment Bank from 2002
to 2003, Chief Operating Officer from 2001 to 2002, and Chief
Administrative Officer from 2000 to 2001. Mr. Prince began
his career as an attorney at U.S. Steel Corporation in
1975, and in 1979 joined Commercial Credit Company (a
predecessor company to Citigroup) where he held various
management positions until 1995, when he was named Executive
Vice President. Mr. Prince is a Director of Citigroup. He
is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The
Business Council and The Business Roundtable. Mr. Prince is
on the Board of Trustees of The Julliard School and The Weill
Cornell Medical College. |
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven S Reinemund,
Executive Chairman, PepsiCo, Inc.
Mr. Reinemund, 58, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2003 and is a member of the Compensation & Benefits
Committee and the Nominating & Corporate Governance
Committee. Mr. Reinemund has been Executive Chairman of
PepsiCo, Inc. (snacks and beverages) since October 2006. He
served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo from
May 2001 until his retirement in October 2006. He was elected a
Director of PepsiCo in 1996, and served as President and Chief
Operating Officer from September 1999 until May 2001.
Mr. Reinemund began his career with PepsiCo in 1984 at
Pizza Hut, Inc. and held various management positions until 1992
when he became President and Chief Executive Officer of
Frito-Lay, Inc., and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Frito-Lay Company in 1996. Mr. Reinemund also serves as
Chair of the National Minority Supplier Development Council and
as a Trustee of the United States Naval Academy Foundation. |
|
|
|
|
|
David Satcher,
M.D., Ph.D., Director, Center of Excellence on Health
Disparities, Morehouse School of Medicine.
Dr. Satcher, 66, was elected to the Board of Directors in
2002 and is Chairman of the Science & Technology Advisory
Committee and a member of the Public Policy Advisory Committee.
Dr. Satcher assumed his current post at Morehouse School of
Medicine in December 2004 and served as the Schools
Interim President from 2004 until 2006 and Director of the
Schools National Center for Primary Care from 2002 through
2004. In February 2002, Dr. Satcher completed his four-year
term as the Surgeon General of the United States. He also served
as the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health from February
1998 to January 2001. From 1993 to 1998, Dr. Satcher served
as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Dr. Satcher served as President of Meharry
Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee from 1982 to 1993.
Dr. Satcher is a fellow of the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American College of Preventive Medicine and the
American College of Physicians. He has received numerous
honorary degrees and awards, including the Jimmy and Rosalynn
Carter Award for Humanitarian Contributions to the Health of
Humankind, the New York Academy of Medicine Lifetime Achievement
Award and the National Association of Mental Illness
Distinguished Service Award. Dr. Satcher is a Director of
MetLife, Inc., and serves on the Boards of Action for Healthy
Kids, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Kaiser Family
Foundation and Task Force on Child Survival. He also serves as
Co-Chair of the Advisory Committee on Public Issues of the Ad
Council. |
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
William C. Weldon,
Chairman, Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer;
Chairman, Executive Committee.
Mr. Weldon, 58, was elected to the Board of Directors and
named Vice Chairman of the Board in 2001 and assumed his current
responsibilities in 2002. Mr. Weldon joined the Company in
1971, and served in several sales, marketing and international
management positions before becoming President of Ethicon
Endo-Surgery in 1992 and Company Group Chairman of Ethicon
Endo-Surgery in 1995. He was appointed to the Executive
Committee and named Worldwide Chairman, Pharmaceuticals Group,
in 1998. Mr. Weldon is also a Director of J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. Mr. Weldon is the Vice Chairman of The
Business Council and a member of the Sullivan Alliance to
Transform Americas Health Profession. He is a Trustee of
Quinnipiac University and serves on the Liberty Science Center
Chairmans Advisory Council. Mr. Weldon also serves as
Chairman of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer. |
|
|
Other Information. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regulations require the Company to describe
certain legal proceedings, including bankruptcy and insolvency
filings, involving nominees for the Board of Directors or
companies of which a nominee was an executive officer.
Mr. Mullin retired as Chief Executive Officer of Delta Air
Lines in January 2004 and Chairman in April 2004. In September
2005 Delta Air Lines voluntarily filed for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee does not
believe that this proceeding is material to an evaluation of
Mr. Mullins ability to serve as a Director.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of
each nominee.
STOCK OWNERSHIP AND SECTION 16 COMPLIANCE
The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial
ownership of the Companys Common Stock owned by each
Director and each executive officer named in the Summary
Compensation Table on page 29 of this Proxy Statement (each a
Named Executive Officer) and by all Directors and
executive officers as a group. Each of the individuals/groups
listed below is the owner of less than one percent of the
Companys outstanding shares. Because they serve as
co-trustees of two
trusts which hold stock for the benefit of others,
Messrs. Weldon and Darretta are deemed to
control an additional 8,853,080 shares of the
Companys stock in which they have no economic interest. In
addition to such shares, the Directors and executive officers as
a group own/control a total of 1,023,369 shares. In the
aggregate, these 9,876,449 shares represent less than 1% of
the shares outstanding. All stock ownership is as of
February 27, 2007 (except shares held in the Companys
Savings Plans, which are listed as of January 31, 2007). As
of the date of this Proxy Statement, there are no persons known
to the Company to be the beneficial owner of more than five
percent of the Companys Common Stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
Common Stock |
|
Shares Under |
|
|
Common |
|
Equivalent |
|
Exercisable |
Name |
|
Shares(3) |
|
Units(4) |
|
Options(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Sue Coleman |
|
6,035 |
|
4,928 |
|
7,600 |
James G. Cullen |
|
70,485 |
|
23,451 |
|
31,050 |
Robert J.
Darretta(1) |
|
209,056 |
|
22,181 |
|
827,000 |
Russell C. Deyo |
|
143,956 |
|
17,870 |
|
699,000 |
Michael M. E. Johns |
|
4,912 |
|
2,575 |
|
|
Ann Dibble
Jordan(2) |
|
13,290 |
|
15,394 |
|
31,050 |
Arnold G. Langbo |
|
6,533 |
|
41,734 |
|
31,050 |
Susan L. Lindquist |
|
5,037 |
|
3,300 |
|
7,600 |
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
Common Stock |
|
Shares Under |
|
|
Common |
|
Equivalent |
|
Exercisable |
Name |
|
Shares(3) |
|
Units(4) |
|
Options(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo F. Mullin |
|
11,248 |
|
8,758 |
|
26,250 |
Per A.
Peterson(1) |
|
32,833 |
|
|
|
604,500 |
Christine A. Poon |
|
44,828 |
|
9,125 |
|
620,000 |
Charles Prince |
|
13,323 |
|
1,340 |
|
|
Steven S Reinemund |
|
5,948 |
|
1,721 |
|
7,600 |
David Satcher |
|
5,648 |
|
3,947 |
|
13,900 |
William C. Weldon |
|
282,399 |
|
31,405 |
|
1,925,000 |
All Directors and executive officers as a group(20)
|
|
1,023,369 |
|
205,342 |
|
5,999,869 |
|
|
(1) |
Retired as of March 1, 2007. |
|
(2) |
Current Director not standing for re-election. |
|
(3) |
The shares described as owned are shares of the
Companys Common Stock owned by each listed person and by
members of his or her household and are held individually,
jointly or pursuant to a trust arrangement. The Directors and
executive officers disclaim beneficial ownership of an aggregate
of 91,598 of these shares, including 30,000 shares listed
as owned by Mr. Cullen, 11,905 shares listed as owned
by Mr. Deyo, 900 shares listed as owned by
Mr. Langbo, 16,000 shares listed as owned by
Dr. Peterson, 800 shares listed as owned by
Mr. Prince, and 28,847 shares listed as owned by
Mr. Weldon. |
|
(4) |
Includes Common Stock equivalent units credited to Non-Employee
Directors under the Deferred Fee Plan for Non-Employee Directors
and Common Stock equivalent units credited to the executive
officers under the Executive Income Deferral Plan. |
|
(5) |
Includes shares under options exercisable on February 27,
2007 and options which become exercisable within 60 days
thereafter. |
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
The Company believes that during 2006 all reports for the
Companys executive officers and Directors that were
required to be filed under Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 were filed on a timely basis.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Director Independence. The Board of Directors has
determined that the following Directors, comprising all of the
Non-Employee Directors, are independent under the
listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the
Companys Standards of Independence: Dr. Coleman,
Mr. Cullen, Dr. Johns, Mrs. Jordan,
Mr. Langbo, Dr. Lindquist, Mr. Mullin,
Mr. Prince, Mr. Reinemund and Dr. Satcher. In
order to assist the Board in making this determination, the
Board has adopted Standards of Independence as part of the
Companys Principles of Corporate Governance, which are
available on the Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance. These Standards
identify, among other things, material business, charitable and
other relationships that could interfere with a Directors
ability to exercise independent judgment.
The following describes the types of transactions, relationships
or arrangements, pursuant to which the Company either made or
received payments that were considered by the Board under the
Standards of Independence in determining that the Directors
listed above are independent. The
10
Board determined that none of these transactions, relationships
or arrangements conflicts with the interests of the Company or
would impair the relevant Directors independence or
judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
Educational and research grants (Drs. Coleman, Johns and
Satcher, Mrs. Jordan and Mr. Prince) |
|
|
|
Payments related to the supply of health care products and
services (Drs. Coleman and Johns and Messrs. Cullen
and Prince) |
|
|
|
Payments related to air transportation (Mr. Mullin) |
|
|
|
Payments related to banking services (Mr. Prince) |
|
|
|
Payments related to the supply of food and beverages
(Mr. Reinemund) |
|
|
|
Charitable contributions (Mrs. Jordan, Ms. Lindquist,
Messrs. Mullin, Prince and Reinemund, and Dr. Satcher) |
|
|
|
Trade association membership fees
(Mr. Reinemund) |
All of the transactions, relationships or arrangements of the
types listed above were entered into, and payments were made or
received, by the Company in the ordinary course of business and
on competitive terms. Aggregate payments to each of the relevant
organizations did not exceed the greater of $1 million or
2% of that organizations consolidated gross revenues for
2004, 2005 or 2006. The Companys transactions with or
discretionary charitable contributions to each of the relevant
organizations (not including gifts made under the Companys
matching gifts program) did not exceed the greater of
$1 million or 2% of that organizations consolidated
gross revenues for 2004, 2005 or 2006.
Board Meetings. During the last fiscal year the
Board of Directors held seven regularly scheduled meetings and
three special telephonic meetings. Each Director attended at
least 75% of the total regularly scheduled and special meetings
of the Board of Directors and the committees on which he or she
served. A discussion of the role of the Board of Directors in
the Companys strategic planning process can be found on
the Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance in the Corporate
Governance section.
Annual Meeting Attendance. It has been the
longstanding practice of the Company for all Directors to attend
the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All Directors who were
elected to the Board at the 2006 Annual Meeting were in
attendance.
Board Committees. The Board of Directors has a
standing Audit Committee, Compensation & Benefits
Committee and Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
Under their Charters, each of these Committees is authorized and
assured of appropriate funding to retain and consult with
external advisors, consultants and counsel.
The members of the Audit Committee are Mr. Cullen
(Chairman), Dr. Coleman and Mr. Mullin. The Audit
Committee is comprised entirely of Non-Employee Directors, each
of whom has been determined to be independent under
the listing standards of the NYSE. The Committee operates under
a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors. A copy of
the Charter of the Audit Committee is available on the
Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance. The Audit Committee
assists the Board of Directors by providing oversight of
financial management and the independent auditors and ensuring
that management is maintaining an adequate system of internal
control such that there is reasonable assurance that assets are
safeguarded and that financial reports are properly prepared;
that there is consistent application of generally accepted
accounting principles; and that there is compliance with
managements policies and procedures. In addition, the
Audit Committee assists the Board in oversight of legal
compliance programs. In performing these functions, the Audit
Committee meets periodically with the independent auditors,
management, and internal auditors (including in private
sessions) to review their work and confirm that they are
properly discharging their respective responsibilities. In
addition, the Audit Committee recommends
11
the independent auditors for appointment by the Board of
Directors. The Audit Committee met four times during the last
fiscal year, plus four teleconferences were held
prior to each release of the quarterly earnings. Any employee
or other person who wishes to
contact the Audit Committee to report fiscal improprieties or
complaints about internal accounting
controls or other accounting or auditing matters can do so by
submitting an e-mail at
www.jnj.com/AuditCommittee.
The Board has determined that Mr. Cullen, the Chairman of
the Audit Committee and an independent Director, is an
audit committee financial expert under the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
This determination was based on Mr. Cullens
experience while President and Chief Executive Officer of Bell
Atlantic Enterprises, New Jersey Bell and President and Chief
Operating Officer of Bell Atlantic Corporation, where he
actively supervised persons performing the functions of
principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and
controller.
The members of the Compensation & Benefits
Committee are Mr. Langbo (Chairman), Dr. Johns,
Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reinemund, each
of whom has been determined to be independent under
the listing standards of the NYSE. The primary function of the
Compensation & Benefits Committee is to discharge the
Boards duties and responsibilities relating to
compensation of the Companys Directors and executive
officers and oversee the management of the various pension,
long-term incentive, savings, health and welfare plans that
cover the Companys employees.
The Compensation & Benefits Committees duties and
responsibilities under its Charter with respect to the
compensation of the Companys Directors and executive
officers include:
|
|
|
|
|
setting the Chairman/CEOs compensation level based on the
Boards evaluation of his or her performance; |
|
|
|
reviewing and providing oversight of the Companys
compensation philosophy and composition of the group of peer
companies used for comparison of executive compensation; |
|
|
|
approving the establishment of competitive targets versus the
group of peer companies used for comparison of executive
compensation and all equity-based plans requiring shareholder
approval; |
|
|
|
reviewing the eligibility criteria and award guidelines for the
compensation programs in which the executive officers
participate; |
|
|
|
reviewing and approving management-recommended compensation
actions for the Companys executive officers, including
setting base salaries, annual incentive bonuses and long-term
incentive awards; and |
|
|
|
reviewing and approving compensation for the Non-Employee
Directors. |
The Compensation & Benefits Committee has retained a
representative of Towers Perrin as its consultant for matters
related to executive and Director compensation. The compensation
consultant regularly provides competitive benchmarking data and
analysis to the Committee, participates in meetings of the
Committee, and reports directly to the Committee.
The Compensation & Benefits Committee also reviews the
compensation philosophy and policies of the Management
Compensation Committee, a non-Board committee comprised of
Mr. Weldon (Chairman/CEO), Ms. Poon (Vice Chairman)
and Ms. Kaye Foster-Cheek (Vice President, Human
Resources), which, under delegation from the
Compensation & Benefits Committee, determines
management compensation and establishes perquisites and other
compensation policies for employees (except for executive
officers of the Company). The Compensation & Benefits
Committee is also responsible for the administration of the
Companys performance bonus and long-term incentive plans
and is the approving authority for management recommendations
with respect to performance bonuses and long-term incentive
awards under
12
those plans. During the last fiscal year there were six meetings
of the Compensation & Benefits Committee. A copy of the
Charter of the Compensation & Benefit Committee can be
found on the Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance.
The members of the Nominating & Corporate Governance
Committee are Mrs. Jordan (Chairman), Mr. Cullen,
Mr. Langbo, Mr. Prince and Mr. Reinemund. Each of
the members of the Nominating & Corporate Governance
Committee has been determined to be independent
under the listing standards of the NYSE. The Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for overseeing
matters of corporate governance, including the evaluation of the
performance and practices of the Board of Directors. The
Committee also oversees the process for performance evaluations
of each of the Committees of the Board. It is also within the
Charter of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
to review the Companys management succession plans and
executive resources. In addition, the Nominating & Corporate
Governance Committee reviews possible candidates for the Board
of Directors and recommends the nominees for Directors to the
Board of Directors for approval. The Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee met four times during the last
fiscal year. A copy of the Charter of the Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee can be found on the
Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance.
Executive
Sessions. Each of the
Audit, Compensation & Benefits and
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committees met at
least twice during 2006 in Executive Sessions without members of
management present. The Non-Employee Directors met seven times
during 2006 in Executive Sessions, without the Chairman/CEO or
any other member of management present, at which the Presiding
Director acted as Chairman.
Director Nomination Process. The Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee reviews possible candidates for
the Board of Directors and recommends the nominees for Directors
to the Board of Directors for approval. The Board of Directors
has adopted General Criteria for Nomination to the Board of
Directors, which, as part of the Principles of Corporate
Governance, are posted on the Companys Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance. These Criteria describe
specific traits, abilities and experience that the Nominating
& Corporate Governance Committee and the Board look for in
determining candidates for election to the Board. The Nominating
& Corporate Governance Committee considers suggestions from
many sources, including shareholders, regarding possible
candidates for Directors. Such suggestions, together with
appropriate biographical information, should be submitted to the
Secretary of the Company at One Johnson & Johnson
Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. Possible candidates who
have been suggested by shareholders are evaluated by the
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee in the same
manner as are other possible candidates.
Presiding Director. The Non-Employee Directors
have selected Mr. Cullen to serve as the Presiding
Director. Among the duties and responsibilities of the Presiding
Director, as described in the Companys Principles of
Corporate Governance and as embedded in the Companys
processes, are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Agenda for Board Meetings. The Presiding Director reviews
in advance the schedule of Board and Committee meetings and the
agenda for each Board meeting (and requests changes as he or she
deems appropriate in order to ensure that the interests and
requirements of the independent Directors are appropriately
addressed). |
|
|
|
Executive Sessions. The Presiding Director chairs and has
the authority to call and schedule Executive Sessions. |
|
|
|
Communication with Management. After each Executive
Session of the independent Directors, the Presiding Director
communicates with the Chairman to provide feedback and also to
effectuate the decisions and recommendations of the independent
Directors. In addition, the Presiding Director is expected to
act as an intermediary between the Non- |
13
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Directors and management when special circumstances
exist or communication out of the ordinary course is necessary. |
|
|
|
Communication with Shareholders and Employees. Under the
Boards guidelines for handling shareholder and employee
communications to the Board, the Presiding Director is advised
promptly of any communications directed to the Board or any
member of the Board that allege misconduct on the part of
Company management or raise legal, ethical or compliance
concerns about Company policies or practices. |
Communication with the Board. Shareholders,
employees and others may contact any of the Companys
Directors (including the Presiding Director) by writing to them
c/o Johnson & Johnson, One Johnson &
Johnson Plaza, Room WH 2133, New Brunswick,
NJ 08933. Shareholders, employees and others may also
contact any of the Non-Employee Directors by accessing and
submitting an e-mail at
www.jnj.com/investor/corp gov form board.htm.
General comments to the Company (including complaints or
questions about a product) should be sent by accessing
www.jnj.com/contact us/general inquiries.
The Companys process for handling shareholder
communications to the Board has been approved by the independent
Directors and can be found at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance/contact.cfm.
Corporate Governance Materials. On the
Companys Corporate Governance Web site at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance, shareholders can see the
Companys Restated Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws,
Principles of Corporate Governance, Charters of the Audit
Committee, Compensation & Benefits Committee and Nominating
& Corporate Governance Committee, the Policy on Business
Conduct for employees and the Code of Business Conduct &
Ethics for Members of the Board of Directors and Executive
Officers. Copies of these documents, as well as additional
copies of this Proxy Statement, are available to shareholders
without charge upon request to the Secretary at the
Companys principal address.
Majority Withheld Policy in Uncontested Director
Elections. In response to the concerns of investors and
corporate governance advocates, and to provide shareholders with
a meaningful role in the outcome of Director elections, the
Board of Directors has adopted a policy on Voting for
Directors in Uncontested Elections as part of our
Principles of Corporate Governance. In general, this policy
provides that any nominee in an uncontested election who
receives more votes withheld from his or her
election than votes for his or her election must
promptly tender an offer of resignation following certification
of the shareholder vote. The Nominating & Corporate
Governance Committee will consider and recommend to the Board
whether to accept the resignation offer. The other independent
Directors will decide the action to take with respect to the
offer of resignation within 90 days following certification
of the shareholder vote. Any such tendered resignation will be
evaluated in light of the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders. The Boards decision will be disclosed in a
report on Form 8-K
furnished by the Company to the SEC within four business days of
the decision. Any Director who offers to resign pursuant to this
provision will not participate in any actions by either the
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee or the
Board with respect to accepting or turning down his or her own
resignation offer. The complete terms of this policy are
included in the Principles of Corporate Governance, which can be
found on the Companys website at
www.investor.jnj.com/governance.
TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS
For the period beginning January 2, 2006 and ending
March 1, 2007, there were no transactions, or currently
proposed transactions, in which the Company was or is to be a
participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in
which any related person had or will have a direct or indirect
material interest, except for the following:
|
|
|
|
|
A brother-in-law of Michael J. Dormer, retired Worldwide
Chairman, Medical Devices and Diagnostics Group, is a field
sales manager at DePuy UK, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the |
14
|
|
|
|
|
Company, and earned £91,700 in base salary and annual
performance bonus in fiscal 2006. His compensation was
commensurate with that of his peers. |
|
|
|
A brother of Nicholas J. Valeriani, Worldwide Chairman, Medical
Devices and Diagnostics Group, is a director of reimbursement at
the Tibotec Therapeutics Division of Ortho Biotech
Products, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and earned
$142,400 in base salary and annual performance bonus in fiscal
2006. His compensation was commensurate with that of his peers. |
Each of these transactions was duly ratified by the
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee in
compliance with the Policy on Transactions With Related Persons
described below.
Policies and Procedures. The Companys
written Policy on Transactions With Related Persons requires the
approval or ratification by the Nominating & Corporate
Governance Committee for any transaction or series of
transactions exceeding $120,000 in which the Company is a
participant and any related person has a material interest.
Related persons would include the Companys Directors and
executive officers and their immediate family members. It would
also include persons controlling over five percent of the
Companys outstanding Common Stock (currently none).
Under the Companys Principles of Corporate Governance and
Code of Business Conduct & Ethics for Members of the
Board of Directors and Executive Officers, all Directors and
executive officers of the Company have a duty to report to the
Chairman, a Vice Chairman or the Presiding Director potential
conflicts of interests, including transactions with related
persons. Management has established procedures for monitoring
transactions that could be subject to approval or ratification
under the policy.
Once a related person transaction has been identified, the
Committee will review all of the relevant facts and
circumstances and approve or disapprove of the entry into the
transaction. The Committee will take into account, among other
factors, whether the transaction is on terms no less favorable
than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third-party
under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the
related persons interest in the transaction.
If advance Committee approval of a transaction is not feasible,
the transaction will be considered for ratification at the
Committees next regularly scheduled meeting. If a
transaction relates to a member of the Committee, that member
will not participate in the Committees deliberations. In
addition, the Committee Chairman (or, if the transaction relates
to the Committee Chairman, the Presiding Director) may
pre-approve or ratify any related person transactions involving
up to $1 million.
The following types of transactions have been deemed by the
Committee to be pre-approved or ratified, even if the aggregate
amount involved will exceed $120,000:
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation paid by the Company for service as a Director or
executive officer of the Company. |
|
|
|
Transactions with other companies where the related
persons only relationship is as a non-executive employee,
less than 10% equity owner, or limited partner, and the
transaction does not exceed the greater of $1 million or
two percent of that companys annual revenues. |
|
|
|
Contributions by the Company to charitable organizations where
the related person is an employee and the transaction does not
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 2 percent of the
charitable organizations annual receipts. |
|
|
|
Transactions where the related persons only interest is as
a holder of Company stock and all holders receive proportional
benefits, such as the payment of regular quarterly dividends. |
|
|
|
Transactions involving competitive bids. |
|
|
|
Transactions where the rates or charges are regulated by law or
government authority. |
15
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions involving bank depositary, transfer agent,
registrar, trustee, or similar banking services. |
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Compensation & Benefits Committee of the Board of
Directors has reviewed and discussed the section of this Proxy
Statement entitled Compensation Discussion and
Analysis with management. Based on this review and
discussion, the Committee has recommended to the Board that the
section entitled Compensation Discussion and
Analysis, as it appears on pages 16 to 28, be
included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference
into the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
Mr. Arnold G. Langbo, Chairman |
|
Dr. Michael M. E. Johns |
|
Mrs. Ann D. Jordan |
|
Mr. Charles Prince |
|
Mr. Steven S Reinemund |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Executive Compensation Philosophy
Johnson & Johnsons executive compensation is
designed to achieve the Companys goal of attracting,
developing and retaining global business leaders who can drive
financial and strategic growth objectives that are intended to
maximize long-term shareholder value. The primary components of
employee compensation include base salary, annual performance
bonus and long-term incentives. Compensation levels are set to
reflect competitive market practices, as well as Company and
individual performance. The Compensation & Benefits
Committee of the Board of Directors has established the
following guiding principles for the Companys executive
compensation programs:
|
|
|
|
|
Credo Values All components of compensation
should foster behavior and decision-making that are based on the
values embodied in the Johnson & Johnson Credo. |
|
|
|
Competitiveness All components of
compensation should be set competitively as compared against
appropriate peer companies so that the Company can continue to
attract, retain and motivate high performing executive talent. |
|
|
|
Pay for Performance All components of
compensation should be tied to the performance of the individual
executive officer, his or her specific business unit or
function, and the Company overall. |
|
|
|
Accountability for Short- and Long-Term
Performance Annual performance bonuses and
long-term incentives should reward an appropriate balance of
short- and long-term financial and strategic business results,
with an emphasis on managing the business for the long-term. |
|
|
|
Alignment to Shareholders Interests
Long-term incentives should align decision making with the
interests of the Companys shareholders. |
|
|
|
Importance of Credo
Values |
For more than 60 years, the Johnson & Johnson
Credo has guided the actions of the Company and its executive
officers in fulfilling their responsibilities to the
Companys customers, employees, community and shareholders.
As such, each component of the Companys executive
compensation programs is designed with the Credo in mind.
Moreover, in assessing the contributions of its executive
officers to the Companys performance, the Committee not
only looks to results-oriented
16
measures of performance, but also considers how those results
were achieved whether the decisions and actions
leading to the results were consistent with the values embodied
in the Credo and the long-term impact of an
executive officers decisions.
The Committee considers relevant market pay practices when
setting executive compensation to ensure the Companys
ability to recruit and retain high caliber talent. In assessing
market competitiveness, the compensation of the Companys
executive officers is reviewed against executive compensation at
a designated set of companies (the Executive Peer
Group). The Executive Peer Group consists of twelve
companies that:
|
|
|
|
|
are similar to the Company in terms of their size (i.e.,
revenue, net income, market capitalization), industry and/or
global presence; |
|
|
|
have executive officer positions that are comparable to the
Companys in terms of breadth, complexity and scope of
responsibilities; and |
|
|
|
compete with the Company for executive talent. |
The 2006 Executive Peer Group was comprised of the following
companies: Abbott Laboratories, Altria Group, Inc.,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, The Coca-Cola Company, General
Electric Company, International Business Machines Corporation,
Merck & Co., Inc., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company (3M), PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer Inc., The Procter &
Gamble Company and Wyeth. Based on financial data reported by
each company for its most recent four fiscal quarters,
Johnson & Johnson ranked fifth in revenue, fifth in net
income, and third in market capitalization among these
12 companies.
The Committee strives to set compensation targets that are
competitive with the Executive Peer Group. It relies on proxy
statements, executive compensation surveys and its compensation
consultant, a representative of Towers Perrin, for data on
current market pay practices and trends. For base salary and
annual performance bonus, the Committee targets the
50th percentile of the Executive Peer Group. To establish a
competitive advantage in attracting and retaining key executive
officers and to emphasize the Committees principle of, and
commitment to, managing the business for the long-term, the
Committee sets total long-term incentive targets at the
75th percentile of the Executive Peer Group. Actual salary
increases, performance bonus awards and long-term incentive
awards will vary based on an individuals responsibilities,
performance and business unit/function results. This target pay
philosophy positions total compensation for the Companys
executive officers between the 50th and
75th percentiles of the Executive Peer Group.
Target Pay Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base |
|
Performance |
|
Long-Term |
|
Total |
Salary |
|
Bonus |
|
Incentives |
|
Compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50th Percentile
of the Executive
Peer Group |
|
50th Percentile
of the Executive
Peer Group |
|
75th Percentile
of the Executive
Peer Group |
|
Between the
50th & 75th
Percentiles of
the Executive
Peer Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of Executive Compensation
The Companys executive compensation programs consist of
three major components to reward and motivate its executive
officers in line with the Committees guiding principles
described above: base salary, annual performance bonus and
long-term incentives. The Committee also follows the guiding
principles to set target and actual award levels for each of
these three major components.
17
Individual performance has a significant impact on determining
each compensation component. An executive officers annual
performance is measured based on a thorough review of their
contributions to business results. Consideration is also given
to whether their decisions and actions leading to the results
are consistent with the values of the Company as embodied in the
Credo. The Committee not only evaluates annual results, but also
considers the long-term impact of an executive officers
behavior and decisions.
Base Salary
The Companys base salary program reinforces the guiding
principles of Competitiveness, Pay for Performance, and Credo
Values and recognizes an individuals scope of
responsibilities and the knowledge and skills they bring to
their role.
Annual base salaries for executive officers are reviewed and
approved by the Committee in the first fiscal quarter following
the end of the previous performance year. Changes in base salary
are based on the scope of an individuals current job
responsibilities, individual performance in the previous
performance year, target pay position relative to the Executive
Peer Group, and the Companys salary budget guideline. The
Committee uses performance grids and considers the
recommendations provided by the Chairman/CEO to assist it in
determining appropriate salaries for executive officers other
than the Chairman/CEO. For any given performance year, actual
salary increases may range from 0% to 210% of the salary budget
guideline based on individual performance. This broad range
allows for meaningful differentiation on a pay for performance
basis.
Annual Performance
Bonus
The Companys annual performance bonus program reinforces
the guiding principles of Pay for Performance, Accountability
for Short- and Long-Term Performance, Competitiveness, Alignment
to Shareholders Interests, and Credo Values. Under the
Executive Incentive Plan (the EIP), annual
performance bonuses are approved and paid in the first fiscal
quarter following the end of the performance year to reward
executive officers for individual, business unit/function,
and/or overall Company results achieved in the most recently
completed performance year. Bonus targets are set as a percent
of base salary based on job responsibility, and are determined
through an analysis of target pay positioning relative to the
Executive Peer Group. Bonus targets and maximums are disclosed
in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table on page 33 of this
Proxy Statement.
At the beginning of the performance year, each executive
officer, in conjunction with the Chairman/CEO, establishes
annual goals and objectives. Actual performance bonus awards are
based on an assessment against the pre-established goals for
each executive officers individual performance, the
performance of the business unit/function for which he or she is
responsible, and/or the Companys overall performance for
the year. For any given performance year, proposed bonus payouts
may range from 0% to 210% of target based on individual
performance. Individual performance has a significant impact on
the annual performance bonus because the Committee believes it
is a precise measure of how the executive officer contributed to
business results.
A business bonus multiplier can further increase or
decrease the executive officers bonus by up to 20%, based
on the assessment of business unit/function and/or Company
performance against key financial and strategic objectives. The
2006 business bonus multiplier for each business unit/function
was determined based on the assessment of preset goals aligned
with the following objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Objectives sales growth versus
business plan and industry competitors, net income growth versus
business plan and industry competitors, and operating cash flow
versus business plan. |
|
|
|
Strategic Objectives operational excellence
and efficiency, innovation and growth, focus on the customer and
consumer, talent development and focus on the external
environment. |
18
Annual Performance Bonus Award Calculation
Following the guiding principle of Alignment to
Shareholders Interests, the Companys executive
officers receive a portion of their performance bonus awards in
the form of Company stock as determined by the Committee. This
encourages an ownership mentality and ties more of
employees compensation to shareholder value. As determined
by the Committee, the Companys executive officers receive
15% of their annual performance bonus in the form of Company
stock and the remainder in cash.
The EIP was approved by the shareholders and is intended to
comply with Section 162(m) of the United States Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which allows the Company to
take a tax deduction for incentive bonus payments made pursuant
to the EIP to certain officers earning in excess of
$1 million. The Chairman/CEO and the other executive
officers are eligible to participate in the EIP. Under the EIP,
payments of annual performance bonuses to eligible executive
officers are prohibited unless Consolidated Earnings, as shown
on the audited consolidated statement of income of the Company,
are positive. Individual bonuses cannot exceed 0.08% of
Consolidated Net Earnings for the Chairman/CEO and Vice
Chairmen and 0.04% of Consolidated Net Earnings for the other
executive officers.
Long-Term Incentives
The Companys long-term incentive programs reinforce the
guiding principles of Accountability for Short- and Long-Term
Performance, Pay for Performance, Competitiveness, Alignment to
Shareholders Interests, and Credo Values. The programs are
designed to reward performance over the long-term and align
executive compensation with shareholder value over time.
Participation in these programs is targeted to management-level
employees, including the executive officers, who have an ability
to impact the Companys long-term results. For these
employees, long-term incentives make up a significant portion of
their total compensation.
The Company has two long-term incentive programs: the 2005
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the LTI Plan), which
awards stock options and restricted share units
(RSUs); and the 2004 Certificate of Extra
Compensation Plan (the CEC Plan), which awards
performance units (CECs) that provide deferred
compensation paid at the end of an employees career with
the Company. The CEC Plan is unique among the Executive Peer
Group and the general industry. Established in 1947, it reflects
Johnson & Johnsons commitment to the principle of
managing the business for the long-term. CEC awards may be made
to executive officers and other key managers of the Company and
its subsidiaries worldwide.
Targets for LTI Plan awards for executive officers are set at
the 50th percentile of the Executive Peer Group. Targets
for CEC awards are set at a level that brings CEC Plan
participants total long-term incentive compensation to the
75th percentile of the Executive Peer Group. As described
above, this generally positions total compensation for the
Companys executive officers between the 50th and
75th percentiles of the Executive Peer Group.
19
Long-Term Incentive Plan. Targets for LTI Plan awards are
set as a percent of base salary and actual awards can range from
0% to 210% of target, based on individual performance and an
assessment of the individuals future potential. Previous
LTI Plan grants and total equity ownership are not considered
when making annual LTI Plan grants.
Beginning in 2006, the Companys executive officers
received their LTI Plan grants in the form of a combination of
stock options and RSUs as determined by the Committee. Prior to
2006, LTI Plan awards were granted only in the form of stock
options. LTI Plan awards for the 2005 and 2006 performance years
were received 75% in stock options and 25% in RSUs. The
Committee determined this mix based on competitive market
practices and to more strongly tie long-term compensation to
growth in shareholder value.
Stock options and RSUs granted under the LTI Plan are subject to
a three-year cliff vesting schedule whereby 100% of
each grant vests on the third anniversary of the grant date.
Stock options must be exercised within ten years of the grant
date or they will expire. RSUs are converted into shares of the
Companys Common Stock on a one-for-one basis upon vesting.
Neither stock options nor RSUs earn dividends or dividend
equivalents prior to vesting.
Annual LTI Plan awards are approved and priced in the first
fiscal quarter following the end of the performance year at the
same time that the Committee reviews and approves all components
of year-end compensation. LTI Plan awards for the 2005
performance year were granted on February 13, 2006, and LTI
Plan awards for the 2006 performance year were granted on
February 12, 2007. Interim, or off-cycle, LTI
Plan awards made to new employees during the fiscal year are
granted and priced on a fixed quarterly schedule:
February 1, May 1, August 1 and November 1. In
accordance with the terms of the LTI Plan, stock options are
granted at an exercise price equal to the fair market value
(calculated as the average of the high and low stock prices on
the New York Stock Exchange) of the Companys Common Stock
on the grant date. The Company does not issue stock options with
accelerated ownership (also known as re-load)
features. In addition, the Company does not re-price or re-issue
stock options in the event that the stock price declines to a
level below the grant price.
Certificate of Extra Compensation Plan. CECs are valued
in accordance with a formula composed of one-half of the
Companys net asset value and one-half of its earnings
power value per share of the Companys outstanding Common
Stock. Earnings power value is calculated by taking the
capitalized value of net earnings per share averaged over the
previous five years. CEC unit value represents another measure
for Company performance, which the Committee believes will
approximate total shareholder return over the long-term. CEC
unit value is determined annually as of the fiscal year-end and
is subject to increase or decrease until the employee is paid
his or her CECs upon retirement or termination. Eligible
retiring employees may also elect to defer payment to a future
date and/or receive payment in installments over a number of
years.
CEC Unit Value Calculation
CECs granted under the CEC Plan are subject to a five-year
vesting schedule whereby 20% of each grant vests annually on the
anniversary of the grant date. However, CECs are not paid out to
a participant until retirement or other termination of
employment. Dividend equivalents on vested and unvested CECs are
paid in cash to participants in the same amount and at the same
time as dividends on the Companys Common Stock.
The CEC Plan is administered based on the number and value of
CECs that vest in a given year. The actual accrual (i.e.,
the number of CECs vesting in the year) is based on the
Committees
20
assessment of individual performance and the executive
officers contribution to the long-term health and growth
of the Company. The number of CECs granted is then determined
based on the number of CECs vesting from prior grants and the
additional CECs required to reach the appropriate accrual level.
Since an executive officer may already be accruing at the
appropriate level, a new grant may not occur every year.
Grants of CECs are approved in the first fiscal quarter
following the end of the performance year and at the same time
that the Committee reviews and approves all components of
year-end compensation. CEC awards were granted on
February 13, 2006 based on performance in 2005 and on
February 12, 2007 based on performance in 2006.
Executive Compensation Awarded in 2006 and 2007
Performance Assessment
Process
Beginning in 2007 for the 2006 performance year, the
Companys Board of Directors approved a formal performance
assessment process for the Chairman/CEO. The Chairman/CEOs performance was assessed based on financial and
strategic objectives that the Board believes are crucial for
superior return to the Companys shareholders over the
long-term. The Board also believes that these objectives
represent an appropriate balance of short- and long-term
objectives to ensure the Chairman/CEO is managing the business
for the long-term. Going forward, these objectives will be
reviewed on an annual basis by the Independent Directors of the
Board. The Committee determined compensation levels for the
Chairman/CEO upon the completion of, and based on, the
Boards performance assessment.
For the executive officers other than the Chairman/CEO, the
Committee based its assessment of each executive officers
annual performance on a thorough review of their contributions
to business results under the Pay for Performance principle. To
assist them in determining base salary increases and bonus and
long-term incentive award levels for executive officers other
than the Chairman/CEO, the Committee used performance grids for
the most recently completed performance year and considered the
recommendations provided by the Chairman/CEO. Individual
performance had a significant impact on determining each
compensation component.
2006 Merit Increases for
Performance in 2005
In determining and approving 2006 base salary increases for the
Chairman/CEO and the other executive officers, the Committee
assessed Johnson & Johnsons performance in 2005
versus goals identified for both financial and non-financial
factors. For the Chairman/CEO, the Committee approved a 4.4%
salary increase from $1,600,000 to $1,670,000, effective
February 27, 2006. U.S. employee salary increases for
2006 ranged from 0% to 7.4%. The Chairman/CEOs increase
reflected an assessment of 2005 individual performance versus
expectations and a target pay position relative to the Executive
Peer Group. The Chairman/CEOs 2006 base salary was
positioned at the 50th percentile of the Executive Peer
Group. 2006 merit increases for the other executive officers
were determined in a similar manner and ranged from 3.5% to 5.8%.
2007 Merit Increases for
Performance in 2006
In determining and approving 2007 base salary increases for the
Chairman/CEO and the other executive officers, the Committee
assessed Johnson & Johnsons performance in 2006
versus goals identified for both financial and non-financial
factors. For the Chairman/CEO, the Committee approved a 3.9%
salary increase from $1,670,000 to $1,735,000, effective
February 26, 2007. U.S. employee salary increases for
2007 ranged from 0% to 7.8%. The Chairman/CEOs increase
reflected a formal assessment of 2006 individual performance
against the achievement of financial and strategic objectives
and a target pay position relative to the Executive Peer Group.
The Chairman/CEOs 2007 base salary was positioned at the
50th percentile of the Executive Peer Group. 2007 merit
increases for the other executive officers were determined in a
similar manner
21
and ranged from 0.0% to 4.7%. Mr. Darretta and
Dr. Peterson both retired in 2007 and therefore did not
receive salary increases in 2007.
2006 Bonus and Long-Term
Incentive Awards for Performance in 2005
In reviewing and approving compensation actions for the
Chairman/CEO and the other executive officers in the first
quarter of 2006 for performance in 2005, the Committee evaluated
the Companys performance in 2005 versus goals identified
for both financial and non-financial factors.
The Committee reviewed details of five-year and most recent
fiscal year Sales Growth, Earnings Per Share Growth, increase in
Free Cash Flow and growth in Shareholder Value. The
Companys overall performance for the relevant five-year
period ranked in the upper half of the Companys financial
peer group (a group of competitors in the pharmaceutical,
medical devices and diagnostics and consumer products industries
that the Company uses for internal purposes) and Executive Peer
Group companies. The Company also met its goal for New Product
Flow. For 2005, the Companys overall performance was
approximately at the median of the Executive Peer Group
companies, but fell short in Sales Growth versus the financial
peer group companies. Overall, the Committee determined that the
Company performed at the median of the peer companies.
With respect to non-financial performance, management continued
to excel in the area of managing Credo responsibilities. Various
initiatives undertaken by the Company embody the principles of
the Credo by addressing its responsibilities to its customers,
employees and the community. The Committee will continue to
monitor the progress on talent management, Process Excellence
and research and development. The Company continues to focus on
developing a high performing, superior talent pool, that is also
diverse in many ways, including race, gender, cultural
background and experiences. The Company realized significant
results from various Process Excellence initiatives. Details of
the pharmaceutical and other new product pipelines were
reviewed, and the Committee determined that the Company was well
positioned for continued future growth.
The Committee met in executive session with a compensation
consultant to discuss compensation decisions for the Chairman/CEO for performance in 2005. The Committee assessed
Mr. Weldons overall current cash compensation (base
salary and performance bonus) in comparison to his long-term
compensation (stock option, RSU and CEC unit grants).
In February 2006, the Committee awarded an annual performance
bonus and long-term incentive awards based on performance in
2005. These awards, which are set forth in the table that
follows this paragraph, were based on competitive practices and
reflect the Committees assessment of both Company and
individual performance in 2005. These compensation awards were
made based upon the Committees assessment of the
Companys financial performance in the five areas outlined
above and its non-financial performance against the background
of the Credo as outlined above. These awards reflected the
Committees assessment of the Companys long-term
performance and Mr. Weldons leadership, as well as
competitive practices within the Executive Peer Group. The
Committee believed that Mr. Weldon provided outstanding
leadership for the Company in the context of a difficult
external environment, which included increased regulatory and
public scrutiny of the health care industry. In particular,
Mr. Weldon provided strong leadership in addressing the
developments that arose in connection with the Companys
proposed acquisition of Guidant Corporation. The Committee
believed that Mr. Weldon appropriately continued to manage
the Company for the long-term and preserve the reputation of the
Company in the face of these and other developments. The above
performance results were evaluated based on the overall judgment
of the Committee with no fixed or specific mathematical
weighting applied to each element of performance. Based on the
Committees judgment, compensation awards for 2005, in
total, were consistent with established targets. The 2005
performance bonus and long-term incentive awards for the other
executive officers were also awarded in February 2006, as set
forth below, and determined in a similar manner.
22
Awards Granted in 2006 for Performance in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option |
|
|
|
Stock on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Award |
|
Performance |
|
Options |
|
Exercise |
|
RSUs |
|
RSU Grant |
|
CECs |
|
CEC Unit |
Name |
|
Date |
|
Bonus($) |
|
Granted(#) |
|
Price(1)($) |
|
Granted(#) |
|
Date(2)($) |
|
Granted(#) |
|
Value($) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
$ |
3,000,000 |
|
|
|
452,520 |
|
|
$ |
58.34 |
|
|
|
37,710 |
|
|
$ |
58.34 |
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
$ |
23.16 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
|
891,000 |
|
|
|
138,841 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
11,570 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
85,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
|
945,000 |
|
|
|
205,691 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
17,141 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
|
750,268 |
|
|
|
128,557 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
10,713 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
|
762,300 |
|
|
|
113,130 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
9,427 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
32,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The grant date fair value was $12.22 per option share. The
Black-Scholes option valuation model was used with the following
assumptions: volatility of 19.6% based on a blended rate of
four-year daily historical average volatility rate, and a
five-week average implied volatility rate based on at-the money
traded Johnson & Johnson stock options with a life of two
years; dividend yield of 2.5%; risk-free interest rate of 4.6%
based on a U.S. Treasury rate of six years; and a six-year
option life. |
|
|
(2) |
The grant date fair value was $54.13 per RSU and was based on
the average of the high and low prices of the Companys
Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the grant date
and discounted by an expected dividend yield of 2.5% due to the
lack of dividends paid on the RSUs prior to vesting. |
Under SEC Rules, the Company is required to report in the
Summary Compensation Table the dollar amounts of the stock
options and RSUs, for each Named Executive Officer, recognized,
or expensed, by the Company as compensation costs
for financial reporting purposes (excluding forfeiture
assumptions) in accordance with Financial Standards Board
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123
(revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (FAS 123R) in
the previous fiscal year. The amounts that the Company expensed
(excluding forfeiture assumptions) for fiscal 2006 are reported
in columns D and E of the Summary Compensation Table, which
appears on page 29 of this Proxy Statement. The reported
stock option amounts comprise options that were granted over a
period of four years. The reported RSU amounts comprise RSUs
that were granted in 2006. The Company did not grant RSUs prior
to 2006. The tables below set forth for each Named Executive
Officer the total dollar amounts of stock options and RSUs
expensed (excluding forfeiture assumptions) in fiscal 2006,
along with a breakdown of the grant date fair values of the
annual option and RSU grants made in February of 2003, 2004,
2005 and 2006 for performance in the prior year and the portion
of each of those grants that was expensed (excluding forfeiture
assumptions) in fiscal 2006.
23
Stock Options Expensed in 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Option Grants | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Total 2006 | |
Name |
|
2/10/03 | |
|
2/9/04 | |
|
2/14/05 | |
|
2/13/06 | |
|
Expense | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
$ |
6,116,400 |
|
|
$ |
4,261,075 |
|
|
$ |
6,355,000 |
|
|
$ |
5,528,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
169,900 |
|
|
|
1,420,358 |
|
|
|
2,118,333 |
|
|
|
5,528,889 |
|
|
|
9,237,481 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
1,834,920 |
|
|
|
1,966,650 |
|
|
|
2,480,000 |
|
|
|
1,696,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
50,970 |
|
|
|
655,550 |
|
|
|
826,667 |
|
|
|
1,696,359 |
|
|
|
3,229,546 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
1,834,920 |
|
|
|
2,294,425 |
|
|
|
2,867,500 |
|
|
|
2,513,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
50,970 |
|
|
|
764,808 |
|
|
|
955,833 |
|
|
|
732,997 |
|
|
|
2,504,609 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
1,834,920 |
|
|
|
1,966,650 |
|
|
|
2,325,000 |
|
|
|
1,570,709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
50,970 |
|
|
|
655,550 |
|
|
|
775,000 |
|
|
|
1,570,709 |
|
|
|
3,052,229 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
1,495,120 |
|
|
|
1,442,210 |
|
|
|
1,937,500 |
|
|
|
1,382,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
41,531 |
|
|
|
480,737 |
|
|
|
645,833 |
|
|
|
1,382,222 |
|
|
|
2,550,323 |
|
RSUs Expensed in 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSU Grant | |
Name |
|
2/13/2006 | |
|
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
$ |
2,041,054 |
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
2,041,054 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
626,226 |
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
626,226 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
927,757 |
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
270,596 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
579,841 |
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
579,841 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FAS123R Value at Grant
|
|
|
510,236 |
|
|
2006 Expense
|
|
|
510,236 |
|
2007 Bonus and Long-Term
Incentive Awards for Performance in 2006
The Chairman/CEOs annual performance bonus and long-term
incentive awards granted in the first quarter of 2007, for 2006
performance, were determined by the Committee based on the
Boards assessment of his achievement of financial goals
and strategic objectives established in the formal performance
assessment process described above. The Board also assessed the
decisions and actions leading to the achievement of these goals
and objectives to ensure consistency with the values embodied in
the Credo. With respect to financial performance, the Board
identified several factors critical to the success of the
business, including, Sales Growth, Earnings Per Share (EPS)
Growth, Free Cash Flow, and Shareholder Return. With the
exception of Free Cash Flow, each of these financial metrics was
assessed on an annual and five-year basis. The Board also
reviewed strategic factors as part of the assessment, including,
sector diversification, shaping the external health care
environment, reputation, and talent development. When setting
the financial goals and
24
strategic objectives for 2006, the Board believed that the
difficulty in achieving these goals and objectives would be
commensurate with the compensation to be awarded upon such
achievement.
Overall, the Board assessed Mr. Weldon as having performed
very well in 2006 in a challenging health care environment, from
both a competitive and a regulatory perspective, having
delivered solid financial and strategic results, and having
prepared the Company for future growth. The Board believes
Mr. Weldons efforts and accomplishments in 2006 have
helped position the Company to achieve above-market shareholder
returns in the future. The assessment of Mr. Weldons
performance against the established goals and objectives was as
follows:
The Board concluded that Mr. Weldon met the established
financial goals for 2006. The Company maintained financial
discipline while taking appropriate risks. EPS Growth (adjusted
for in-process research and development charges and the Guidant
acquisition agreement termination fee) (10.9%) and Shareholder
Return (12.3%) for 2006 outpaced that of the Companys
financial peer group, while Sales Growth (5.6%) compared less
favorably with the financial peer group. The Company generated
$11.6 billion in Free Cash Flow in 2006, surpassing the
Boards pre-established goal. On a five-year basis, Sales
Growth (10.5%) and EPS Growth (adjusted for in-process research
and development charges and the Guidant acquisition agreement
termination fee) (15.6%) exceeded that of the financial peer
group, while Shareholder Return (4.2%) compared less favorably
with the financial peer group.
In addition, the Board concluded that Mr. Weldon exceeded
the established strategic objectives for 2006. Most notably:
|
|
|
|
|
Strategic Business Direction. Under
Mr. Weldons leadership, management made critical
decisions on acquisitions that were in the best interest of the
Company and the shareholders, investing nearly $25 billion
in opportunities for growth through research and development and
acquisitions. In particular, Mr. Weldon acted quickly and
decisively with regard to the decisions to terminate
negotiations to acquire Guidant Corporation and to acquire the
Consumer Healthcare business of Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer
Consumer Healthcare). The Board believes that the
acquisition of Pfizer Consumer Healthcare will not only provide
a solid enhancement of the Companys Consumer Products
Group, but also will facilitate the strategic objective of
greater diversification and balance among the Companys
three business sectors. The Company committed to long-term
investments in novel growth platforms, investing over
$7 billion in research and development (excluding
in-process research and development charges associated with
acquisitions) in 2006. These investments enabled the Company to
strengthen its pharmaceutical pipeline, laying the foundation
for future growth in that sector. |
|
|
|
Shaping the External Health Care Environment. The Board
concluded that Mr. Weldon did an outstanding job of
contributing positively to the overall direction of the health
care environment, with appropriate participation in trade and
research organizations, effective representation of the
Companys interests with governmental bodies, vigorous
protection of intellectual property, and actions to improve the
image of the health care industry. |
|
|
|
Reputation. The Board views Mr. Weldon as an
outstanding CEO for his integrity, open, honest, and transparent
communication with the Board, and excellent relationships with
key stakeholders. The Board believes that the Companys
reputation has been enhanced by the decisions and actions taken
by Mr. Weldon during 2006, especially in connection with
the Guidant transaction and the Companys Campaign for
Nursings Future, a multi-year public awareness campaign
designed to enhance the image of the nursing profession, recruit
new nurses and nurse faculty and help retain nurses currently in
the profession. |
|
|
|
Talent Development. Mr. Weldon personally
participated in the assessment of a significant number of senior
executives and the identification of high-potential executives
for future leadership positions within the Company. The Company
continues to monitor the |
25
|
|
|
|
|
development of a high-performing, superior talent pool with a
focus on the development of a larger pool of potential senior
executives. |
The Committee determines annual performance bonus and long-term
incentive awards for the Companys executive officers based
on total rewards, rather than on a component-by-component basis.
Based on the Boards performance assessment, in February
2007, the Committee approved for the Chairman/CEO the awards
set forth in the table that follows this paragraph. These
long-term incentive awards align the Chairman/CEOs
long-term incentive compensation with the 75th percentile,
and his total compensation between the 50th and
75th percentiles of the Executive Peer Group data for his
position. The individual objectives of the Chairman/CEO mirror
the overall Company objectives and therefore no business bonus
multiplier is applied. The 2006 performance bonus and long-term
incentive awards for the other executive officers were also
awarded in February 2007, as set forth below. Mr. Weldon
reviewed each executive officers results against the
financial and strategic objectives for their specific business
unit or function, and developed preliminary compensation
recommendations. Final performance assessments and compensation
recommendations were shared with and approved by the Committee.
Mr. Darretta and Dr. Peterson both retired in 2007 and
therefore did not receive an LTI Plan award or CECs in 2007.
Awards Granted in 2007 for Performance in 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMV of | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option | |
|
|
|
Stock on | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Award | |
|
Performance | |
|
Options | |
|
Exercise | |
|
RSUs | |
|
RSU Grant | |
|
CECs | |
|
CEC Unit | |
Name |
|
Date | |
|
Bonus($) | |
|
Granted(#) | |
|
Price(1)($) | |
|
Granted(#) | |
|
Date(2)($) | |
|
Granted(#) | |
|
Value($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
2/12/07 |
|
|
$ |
3,200,000 |
|
|
|
457,178 |
|
|
$ |
65.62 |
|
|
|
38,098 |
|
|
$ |
65.62 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.58 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
2/12/07 |
|
|
|
1,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
2/12/07 |
|
|
|
1,000,000 |
|
|
|
205,730 |
|
|
|
65.62 |
|
|
|
17,144 |
|
|
|
65.62 |
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
26.58 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
2/12/07 |
|
|
|
807,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
2/12/07 |
|
|
|
850,000 |
|
|
|
114,294 |
|
|
|
65.62 |
|
|
|
9,525 |
|
|
|
65.62 |
|
|
|
11,000 |
|
|
|
26.58 |
|
|
|
(1) |
The grant date fair value was $11.68 per option share. The
Black-Scholes option valuation model was used with the following
assumptions: volatility of 14.66% based on a blended rate of
four-year daily historical average volatility rate, and a
five-week average implied volatility rate based on at-the money
traded Johnson & Johnson stock options with a life of two
years; dividend yield of 2.5%; risk-free interest rate of 4.78%
based on a U.S. Treasury rate of six years; and a six-year
option life. |
|
(2) |
The grant date fair value was $60.88 per RSU and was based on
the average of the high and low prices of the Companys
Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the grant date
and discounted by an expected dividend yield of 2.5% due to the
lack of dividends paid on the RSUs prior to vesting. |
Use of Tally Sheets
To assist them in making compensation decisions, the Committee
reviews compensation tally sheets, prepared by management and
reviewed by the Committees compensation consultant, which
present comprehensive data on the total compensation and
benefits package for each of the Companys executive
officers. These tally sheets include all obligations for present
and projected future compensation, as well as analyses for
hypothetical terminations and retirements to consider the
Companys obligations under such circumstances.
Employment Arrangements and Agreements
None of the Named Executive Officers are covered by any special
arrangements or agreements regarding benefits or payments upon
termination. The Company offers broad-based, non-discriminatory
separation benefits to full-time employees who are involuntarily
terminated, based on level. This coverage provides executive
officers with two weeks pay for each year of service, with a
minimum of twelve weeks pay.
26
Change-in-Control
Arrangements and Agreements
The Company does not have any
change-in-control
agreements or arrangements in place for any of its executive
officers. In addition, there are no
change-in-control
provisions in any of the Companys compensation plans or
instruments.
Stock Ownership Guidelines for Directors and Executive
Officers
In 2006, the Board of Directors approved stock ownership
guidelines for Directors and executive officers to further align
their interests with the interests of the Companys
shareholders. Under these guidelines, the Chairman/CEO will be
required to directly or indirectly own Company Common Stock
equal in value to five times his or her annual salary, and the
other executive officers will be required to own stock equal to
three times his or her annual base salary. Non-Employee
Directors will be required to own stock equal to three times his
or her annual retainer, in addition to the stock initially
granted upon joining the Board. The Board may designate other
executive officers to be subject to specific stock ownership
thresholds. Stock ownership for the purpose of these guidelines
does not include shares underlying unvested stock options.
Individuals subject to these guidelines will be required to
achieve the relevant ownership threshold within five years after
first becoming subject to the guidelines. If an individual
becomes subject to a higher ownership threshold due to promotion
or increase in base salary, that individual will be expected to
meet the higher ownership threshold within three years. The
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee of the
Board will review compliance with these guidelines on an annual
basis.
Executive Compensation Recoupment Policy
In 2006, the Board adopted a compensation recoupment policy.
Under this policy, in the event of a material restatement of the
Companys financial results, the Board will review the
facts and circumstances that led to the requirement for the
restatement and will take actions it deems necessary and
appropriate. The Board will consider whether any executive
officer received compensation based on the original financial
statements because it appeared he or she achieved financial
performance targets that in fact were not achieved based on the
restatement. The Board will also consider the accountability of
any executive officer whose acts or omissions were responsible
in whole or in part for the events that led to the restatement
and whether such actions or omissions constituted misconduct.
The actions the Board could elect to take against a particular
executive officer, depending on all facts and circumstances as
determined during their review, include: the recoupment of all
or part of any bonus or other compensation paid to the executive
officer that was based upon achievement of financial results
that were subsequently restated; disciplinary actions, up to and
including termination; and/or the pursuit of other available
remedies.
Tax Impact on Compensation
The Committee has reviewed the Companys compensation plans
with regard to the deduction limitation under the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (the Act) and the final
regulations interpreting the Act that have been adopted by the
Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury.
Based on this review, the Committee has determined that the
stock option grants under the 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as
previously approved by shareholders, meet the requirements for
deductibility under the Act. RSU grants under this same plan do
not meet the requirements for deductibility under the Act.
In order to permit the future deductibility of executive bonus
awards paid in cash and stock-based incentives for certain
executive officers of the Company, the Committee and the Board
of Directors have adopted the Executive Incentive Plan
(EIP) that was approved by shareholders. As a result, all
executive bonus awards qualify as performance-based and are not
subject to the tax deductibility limitation of
Section 162(m). In addition, the Committee has approved the
Executive Income Deferral Plan (EIDP) that allows an
individual executive officer to elect to defer a portion of
27
base salary, CEC Dividend Equivalents and cash and stock bonus
awards on an annual basis. Participation in the EIDP is limited
to executive officers and is voluntary. Accordingly, any amounts
that would otherwise result in non-tax deductible compensation
may be deferred under the EIDP.
As a result of the implementation of the EIP and permitting
voluntary deferrals under the EIDP, the Company strives to
maximize the tax deduction available under Section 162(m).
However, in some cases, the Committee may elect to exceed the
tax-deductible limits. This may be necessary for the Company to
attract and retain global business leaders who can drive
financial and strategic growth objectives that maximize
long-term shareholder value.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
28
EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
The following table provides information concerning the
compensation of the Companys Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and the three other most highly
compensated executive officers (the Named Executive
Officers) for fiscal 2006. For a complete understanding of
the table, please read the narrative disclosures that follow the
table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F |
|
Qualified |
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
D |
|
E |
|
Non-Equity |
|
Deferred |
|
H |
|
|
Name and |
|
B |
|
C |
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
Incentive Plan |
|
Compensation |
|
All Other |
|
I |
Principal Position |
|
Year |
|
Salary($) |
|
Awards($) |
|
Awards($) |
|
Compensation($) |
|
Earnings($) |
|
Compensation($) |
|
Total($) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William C. Weldon
Chairman/CEO
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
1,659,231 |
|
|
$ |
2,041,054 |
|
|
$ |
9,237,481 |
|
|
$ |
7,461,440 |
|
|
$ |
5,492,818 |
|
|
$ |
2,665,725 |
|
|
$ |
28,557,749 |
|
Robert J. Darretta
Vice Chairman/CFO
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
1,023,846 |
|
|
|
626,226 |
|
|
|
3,229,546 |
|
|
|
2,574,880 |
|
|
|
2,231,163 |
|
|
|
1,577,864 |
|
|
|
11,263,525 |
|
Christine A. Poon
Vice Chairman
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
967,308 |
|
|
|
270,596 |
|
|
|
2,504,609 |
|
|
|
2,389,600 |
|
|
|
728,268 |
|
|
|
1,021,083 |
|
|
|
7,881,464 |
|
Per A. Peterson
Chairman, R&D Pharmaceuticals Group
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
830,692 |
|
|
|
579,841 |
|
|
|
3,052,229 |
|
|
|
2,312,400 |
|
|
|
1,041,564 |
|
|
|
883,392 |
|
|
|
8,700,118 |
|
Russell C. Deyo
VP, General Counsel/Chief Compliance Officer
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
735,385 |
|
|
|
510,236 |
|
|
|
2,550,323 |
|
|
|
2,207,176 |
|
|
|
1,240,312 |
|
|
|
1,144,259 |
|
|
|
8,387,691 |
|
Salary (Column C)
The amounts reported in column C represent base salaries paid to
each of the Named Executive Officers for fiscal 2006.
Stock Awards (Column D)
The amounts reported in column D represent the dollar amount of
restricted share unit (RSU) awards recognized, or
expensed, for each of the Named Executive Officers
as compensation costs for financial reporting purposes
(excluding forfeiture assumptions) in accordance with Financial
Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment, (FAS 123R) for fiscal 2006.
Under FAS 123R, the fair value of RSU awards is estimated on the
grant date and discounted for dividends because dividends are
not paid on RSUs during the vesting period. 2006 was the first
year the Company awarded RSUs. The grant date fair value for the
2006 RSU awards was $54.13 per RSU and was based on the
average of the high and low prices of the Companys Common
Stock on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on the grant
date and discounted by an expected dividend yield of 2.5% due to
the lack of dividends paid on the RSUs prior to vesting. The
fair value of RSU awards is expensed over the vesting period,
which for employees age 55 and over with ten years of Company
service is six months. This is the case for all of the Named
Executive Officers with the exception of Ms. Poon, in whose
case the RSU award fair value is expensed over the entire
36-month vesting
period. None of the Named Executive Officers forfeited any RSU
awards in fiscal 2006. The table that appears on page 24 of
this Proxy Statement sets forth for each Named Executive Officer
the total dollar amount of RSUs expensed (excluding forfeiture
assumptions) in fiscal 2006, along with a breakdown of the grant
date fair value of the RSU grants made in February 2006 for
performance in 2005.
Determination of RSU awards and certain terms and conditions of
the RSUs are described in the section entitled
Compensation Discussion and Analysis on
pages 16 through 28 of this Proxy Statement.
29
Option Awards (Column E)
The amounts reported in column E represent the dollar amount of
stock option awards recognized for each of the Named Executive
Officers as compensation costs for financial reporting purposes
(excluding forfeiture assumptions) in accordance with
FAS 123R for fiscal 2006.
Under FAS 123R, the fair value of each stock option award is
estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option
valuation model based on the assumptions noted in the following
table. The expected life of an option is determined using
historical data. Prior to 2006, expected volatility was based on
a five-year weekly historical volatility rate. Starting in 2006,
expected volatility represents a four-year daily historical
average volatility rate, plus a five-week average implied
volatility rate based on at-the money traded Johnson &
Johnson stock options with a life of two years. The risk-free
rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at
the time of grant.
Black-Scholes Assumptions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Option Grant Date | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Feb. 10, 2003 | |
|
Feb. 9, 2004 | |
|
Feb. 14, 2005 | |
|
Feb. 13, 2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Risk Free Rate
|
|
|
3.08% |
|
|
|
3.15% |
|
|
|
3.72% |
|
|
|
4.60% |
|
Expected Volatility
|
|
|
28.0% |
|
|
|
27.1% |
|
|
|
25.2% |
|
|
|
19.6% |
|
Expected Life
|
|
|
5 yrs |
|
|
|
5 yrs |
|
|
|
5 yrs |
|
|
|
6 yrs |
|
Dividend Yield
|
|
|
1.35% |
|
|
|
1.76% |
|
|
|
1.93% |
|
|
|
2.50% |
|
Fair Value
|
|
$ |
13.59 |
|
|
$ |
13.11 |
|
|
$ |
15.50 |
|
|
$ |
12.22 |
|
The fair value of stock option awards is expensed over the
vesting period, which for employees age 55 and over with ten
years of Company service is six months. This is the case for all
of the Named Executive Officers with the exception of
Ms. Poon, in whose case the stock option award fair value
is expensed over the entire 36-month vesting period. All options
awarded prior to 2006 were expensed over the 36-month vesting
period. Therefore, the fiscal 2006 compensation costs recognized
for all of the Named Executive Officers includes compensation
expenses related to option grants from years prior to 2006. None
of the Named Executive Officers forfeited any stock option
awards in fiscal 2006. The table that appears on page 24 of
this Proxy Statement sets forth for each Named Executive Officer
the total dollar amount of options expensed (excluding
forfeiture assumptions) in 2006, along with a breakdown of the
grant date fair values of the annual option grants made in
February of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 for performance in the
prior year and the portion of each of those grants that was
expensed in fiscal 2006.
Determination of stock option awards and certain terms and
conditions of the stock options are described in the section
entitled Compensation Discussion and Analysis on
pages 16 through 28 of this Proxy Statement.
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (Column F)
The amounts reported in column F represent the aggregate dollar
value for each of the Named Executive Officers of the annual
performance bonus for fiscal 2006 and Certificate of Extra
Compensation units (CECs) that vested in fiscal
2006. Annual performance bonuses for fiscal 2006 were approved
by the Compensation & Benefits Committee and paid to
the Named Executive Officers in the first fiscal quarter of 2007
in the form of 85% cash and 15% Company Common Stock as
determined by the Committee. CECs are part of a deferred
long-term compensation program under which performance units are
awarded to key executives. Calculation of CEC unit value and
certain terms and conditions of CECs are described in the
section entitled Compensation Discussion and
Analysis on pages 16 through 28 of this Proxy
Statement. The dollar value of the vested CECs reported in this
column was determined using the fiscal year-end 2005 value of
$23.16 per CEC unit.
30
Change in Pension Value and Non-Qualified Deferred
Compensation Earnings (Column G)
The amounts representing change in pension value reported in
column G were generated by the combination of increases in the
accrued pension benefit and change in conversion of that benefit
to a present value. Accrued pension benefits for each of the
Named Executive Officers were calculated based on the final
average pay times years of service as of year-end fiscal 2006.
Accrued benefits as of year-end fiscal 2006 increased over
accrued benefits as of fiscal year-end 2005 because an
additional year of service was included and because the averages
of the most recent five years of pay were greater than the
averages as of one year earlier. The conversion to a present
value produced a further increase because normal retirement age,
the assumed commencement of benefits, was one year closer. The
present value conversion can also cause an increase or decrease
in value due to changes in actuarial assumptions. The discount
rate used to calculate present values increased from 5.75% as of
fiscal year-end 2005 to 6.00% as of fiscal year-end 2006,
producing a decrease in the present value. No other actuarial
assumptions changed between fiscal year-end 2005 and fiscal
year-end 2006.
The change in CEC unit value is based on a calculation intended
to represent the value of the Company that removes the
variability of market perception and short-term interest rate
fluctuations. As such, in some years the formula could produce a
return that is either below or above market returns
(market, for this purpose, means the performance of
the Companys Common Stock over the applicable period). The
amounts representing above-market returns on all CECs vested as
of the fiscal year-end 2006 are also included in column G. The
actual annual increase in the CEC unit value was compared to the
actual annual increase in the price of the Companys Common
Stock from fiscal year-end 2005 to fiscal year-end 2006. The CEC
unit value increased from $23.16 as of fiscal year-end 2005 to
$26.58 as of fiscal year-end 2006, an increase of 14.77%. The
Companys Common Stock increased from $60.10 as of
December 30, 2005 to $66.02 as of December 29, 2006,
an increase of 9.85%. The above-market growth was calculated to
be 4.92%, or $1.14 per unit.
All Other Compensation (Column H)
The amounts reported in column H represent the aggregate dollar
amount for each Named Executive Officer for perquisites and
other personal benefits, tax reimbursements, registrant
contributions to the Companys 401(k) Savings Plan,
insurance premiums, and the value of CEC dividend equivalents
paid or deferred during fiscal 2006 on vested and unvested CECs.
The following table shows the specific amounts included in
column H of the Summary Compensation Table for fiscal 2006.
All Other Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value of CEC | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend | |
|
|
|
|
Perquisites | |
|
|
|
Registrant | |
|
|
|
Equivalents | |
|
|
|
|
and Other | |
|
|
|
Contributions | |
|
|
|
Earned | |
|
|
|
|
Personal | |
|
Tax | |
|
to Defined | |
|
Insurance | |
|
During the | |
|
|
|
|
Benefits(1) | |
|
Reimbursements | |
|
Contribution | |
|
Premiums | |
|
Fiscal Year(2) | |
|
|
Name |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
Plans ($) | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
Total ($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
$ |
201,191 |
|
|
$ |
16,122 |
|
|
$ |
85,777 |
|
|
$ |
5,535 |
|
|
$ |
2,357,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,665,725 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
34,373 |
|
|
|
6,883 |
|
|
|
47,025 |
|
|
|
6,938 |
|
|
|
1,482,645 |
|
|
|
1,577,864 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
14,736 |
|
|
|
7,759 |
|
|
|
43,529 |
|
|
|
9,309 |
|
|
|
945,750 |
|
|
|
1,021,083 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
8,713 |
|
|
|
15,038 |
|
|
|
37,381 |
|
|
|
22,010 |
|
|
|
800,250 |
|
|
|
883,392 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
41,512 |
|
|
|
4,306 |
|
|
|
33,092 |
|
|
|
4,654 |
|
|
|
1,060,695 |
|
|
|
1,144,259 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Under SEC Rules, the Company is required to identify by type all
perquisites and other personal benefits for a Named Executive
Officer if the total value for that individual equals or exceeds
$10,000, and to report and quantify each perquisite or personal
benefit that exceeds the greater of $25,000 or 10% of the total
amount for that individual. The aggregate value of perquisites
and other personal benefits for Mr. Weldon in fiscal 2006
was $201,191. This amount comprised: personal use of Company
aircraft ($156,013); car and driver for commutation and other |
31
|
|
|
personal transportation ($35,304); executive dining room meals;
home security system monitoring fees; medical examinations; and
financial planning (up to annual limit of $5,000). The aggregate
value of perquisites and other personal benefits for
Mr. Darretta in fiscal 2006 was $34,373. This amount
comprised: personal use of Company aircraft ($28,259); car and
driver for commutation and other personal transportation;
executive dining room meals; home security system monitoring
fees; and medical examinations. The aggregate value of
perquisites and other personal benefits for Ms. Poon in
fiscal 2006 was $14,736. This amount comprised: personal use of
Company aircraft; car and driver for commutation and other
personal transportation; executive dining room meals; home
security monitoring fees; and medical examinations. The
aggregate value of perquisites and other personal benefits for
Dr. Peterson in fiscal 2006 was $8,713. This amount
comprised: executive dining room meals; home security system
monitoring fees; financial planning (up to annual limit of
$5,000); and medical examinations. The aggregate value of
perquisites and other personal benefits for Mr. Deyo in
fiscal 2006 was $41,512. This amount comprised: personal use of
Company aircraft ($32,252); car and driver for commutation and
other personal transportation; executive dining room meals; home
security system monitoring fees; medical examinations; and
financial planning (up to annual limit of $5,000). |
|
|
|
Perquisites and other personal benefits are valued on the basis
of the aggregate incremental cost to the Company. The Company
calculates the aggregate incremental cost to the Company for
personal use of Company aircraft as the sum of the cost of
trip-related crew hotels and meals, in-flight food and
beverages, landing and ground handling fees, hourly maintenance
contract costs, hangar or aircraft parking costs, fuel costs
based on the average annual cost of fuel per mile flown, and
other smaller variable costs. Fixed costs that would be incurred
in any event to operate Company aircraft (e.g., aircraft
purchase costs, maintenance not related to personal trips, and
flight crew salaries) are not included. The Company calculates
the aggregate incremental cost to the Company for Company cars
and drivers for commutation and other personal transportation as
the sum of the cost of fuel, driver overtime fees, and other
smaller variable costs. Fixed costs that would be incurred in
any event to operate Company cars (e.g., car purchase
costs, maintenance not related to personal trips, and driver
salaries) are not included. Executives are taxed on the imputed
income attributable to personal use of Company aircraft and cars
(excluding commuting) and do not receive tax assistance from the
Company with respect to these amounts. |
|
|
(2) |
CEC dividend equivalents are paid to participants during the
fiscal year on vested and unvested CECs in the same amount and
at the same time as dividends on the Companys Common
Stock. Participants have the option to defer the payment of CEC
dividend equivalents. Both Messrs. Weldon and Darretta have
elected to defer a portion of their CEC dividend equivalents for
2006 as follows: Mr. Weldon (all dollars over $900,000) and
Mr. Darretta (all dollars over $200,000). CEC dividend
equivalents deferred in 2006 are also reported under
Executive Contributions in the Non-Qualified
Deferred Compensation Table below. |
Total Compensation (Column I)
The amounts reported in column I are the sum of columns C
through H for each of the Named Executive Officers. All
compensation amounts reported in column I include amounts
paid and amounts deferred.
32
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS
The following table provides information concerning the annual
performance bonus and long-term incentive awards made to each of
the Named Executive Officers in fiscal 2006. For a complete
understanding of the table, please read the narrative
disclosures that follow the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payouts | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under Non-Equity | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity | |
|
|
|
Incentive Plan | |
|
|
|
I | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan | |
|
|
|
Awards | |
|
H | |
|
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards | |
|
|
|
(Annual | |
|
All Other | |
|
Option | |
|
J | |
|
K | |
|
L | |
|
M | |
|
|
|
|
(CECs) | |
|
|
|
Performance Bonus) | |
|
Stock | |
|
Awards: | |
|
Exercise | |
|
Closing | |
|
Grant | |
|
Grant | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Awards: | |
|
Number of | |
|
or Base | |
|
Market | |
|
Date Fair | |
|
Date Fair | |
|
|
|
|
C | |
|
D | |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of | |
|
Securities | |
|
Price of | |
|
Price on | |
|
Value of | |
|
Value of | |
|
|
B |
|
Units | |
|
Unit | |
|
E | |
|
F | |
|
G | |
|
Shares of | |
|
Underlying | |
|
Option | |
|
the Grant | |
|
Stock | |
|
Option | |
A |
|
Grant |
|
Granted | |
|
Price | |
|
Threshold | |
|
Target | |
|
Maximum | |
|
Stock or | |
|
Options | |
|
Awards | |
|
Date | |
|
Awards | |
|
Awards | |
Name |
|
Date |
|
(#) | |
|
($/Unit) | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
Units (#) | |
|
(#) | |
|
($/Sh) | |
|
($/Sh) | |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
$ |
23.16 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
$ |
2,672,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,710 |
|
|
|
452,520 |
|
|
$ |
58.34 |
|
|
$ |
58.50 |
|
|
$ |
2,041,054 |
|
|
$ |
5,528,889 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
85,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,030,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,595,600 |
|
|
|
11,570 |
|
|
|
138,841 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
58.50 |
|
|
|
626,226 |
|
|
|
1,696,359 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
975,00 |
|
|
|
2,457,000 |
|
|
|
17,141 |
|
|
|
205,691 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
58.50 |
|
|
|
927,757 |
|
|
|
2,513,133 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
835,000 |
|
|
|
2,104,200 |
|
|
|
10,713 |
|
|
|
128,557 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
58.50 |
|
|
|
579,841 |
|
|
|
1,570,709 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
2/13/06 |
|
|
32,000 |
|
|
|
23.16 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
666,000 |
|
|
|
1,678,320 |
|
|
|
9,427 |
|
|
|
113,130 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
58.50 |
|
|
|
510,236 |
|
|
|
1,382,222 |
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (Columns C and D)
The amounts reported in columns C and D relate to the CECs
awarded to the Named Executive Officers in February 2006 for the
2005 performance year. The value of CECs granted in 2006 was
based on the CEC unit value as of fiscal year-end 2005, which
was $23.16. The CEC unit value is subject to increase or
decrease based on the performance of the Company. The
calculation of CEC unit value and certain terms and conditions
of CECs are described in the section entitled Compensation
Discussion and Analysis on pages 16 through 28
of this Proxy Statement.
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Awards (Columns E through G)
The amounts reported in columns E through G reflect threshold,
target and maximum performance bonus award amounts for the 2006
performance year that were set in 2006. No maximum performance
bonus award amount as a percentage of base salary is set for the
Chairman/CEO. Actual performance bonus payments, as reflected in
the Summary Compensation Table above, were made in recognition
of 2006 performance using the targets and payout range as
guidance.
Bonus targets as a percentage of base salary and annual
performance bonuses paid to the Named Executive Officers were
determined as described in the section entitled
Compensation Discussion and Analysis on
pages 16 through 28 of this Proxy Statement.
All Other Stock and Option Awards (Columns H through M)
The amounts reported in columns H through M relate to the RSU
and stock option grants awarded to the Named Executive Officers
in February 2006 for the 2005 performance year. Under the terms
of the LTI Plan, the stock options were granted at an exercise
price equal to the fair market value (calculated as the average
of the high and low stock prices on the NYSE) of the
Companys Common Stock on the grant date. For the grants
made in February 2006, this value was lower than the closing
price on the grant date. Determination of RSU and stock option
awards and certain terms and conditions of the RSUs and stock
options are described in the section entitled Compensation
Discussion and Analysis on pages 16 through 28
of this Proxy Statement.
Under FAS 123R, the grant date fair value of the RSU awards is
estimated on the grant date and discounted for dividends because
dividends are not paid on RSUs during the vesting period. The
grant date fair value was $54.13 per RSU and was based on
the average of the high and low prices of the Companys
Common Stock on the NYSE on the grant date and discounted by an
expected dividend yield of 2.5% due to the lack of dividends
paid on the RSUs prior to vesting.
33
Under FAS 123R, the grant date fair value of each stock option
award is calculated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes
option valuation model. The stock options expiring on
February 12, 2016 had a grant date present value of
$12.22 per option share. The Black-Scholes model was used
with the following assumptions: volatility of 19.6% based on a
blended rate of four-year daily historical average volatility
rate, and a five-week average implied volatility rate based on
at-the money traded Johnson & Johnson stock options
with a life of two years; dividend yield of 2.5%; risk-free
interest rate of 4.6% based on a U.S. Treasury rate of six
years; and a six-year option life.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END
The following table provides information concerning the
unexercised stock options outstanding and unvested RSUs for each
of the Named Executive Officers as of the end of fiscal 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options | |
|
Stock Awards | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
G | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F | |
|
Market | |
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
Number of | |
|
Value of | |
|
|
Underlying Unexercised | |
|
D | |
|
|
|
Shares or | |
|
Shares as | |
|
|
Options (#) | |
|
Option | |
|
E | |
|
Units of | |
|
Units of | |
|
|
| |
|
Exercise | |
|
Option | |
|
Stock That | |
|
Stock That | |
A |
|
B | |
|
C | |
|
Price | |
|
Expiration | |
|
Have Not | |
|
Have Not | |
Name |
|
Exercisable | |
|
Unexercisable | |
|
($) | |
|
Date | |
|
Vested (#) | |
|
Vested ($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
42,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
32.38 |
|
|
|
12/3/07 |
|
|
|
37,710 |
|
|
$ |
2,489,614 |
|
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38.59 |
|
|
|
6/24/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.16 |
|
|
|
12/2/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.08 |
|
|
|
12/1/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.69 |
|
|
|
11/29/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.30 |
|
|
|
2/10/12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.20 |
|
|
|
2/8/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
325,000 |
|
|
|
53.93 |
|
|
|
2/7/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,000 |
|
|
|
66.18 |
|
|
|
2/13/15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
452,520 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
2/12/16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
42,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.16 |
|
|
|
12/2/08 |
|
|
|
11,570 |
|
|
|
763,851 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.08 |
|
|
|
12/1/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.69 |
|
|
|
11/29/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.30 |
|
|
|
2/10/12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.20 |
|
|
|
2/8/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
53.93 |
|
|
|
2/7/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160,000 |
|
|
|
66.18 |
|
|
|
2/13/15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,841 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
2/12/16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
160,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47.63 |
|
|
|
11/23/10 |
|
|
|
17,141 |
|
|
|
1,131,649 |
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.30 |
|
|
|
2/10/12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.20 |
|
|
|
2/8/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
53.93 |
|
|
|
2/7/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,000 |
|
|
|
66.18 |
|
|
|
2/13/15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,691 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
2/12/16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
17,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.38 |
|
|
|
12/3/07 |
|
|
|
10,713 |
|
|
|
707,272 |
|
|
|
|
33,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.16 |
|
|
|
12/2/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.08 |
|
|
|
12/1/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44.30 |
|
|
|
5/24/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.69 |
|
|
|
11/29/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.30 |
|
|
|
2/10/12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.20 |
|
|
|
2/8/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
53.93 |
|
|
|
2/7/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
66.18 |
|
|
|
2/13/15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,557 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
2/12/16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options | |
|
Stock Awards | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
G | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F | |
|
Market | |
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
Number of | |
|
Value of | |
|
|
Underlying Unexercised | |
|
D | |
|
|
|
Shares or | |
|
Shares as | |
|
|
Options (#) | |
|
Option | |
|
E | |
|
Units of | |
|
Units of | |
|
|
| |
|
Exercise | |
|
Option | |
|
Stock That | |
|
Stock That | |
A |
|
B | |
|
C | |
|
Price | |
|
Expiration | |
|
Have Not | |
|
Have Not | |
Name |
|
Exercisable | |
|
Unexercisable | |
|
($) | |
|
Date | |
|
Vested (#) | |
|
Vested ($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
44,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.38 |
|
|
|
12/3/07 |
|
|
|
9,427 |
|
|
|
622,371 |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.16 |
|
|
|
12/2/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.08 |
|
|
|
12/1/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.69 |
|
|
|
11/29/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.30 |
|
|
|
2/10/12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.20 |
|
|
|
2/8/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110,000 |
|
|
|
53.93 |
|
|
|
2/7/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
66.18 |
|
|
|
2/13/15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113,130 |
|
|
|
58.34 |
|
|
|
2/12/16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested
(Column G)
The market value of RSUs was calculated using the fiscal 2006
year-end closing price of the Companys Common Stock on the
NYSE of $66.02.
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED
The following table provides information concerning the
exercises of stock options during fiscal 2006 on an aggregated
basis for each of the Named Executive Officers. No RSUs vested
during 2006 for any of the Named Executive Officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Number of Shares | |
|
|
|
|
Acquired on | |
|
Value Realized | |
Name |
|
Exercise (#) | |
|
on Exercise ($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
22,000 |
|
|
$ |
715,000 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
4,288,640 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
17,900 |
|
|
|
473,455 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|
2,550,518 |
|
35
PENSION BENEFITS
The following table provides information as of fiscal year-end
2006 with respect to the Companys pension plans for each
of the Named Executive Officers. For a complete understanding of
the table, please read the narrative disclosures that follow the
table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value of | |
|
|
|
|
Number of | |
|
Normal | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
Years Credited | |
|
Retirement | |
|
Benefits | |
Name |
|
Plan Name | |
|
Service | |
|
Age | |
|
($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
W. C. Weldon
|
|
|
Salaried Pension Plan |
|
|
|
35.33 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
$ |
1,061,567 |
|
|
|
|
Excess Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,436,679 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
Salaried Pension Plan |
|
|
|
38.58 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1,332,382 |
|
|
|
|
Excess Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,027,554 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
Salaried Pension Plan |
|
|
|
6.08 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
143,312 |
|
|
|
|
Excess Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,179,783 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
Salaried Pension Plan |
|
|
|
12.75 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
484,417 |
|
|
|
|
Excess Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,587,200 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
Salaried Pension Plan |
|
|
|
21.33 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
608,536 |
|
|
|
|
Excess Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,011,086 |
|
Each of the Named Executive Officers participates in the same
defined benefit pension plans offered to other
U.S. non-union employees. Annuity benefits payable under
the U.S. plans are calculated as final average earnings
times 1.667% times years of service prior to 2005, plus 1.55%
times years of service after 2004, minus age 65 Social
Security benefits, times 1.429%, times years of service. For
this formula, final average earnings are defined as the average
of the highest consecutive 60 months out of the last
120 months of pay, including base salary, bonus and
dividend equivalents paid or deferred on non-vested CEC units.
The formula above produces the amount payable as a monthly
annuity for the life of the Named Executive Officer beginning as
early as age 62. Benefits can begin as early as age 55
retirement, but are subject to a 4% per year reduction for
the number of years before age 62 that benefits begin.
The Salaried Pension Plan applies this formula to pay up to the
United States Internal Revenue Services (the
IRS) covered compensation limit ($220,000 in 2006).
The Excess Pension Plan is a restorative supplemental retirement
plan that uses the same formula (including the definition of
final average earnings) as the Salaried Pension Plan without
applying the IRS pay limits and is offset by amounts paid from
the Salaried Pension Plan. Any U.S. non-union employee may
participate in the Excess Pension Plan if his or her covered
compensation exceeds the IRS limit.
While a present value is shown in the table, benefits are not
available as a lump sum and must be taken in the form of an
annuity. Present values were calculated using the same actuarial
assumptions applied in the calculation of pension liabilities
reported in the Companys 2006 Annual Report (discount rate
of 6.00%, mortality according to the GAM1994 table projected to
2004).
No payments were made in 2006 under the Companys pension
plans to any of the Named Executive Officers.
36
NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
The following table provides information with respect to the
Companys defined contribution and non-tax-qualified
compensation deferral plans for each of the Named Executive
Officers. For a complete understanding of the table, please read
the narrative disclosures that follow the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
E |
|
|
Executive |
|
Registrant |
|
Aggregate |
|
Aggregate |
A |
|
Contributions in |
|
Contributions in |
|
Earnings in |
|
Balance at |
Name |
|
Last FY($) |
|
Last FY($) |
|
Last FY($) |
|
Last FYE($) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. C. Weldon
|
|
$ |
2,566,282 |
|
|
$ |
4,337,317 |
|
|
$ |
4,989,904 |
|
|
$ |
40,653,931 |
|
R. J. Darretta
|
|
|
2,197,491 |
|
|
|
1,612,005 |
|
|
|
3,758,604 |
|
|
|
30,855,860 |
|
C. A. Poon
|
|
|
141,742 |
|
|
|
1,423,229 |
|
|
|
1,206,477 |
|
|
|
9,475,384 |
|
P. A. Peterson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,532,881 |
|
|
|
1,300,093 |
|
|
|
10,133,958 |
|
R. C. Deyo
|
|
|
114,302 |
|
|
|
1,380,368 |
|
|
|
2,083,652 |
|
|
|
16,357,574 |
|
Executive Contributions in Last Fiscal Year (Column B)
The amounts reported in column B include amounts deferred in the
last fiscal year under the Executive Income Deferral Program
which allows eligible employees to defer up to 50% of base
salary, 100% of annual performance bonus and 100% of dividend
equivalents on CECs.
Registrant Contributions in Last Fiscal Year (Column C)
The amounts reported in column C include Company contributions
to each of the Named Executive Officers Excess Savings
Plan account. These amounts also include the value of CECs that
vested during the fiscal year, calculated using the fiscal
year-end 2005 unit value of $23.16.
Aggregate Earnings in Last Fiscal Year (Column D)
The amounts reported in column D include earnings on the
Executive Income Deferral Program, the Excess Savings Plan, and
the International Savings Plan in addition to the up-tick in
value on all vested CECs as of the fiscal year end. The CEC unit
value increased from $23.16 as of fiscal year-end 2005 to $26.58
as of fiscal year-end 2006.
Aggregate Balance at Last Fiscal Year-End (Column E)
The amounts reported in column E include the full balance from
the Excess Savings Plan, International Savings Plan, and
Executive Income Deferral Program. These amounts also include
the full value (at $26.58) of all vested CECs held by each Named
Executive Officer as of fiscal year-end 2006.
Each of the Named Executive Officers participates in two or more
of the following non-tax qualified deferred compensation
programs: Excess Savings Plan (all named executives),
International Savings Plan (Messrs. Weldon and Darretta),
Executive Income Deferral Program (Messrs. Weldon, Darretta
and Deyo and Ms. Poon) and CEC Plan (all Named Executive
Officers).
The Companys 401(k) Savings Plan provides a matching
contribution of 4.5% of base salary for employees contributing
at least 6% of base salary. Base salary covered under this plan
is limited by the IRS (to $220,000 in 2006). The Excess Savings
Plan credits an unfunded account with 4.5% of base salary in
excess of the IRS limit. The rate of earnings credited to the
Excess Savings Plan accounts is equal to actual earnings in the
Balanced Fund investment option within the Companys 401(k)
Savings Plan (13.7% in 2006). Distribution of Excess Savings
Plan account balances can be made as a lump sum or in up to 15
annual installments beginning as early as retirement or
separation, but not later than 10 years after retirement or
separation.
37
Messrs. Weldon and Darretta have each worked at
Johnson & Johnson locations outside of the United
States where no U.S. tax-qualified savings plan was
available. As a result, an account in the International Savings
Plan was credited with 3% of base salary for those periods. The
rate of earnings credited to the International Savings Plan
accounts is equal to actual earnings in the Fixed Interest Fund
investment option within the Companys 401(k) Savings Plan
(4.4% in 2006). Distribution of International Savings Plan
accounts are made upon retirement or separation from the Company.
Under the Executive Income Deferral Program, certain executives
are eligible to defer up to 50% of base salary and 100% of
performance bonus and CEC dividend equivalents until they retire
from the Company. Distribution of amounts deferred before 2005
can begin up to 10 years after separation or retirement and
be paid as a lump sum or in up to 15 annual installments.
Payment of amounts deferred after 2004 begins six months after
retirement. Deferred amounts are credited with earnings equal to
the actual return on three investment options:
Johnson & Johnson Common Stock, One-Year Treasury
Bills, or the Balanced Fund investment option within the
Companys 401(k) Savings Plan. The allocation among these
options is elected by the executive officer. For 2006, the
return on the One-Year Treasury Bill option was 4.4% and the
aggregate return on Johnson & Johnson Common Stock for
these participants was 13.2%.
No withdrawals or distributions were made to any of the Named
Executive Officers under any of the Companys defined
contribution or non-tax-qualified compensation deferral plans in
2006.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
The following table provides information concerning the
compensation of the Companys Non-Employee Directors for
2006. Directors who are employees of the Company receive no
compensation for their services as Directors or as members of
Board committees. For a complete understanding of the table,
please read the footnotes and the narrative disclosures that
follow the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid in | |
|
Stock | |
|
All Other | |
|
|
Name |
|
Cash($) | |
|
Awards(9)(10)($) | |
|
Compensation(12)($) | |
|
Total($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
M. S.
Coleman(1)(5)
|
|
$ |
95,000 |
|
|
$ |
99,995 |
|
|
$ |
4,692 |
|
|
$ |
199,687 |
|
J. G.
Cullen(1)(3)(6)(7)
|
|
|
115,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
219,687 |
|
M. M. E.
Johns(2)(5)
|
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
2,494 |
|
|
|
197,489 |
|
A. D.
Jordan(2)(3)(6)
|
|
|
105,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
209,687 |
|
A. G.
Langbo(2)(3)(6)
|
|
|
105,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
209,687 |
|
S. L.
Lindquist(4)(5)
|
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
9,692 |
|
|
|
204,687 |
|
L. F.
Mullin(1)(4)(6)
|
|
|
105,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
209,687 |
|
C.
Prince(2)(3)
|
|
|
83,652 |
(8) |
|
|
58,340 |
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,987 |
|
S. S
Reinemund(2)(3)
|
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
199,687 |
|
D.
Satcher(4)(5)(6)
|
|
|
105,000 |
|
|
|
99,995 |
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
209,687 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Member, Audit Committee |
|
(2) |
Member, Compensation & Benefits Committee |
|
(3) |
Member, Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee |
|
(4) |
Member, Public Policy Advisory Committee |
|
(5) |
Member, Science & Technology Advisory Committee |
|
(6) |
Committee Chairman |
|
(7) |
Presiding Director |
|
(8) |
Pro rated from when Mr. Prince was appointed to the Board
in February 2006. |
38
|
|
(9) |
All figures represent the dollar amount recognized for financial
statement reporting purposes with respect to fiscal 2006, which
for all grants was equal to the grant date fair value, computed
in accordance with FAS 123R. Non-Employee Directors are granted
shares of restricted Common Stock in February of each year. The
restricted shares become freely transferable on the third
anniversary of the grant date. |
|
|
(10) |
The aggregate number of stock options outstanding for each
Non-Employee Director as of December 31, 2006 is indicated
in the table below. The compensation costs for all of these
options were recognized by the Company for financial reporting
purposes prior to fiscal 2006. The Company ceased granting stock
options to Non-Employee Directors after February 2004. |
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Options (#) | |
|
|
| |
M. S. Coleman
|
|
|
7,600 |
|
J. G. Cullen
|
|
|
31,050 |
|
A. D. Jordan
|
|
|
31,050 |
|
A. G. Langbo
|
|
|
31,050 |
|
S. L. Lindquist
|
|
|
7,600 |
|
L. F. Mullin
|
|
|
26,250 |
|
S. S Reinemund
|
|
|
7,600 |
|
D. Satcher
|
|
|
13,900 |
|
|
|
(11) |
Reflects a one-time grant of 1,000 shares of Company Common
Stock upon first becoming a Director in February 2006 valued at
the grant date fair value of $58.34 per share. |
|
(12) |
Amounts reflect the dollar value of dividend payments on
restricted stock in 2006 and a $5,000 honorarium paid to
Ms. Lindquist for a speaking engagement. |
Director Fees and Equity Compensation
Each Non-Employee Director receives an annual fee of $85,000 for
his or her services as a member of the Companys Board of
Directors. In addition, Non-Employee Directors receive an annual
fee of $5,000 for service on a Board committee, or $15,000 if he
or she is Chairman of the committee. The Presiding Director is
paid an additional annual fee of $10,000. Non-Employee Directors
are eligible to receive meeting fees of $1,500 per day if
they attend a committee meeting held on a day other than a Board
meeting day. No such fees were paid in 2006. Meeting fees are
not paid for participation in telephonic committee meetings.
Each Non-Employee Director receives non-retainer equity
compensation in the first quarter of each year under the
Companys LTI Plan in the form of shares of restricted
Common Stock having a value of $100,000 on the grant date.
Accordingly, each Non-Employee Director was granted
1,523 shares of restricted Common Stock under the LTI Plan
in February 2007 for service on the Board in 2006. The
restricted shares become freely transferable on the third
anniversary of the grant date. In addition, each Non-Employee
Director receives a one-time grant of 1,000 shares of
unrestricted Common Stock upon first becoming a member of the
Board. Non-Employee Directors are subject to the Stock Ownership
Guidelines for Directors and Executive Officers described in the
section entitled Compensation Discussion and
Analysis on pages 16 through 28 of this Proxy
Statement.
Deferred Fee Plan for Non-Employee Directors
Under the Deferred Fee Plan for Non-Employee Directors, a
Non-Employee Director may elect to defer payment of all or a
portion of his or her fees until or beyond termination of his or
her directorship. Deferred fees earn additional amounts based on
a hypothetical investment in the Companys Common Stock.
(Non-Employee Directors who have served on the Board since prior
to January 1, 1996 instead may elect to invest
deferred fees into CECs under the CEC Plan up to the time of
termination of his/her directorship. Currently, no Directors
have elected this option.) All Common Stock equivalent units
held in each Non-Employee Directors Deferred Fee Account
receive dividend equivalents in the same amount and at the same
time as dividends on the Companys Common Stock.
39
Additional Arrangements
The Company pays for or provides (or reimburses Directors for
out-of-pocket costs
incurred for) transportation, hotel, food and other incidental
expenses related to attending Board and committee meetings or
participating in director education programs and other director
orientation or educational meetings. In addition, Non-Employee
Directors are eligible to participate in the Companys
charitable matching gift program for employees, pursuant to
which the Company will pay, on a
two-to-one basis, up to
$25,000 per year in contributions to educational and
certain other charitable institutions.
AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT
The Audit Committee reports to and acts on behalf of the Board
of Directors of the Company by providing oversight of the
financial management, legal compliance programs, independent
auditors and financial reporting controls and accounting
policies and procedures of the Company. The Companys
management is responsible for preparing the Companys
financial statements and systems of internal control and the
independent auditors are responsible for auditing those
financial statements and expressing its opinion as to whether
the financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. The Audit Committee is responsible for
overseeing the conduct of these activities by the Companys
management and the independent auditors.
In this context, the Audit Committee has met and held
discussions with management and the internal and independent
auditors (including private sessions with the internal auditors,
the independent auditors, the Chief Financial Officer and the
General Counsel at each Audit Committee meeting). Management
represented to the Audit Committee that the Companys
consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 were prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and the Audit
Committee has reviewed and discussed the consolidated financial
statements with management and the independent auditors.
The Audit Committee has discussed with the independent auditors
matters required to be discussed by the applicable Auditing
Standards as periodically amended (including significant
accounting policies, alternative accounting treatments and
estimates, judgments and uncertainties). In addition, the
independent auditors provided to the Audit Committee the written
disclosures required by Independence Standards Board Standard
No. 1 (Independence Discussions with Audit Committees), and
the Audit Committee and the independent auditors have discussed
the auditors independence from the Company and its
management, including the matters in those written disclosures.
Additionally, the Audit Committee considered the non-audit
services provided by the independent auditors and the fees and
costs billed and expected to be billed by the independent
auditors for those services (as shown on page 41 of this
Proxy Statement). All of the non-audit services provided by the
independent auditors since February 10, 2003, and the fees
and costs incurred in connection with those services, have been
pre-approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Audit
and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy, as adopted by the
Audit Committee. (This policy is discussed in further detail on
pages 42 to 43 of this Proxy Statement.) When approving the
retention of the independent auditors for these non-audit
services, the Audit Committee has considered whether the
retention of the independent auditors to provide those services
is compatible with maintaining auditor independence.
In reliance on the reviews and discussions with management and
the independent auditors referred to above, the Audit Committee
believes that the non-audit services provided by the independent
auditors are compatible with, and did not impair, auditor
independence.
The Audit Committee also has discussed with the Companys
internal and independent auditors, with and without management
present, their evaluations of the Companys internal
accounting controls and the overall quality of the
Companys financial reporting.
40
In further reliance on the reviews and discussions with
management and the independent auditors referred to above, the
Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors on
February 12, 2007, and the Board has approved, the
inclusion of the audited financial statements in the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, for filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Audit Committee also
recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has
approved, subject to shareholder ratification, the selection of
the Companys independent auditors.
|
|
|
Mr.
James G. Cullen, Chairman |
|
Dr.
Mary Sue Coleman |
|
Mr.
Leo F. Mullin |
ITEM 2. RATIFICATION OF
APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
as the independent registered public accounting firm for the
Company and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year 2007.
Shareholder ratification of the appointment is not required
under the laws of the State of New Jersey, but the Board has
decided to ascertain the position of the shareholders on the
appointment. The Board of Directors will reconsider the
appointment if it is not ratified. The affirmative vote of a
majority of the shares voted at the meeting is required for
ratification.
During fiscal years 2005 and 2006, PricewaterhouseCoopers not
only acted as the independent registered public accounting firm
for the Company and its subsidiaries (work related to the
integrated audit of the Companys Consolidated financial
statements and of its internal control over financial
reporting), but also rendered on behalf of the Company and its
subsidiaries other services.
Rules enacted under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibit an
independent auditor from providing certain non-audit services
for an audit client. These rules became effective on May 6,
2003 for new engagements. All engagements with independent
auditors to perform a prohibited non-audit service entered into
prior to May 6, 2003 were required to be completed before
May 6, 2004. Since May 6, 2004, PricewaterhouseCoopers
has provided no services that are prohibited under applicable
rules and regulations. It is expected that
PricewaterhouseCoopers will continue to provide certain
accounting, additional auditing, tax and other services to
Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates, which are permitted
under applicable rules and regulations.
The following table sets forth the aggregate fees billed or
expected to be billed by PricewaterhouseCoopers for 2006 and
2005 for audit and non-audit services (as well as all
out-of-pocket costs incurred in connection with
these services) and are categorized as Audit Fees, Audit-Related
Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees. The nature of the services
provided in each such category is described following the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual Fees | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Audit Fees
|
|
$ |
21,705,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,045,000 |
|
Audit-Related Fees
|
|
|
6,700,000 |
|
|
|
4,975,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Audit and Audit-Related Fees
|
|
$ |
28,405,000 |
|
|
$ |
25,020,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Fees
|
|
$ |
9,500,000 |
|
|
$ |
11,925,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Services
|
|
$ |
900,000 |
|
|
|
1,675,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fees
|
|
$ |
38,805,000 |
|
|
$ |
38,620,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit Fees Consists of professional services
rendered for the audits of the consolidated financial statements
of the Company, quarterly reviews, statutory audits, issuance of
comfort letters, consents, income tax provision procedures, and
assistance with and review of documents filed with the SEC.
Approximately $4,770,000 and $4,400,000 of the Audit Fees
incurred in 2006 and 2005, respectively, represent recurring and
non-recurring services associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley
Section 404 internal control audit.
41
Audit-Related Fees Consists of assurance and
related services related to employee benefit plan audits, due
diligence related to mergers and acquisitions, accounting
consultation and audits in connection with acquisitions and
dispositions, internal control reviews, attest services that are
not required by statute or regulation, advice as to the
preparation of statutory financial statements, and consultations
concerning financial accounting and reporting standards. The
increase in Audit-Related Fees from $4,975,000 in 2005 to
$6,700,000 in 2006 was primarily due to the fees incurred in
connection with the Companys acquisition of the Consumer
Healthcare business of Pfizer Inc. completed on
December 20, 2006.
Tax Fees In 2006, approximately 73% of Tax
Fees were related to tax compliance (review and preparation of
corporate and expatriate tax returns, assistance with tax
audits, review of the tax treatments for certain expenses,
extra-territorial income analysis, transfer pricing
documentation for compliance purposes and tax due diligence
relating to acquisitions). Other tax services included state and
local tax planning and consultations with respect to various
domestic and international tax matters. In 2005, approximately
78% of Tax Fees were related to tax compliance.
Other Services Consists of reviews for
compliance with various government regulations relating to the
health care industry and privacy standards, risk management
reviews and assessments, audits of various contractual
arrangements to assess compliance, validation reviews of systems
to assess compliance with FDA rules, and projects relating to
reviewing systems security controls.
Pre-Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services
Under the Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy, as
adopted by the Audit Committee in 2003, the Audit Committee must
pre-approve all audit and non-audit services provided by the
independent auditors. The policy, as described below, sets forth
the procedures and conditions for such pre-approval of services
to be performed by the independent auditor. The policy utilizes
both a framework of general pre-approval for certain specified
services and specific pre-approval for all other services.
In the first quarter of each year, the Audit Committee is asked
to pre-approve the engagement of the independent auditors, and
the projected fees, for audit services, audit-related services
(assurance and related services that are reasonably related to
the performance of the auditors review of the financial
statements or that are traditionally performed by the
independent auditor) and tax services (such as tax compliance,
tax planning and tax advice) for the current year. In addition,
the following specific routine and recurring other services may
also be pre-approved generally for the current year: audits or
reviews of third parties to assess compliance with contracts;
risk management reviews and assessments; dispute analysis;
health care compliance reviews related to privacy and other
regulatory matters and certain projects to evaluate systems
security.
The fee amounts approved at such first quarter meeting are
updated to the extent necessary at the regularly scheduled
meetings of the Audit Committee during the year. Additional
pre-approval is required before actual fees for any service can
exceed 5% of the originally pre-approved amount, excluding the
impact of currency.
If the Company wants to engage the independent auditor for other
services that are not considered subject to general pre-approval
as described above, then the Audit Committee must approve such
specific engagement as well as the projected fees. Additional
pre-approval is required before any fees can exceed those fees
approved for any such specifically-approved services.
If the Company wishes to engage the independent auditor for
additional services that have not been generally pre-approved as
described above, then such engagement will be presented to the
Audit Committee for pre-approval at its next regularly scheduled
meeting. If the timing of the project requires an expedited
decision, then the Company may ask the Chairman of the Audit
Committee to pre-approve such engagement. Any such pre-approval
by the Chairman is then reported to the other Committee members
at the next Committee meeting. In any event, pre-approval of any
engagement by the Audit Committee or the Chairman of the Audit
Committee is required before the independent auditors may
commence any engagement.
42
In 2006, there were no fees paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers under
a de minimis exception to the rules that waives pre-approval for
certain non-audit services.
Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are expected to be
present at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders and will be
allowed to make a statement if they wish. Additionally, they
will be available to respond to appropriate questions from
shareholders during the meeting.
The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the
shareholders vote FOR the ratification of the appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Companys independent
registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2007.
ITEM 3: SHAREHOLDER
PROPOSAL ON MAJORITY VOTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR DIRECTOR NOMINEES
The following shareholder proposal has been submitted to the
Company for action at the meeting by the Sheet Metal
Workers National Pension Fund of Alexandria, Virginia, a
holder of 92,512 shares of stock. The affirmative vote of a
majority of the shares voted at the meeting is required for
approval of the shareholder proposal. The text of the proposal
follows:
Resolved: That the shareholders of Johnson &
Johnson (Company) hereby request that the Board of
Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the
Companys governance documents (certificate of
incorporation or bylaws) to provide that director nominees shall
be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast
at an annual meeting of shareholders, with a plurality vote
standard retained for contested director elections, that is,
when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of board
seats.
Supporting Statement: In order to provide shareholders a
meaningful role in director elections, our companys
director election vote standard should be changed to a majority
vote standard. A majority vote standard would require that a
nominee receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be
elected. The standard is particularly well-suited for the vast
majority of director elections in which only board nominated
candidates are on the ballot. We believe that a majority vote
standard in board elections would establish a challenging vote
standard for board nominees and improve the performance of
individual directors and entire boards. Our Company presently
uses a plurality vote standard in all director elections. Under
the plurality vote standard, a nominee for the board can be
elected with as little as a single affirmative vote, even if a
substantial majority of the votes cast are withheld
from the nominee.
In response to strong shareholder support for a majority vote
standard in director elections, an increasing number of
companies, including Intel, Dell, Motorola, Texas Instruments,
Safeway, Home Depot, Gannett, and Supervalu, have adopted bylaws
or policies to address post-election issues related to the
status of director nominees that fail to win election. Our
Company has not established a majority vote standard in Company
bylaws, opting only to establish a post-election director
resignation governance policy. The Companys director
resignation policy simply addresses post-election issues,
establishing a requirement for directors to tender their
resignations for board consideration should they receive more
withhold votes than for votes. We
believe that these director resignation polices, coupled with
the continued use of a plurality vote standard, are a wholly
inadequate response to the call for the adoption of a majority
vote standard.
We believe the establishment of a meaningful majority vote
policy requires the adoption of a majority vote standard in the
Companys governance documents; not the retention of the
plurality vote standard. A majority vote standard combined with
the Companys current post-election director resignation
policy would provide the board a framework to address the status
of a director nominee who fails to be elected. The combination
of a majority vote standard with a post-election policy
establishes a meaningful right for shareholders to elect
directors, while reserving for the board an important
post-election role in determining the continued status of an
unelected director.
We urge the board to adopt a majority vote standard.
43
MANAGEMENTS STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO SHAREHOLDER
PROPOSAL
The Board of Directors favors a vote AGAINST the adoption of
this proposal for the following reasons:
Johnson & Johnson is not opposed to majority voting in
uncontested elections. However, the Board of Directors believes
that it is premature to ask our shareholders to amend the
Certificate of Incorporation to adopt majority voting in light
of the on-going analyses and discussions on majority voting and
its possible consequences. Also, we believe that our policy on
Voting for Directors in Uncontested Elections,
described on page 14 of this Proxy Statement, provides
shareholders with a meaningful role in director elections.
Finally, this policy, adopted by the Board last year in response
to shareholder concerns, augments Johnson &
Johnsons long history of strong governance practices.
New Jersey law requires the plurality voting standard in
director elections, unless the companys certificate of
incorporation provides otherwise. Our Board cannot adopt
majority voting in our by-laws, an approach that other companies
have recently taken. Johnson & Johnson can adopt
majority voting only through shareholder approval of an
amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation. We believe that
it is premature to ask our shareholders to amend the Certificate
of Incorporation to adopt majority voting in light of the
on-going analyses and discussions in this developing area. The
legal community, shareholder advocates, governance experts and
other groups continue to evaluate the respective benefits,
disadvantages and consequences of plurality voting and majority
voting, the impact of the holdover rule (which is
discussed below) and whether some modified model of plurality
voting might be preferable. Plurality voting has served
Johnson & Johnsons shareholders well. Any change
in voting standards should be undertaken with full understanding
of the consequences. For this reason, we believe it is premature
to ask shareholders to amend the Certificate of Incorporation to
adopt majority voting until there is greater clarity and
consensus on this issue.
Our policy on Voting for Directors in Uncontested
Elections (which we will refer to as the Director
Election Policy) provides direct and effective
consequences by requiring that any nominee who receives more
votes withheld from his or her election than votes
for his or her election must promptly tender an
offer of resignation. In addition:
|
|
|
|
|
The other independent directors will evaluate the underlying
factors contributing to a majority of votes being withheld and
must determine the appropriate course of action within
90 days. |
|
|
|
The other independent directors must evaluate any tendered
resignation in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders. |
|
|
|
The Boards decision will be disclosed in a report on
Form 8-K furnished
by the Company to the SEC within four business days of the
decision, along with full disclosure of the reason for the
decision. |
|
|
|
Any director who offers his or her resignation pursuant to this
provision may not participate in discussions or actions related
to his or her own resignation offer. |
We believe, at the present time, that our Director Election
Policy is a better alternative to majority voting in the event
of a shareholder vote against a director. Under New Jersey law,
a director who fails to receive a required vote continues in
office as a holdover director, generally until the
next shareholder meeting. So under the shareholder proposal, a
director who receives more against votes than
for votes would remain on the board as a holdover
director until that director voluntarily resigns or the
shareholders elect a different director at the next shareholder
meeting. The decision of a director who has received a majority
of votes against his or her election to offer his or her
resignation is optional under a majority voting system, but
mandatory under our Director Election Policy. For this reason,
we believe a majority vote against a director under a majority
voting system could be a hollow victory for shareholders. The
Companys Director Election Policy, by requiring the
subject director to tender his or her resignation, makes it
easier for the remaining directors to effect the will of the
shareholders, if appropriate, by simply accepting the tendered
resignation in a process that would be completed within
90 days.
44
Our Director Election Policy reinforces Johnson &
Johnsons long history of strong governance practices.
Since 1987, a majority of our directors has been independent;
and since 1990, at least two-thirds of our directors have been
independent. In addition, our Company has never had a classified
or staggered board. Each director is up for re-election each
year. The Company also has no history of majority votes on
shareholder proposals. Furthermore, the Board provides for its
independent leadership through the annual selection of an
independent director to serve as Presiding Director. The
Presiding Director sees that the agenda for each Board meeting
addresses the concerns of the independent directors, can call
Executive Sessions and communicates with the Chairman to provide
feedback and effectuate the decisions and recommendations of the
independent directors.
In summary, Johnson & Johnson is not opposed to
majority voting in uncontested elections, but we believe that it
is premature to ask the shareholders to amend the Certificate of
Incorporation to adopt majority voting given the continuing
debate on this issue. In addition, our Director Election Policy,
along with our strong governance record, serves and protects the
interests of our shareholders. The shareholder proposal would
not further enhance the ability of our shareholders to impact
the outcome of director elections, and could have unintended
consequences. We do not believe that the proposal, at this point
in time, is in the best interest of the Company or its
shareholders. Nonetheless, the Board of Directors will continue
to assess the developments in this area; and consider submitting
this matter to the shareholders in the future.
It is, therefore, recommended that the shareholders vote
AGAINST this proposal.
ITEM 4: SHAREHOLDER
PROPOSAL ON SUPPLEMENTAL
RETIREMENT PLAN
The following shareholder proposal has been submitted to the
Company for action at the meeting by the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters Pension Fund of Washington, District of Columbia, a
holder of 48,400 shares of stock. The affirmative vote of a
majority of the shares voted at the meeting is required for
approval of the shareholder proposal. The text of the proposal
follows:
Be it Resolved: That the shareholders of the
Johnson & Johnson (Company) hereby urge
that the Board of Directors executive compensation
committee establish a policy limiting the benefits provided
under the Companys supplemental executive retirement plan
(SERP Policy). The SERP Policy should provide for
the following: (1) a limitation of covered compensation to
a senior executives annual salary, and (2) the
exclusion of all incentive or bonus pay from inclusion in the
plans definition of covered compensation used to establish
benefits. The SERP Policy should be implemented in a manner so
as not to interfere with existing contractual rights of any
supplemental plan participant.
Supporting Statement: We believe that one of the most
troubling aspects of the sharp rise in executive compensation is
the excessive pension benefits provided to senior corporate
executives through the use of supplemental executive retirement
plans (SERPs). Our Company has established a SERP.
The SERP provides the Companys chief executive officer
(CEO) and other senior executives retirement
benefits far greater than those permitted under the
Companys tax-qualified pension plan. Our proposal seeks to
limit excessive pension benefits by limiting the type of
compensation used to calculate pension benefits under the SERP
plan(s).
At present, U.S. tax law maintains a $220,000 limit on the level
of compensation used to determine a participants
retirement benefit under a tax-qualified pension plan. Our
Company has established a SERP as a complement to its
tax-qualified plan in order to provide senior executives
increased retirement benefits. This is accomplished by raising
the level of compensation used in the pension formula to
calculate retirement benefits. The SERP establishes a higher
compensation level on which to calculate senior executives
pension benefits by including the executives full salary
and annual bonus in the compensation figure. The Companys
2006 proxy statement indicated that the five-year average
covered compensation used to determine the pension benefit
for named
45
officers was $3,738,247 for the CEO, approximately 17 times the
$220,000 compensation limit in the Companys tax-qualified
pension plan.
Our position is that the inclusion of an executives annual
bonus along with his or her full salary in the pension
calculation is overly generous and unjustifiable. The only type
of compensation used in the SERP for establishing the level of
additional pension benefits should be an executives annual
salary. No variable incentive pay should be included in a senior
executives pension calculation under the SERP. The
inclusion of annual bonus or incentive payments in determining
increased pension benefits can dramatically increase the pension
benefit afforded senior executives and has the additional
undesirable effect of converting one-time incentive compensation
into guaranteed lifetime pension income.
The proposals limitation on the type of compensation that
can be considered in determining senior executives
retirement benefits to only the executives salary is a
necessary and reasonable restriction on the excessiveness of
supplemental retirement benefits. We urge your support for this
important executive compensation reform.
MANAGEMENTS STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO SHAREHOLDER
PROPOSAL
The Board of Directors favors a vote AGAINST the adoption of
this proposal for the following reasons:
Consistent with the Companys tradition of providing fair
and competitive retirement benefits for its loyal employees, the
Company implemented a supplemental pension plan (the
Plan) in 1983 in response to the limits on covered
earnings imposed on existing, tax-qualified corporate pension
plans by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Tax
Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). The Plan
was designed as a restorative plan to allow our employees to
realize their full retirement benefits long after their years of
dedicated service and into the years when they are no longer
able to work to support themselves and their beneficiaries. This
type of supplemental pension plan is legal and common at large
companies such as ours.
The proponents supporting statement claims that the Plan
was established in order to provide senior executives
increased retirement benefits, suggesting that the Plan is
a means by which the Company favors its senior executives to the
exclusion their subordinates. While many other companies have
adopted supplemental executive retirement plans as an additional
retirement benefit only for its senior executives, sometimes
referred to as top hat plans, the Companys
Supplemental Retirement Plan is not such a plan. All of the
Companys non-union, U.S. employees are eligible to
participate in the Plan to the extent their annual earnings, as
defined by the Plan, exceeds the threshold set by the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service (currently $220,000). In addition, the
proponent claims that the Plan establishes a higher
compensation level on which to calculate senior executives
pension benefits, when, in fact, the definitions and
calculations prescribed by the Plan are identical to those
applied to all U.S. employees under the Companys
tax-qualified pension plan.
Currently, over 2,500 employees participate in the Plan. This
number includes scientists, managers, sales professionals,
patent attorneys and other employees crucial to continuing
innovation, driving revenues and protecting the assets of our
pharmaceuticals, medical devices and diagnostics, and consumer
products businesses. By strictly limiting earnings covered under
the Plan to annual base salary, the proponents proposal
would significantly impair the potential retirement savings of
many of the Companys highly valued employees. In addition,
the proposals punitive effect on these individuals would
undoubtedly place our Company at a competitive disadvantage, as
some of our top talent would naturally be drawn to industry
competitors who are able to assure them the realization of their
full retirement benefits.
46
The Companys pension plans constitute an important
component of the Companys overall benefits program for its
U.S. employees. These plans are overseen by the Compensation
& Benefits Committee of the Board, which is composed
entirely of independent directors. The Board believes that it
would be inappropriate to single out certain classes of its
employees to receive unequal treatment under its retirement
plans, just as it would be inappropriate to create top
hat style plans for only its senior management. As such,
the Board believes that this proposal runs counter to the
Companys basic philosophy and tradition of providing fair
and competitive retirement benefits for its employees and thus
is not in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.
It is, therefore, recommended that shareholders vote AGAINST
this proposal.
OTHER MATTERS
The Board of Directors does not intend to bring other matters
before the meeting except items incident to the conduct of the
meeting, and the Company has not received timely notice from any
shareholder of an intent to present a proposal at the meeting.
On any matter properly brought before the meeting by the Board
or by others, the persons named as proxies in the accompanying
proxy, or their substitutes, will vote in accordance with their
best judgment.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
47
|
|
|
|
|
Notice of |
|
2007 Annual |
|
Meeting and |
|
Proxy |
|
Statement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000004 |
|
|
000000000.000000 ext 000000000.000000 ext
|
|
|
|
MR A SAMPLE
DESIGNATION (IF ANY)
ADD 1
ADD 2
ADD 3
ADD 4
ADD 5
ADD 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electronic Voting Instructions
You can vote by Internet or telephone!
Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!
Instead of mailing your proxy, you may choose one of the two voting methods outlined
below to vote your proxy. You may also vote in person at the meeting.
VALIDATION DETAILS ARE LOCATED BELOW IN THE TITLE BAR.
Your telephone or Internet vote must be received by 11:00 p.m, Eastern Time, on April 25, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote by Internet
Log on to the Internet and go to
www.investorvote.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the steps outlined on the secured website. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vote by telephone
Within the US, Canada & Puerto Rico, call toll free 1-800-652-VOTE(8683)
on a touch tone telephone. There is NO CHARGE to you for the call. |
Using a black ink pen, mark your votes with an X as shown in
this example. Please do not write outside the designated areas. |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outside the US, Canada & Puerto Rico, call 1-781-575-2300 on a touch tone telephone.
Standard rates will apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the instructions provided by the recorded message. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Meeting Proxy Card |
|
|
|
C0123456789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED VIA THE INTERNET OR TELEPHONE, FOLD ALONG THE PERFORATION,
DETACH AND RETURN THE BOTTOM PORTION IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
Proposals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR Proposal 1. |
|
The Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST Proposals 3 and 4. |
|
|
1. Election of Directors: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For |
|
Against |
|
Abstain |
+ |
|
01 - Mary S. Coleman |
|
02 - James G. Cullen |
|
03 - Michael M. E. Johns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04 - Arnold G. Langbo 07 - Christine A. Poon 10 - David Satcher
|
|
05 - Susan L. Lindquist 08 - Charles Prince 11 - William C. Weldon |
|
06 - Leo F. Mullin 09 - Steven S Reinemund |
|
3. Proposal on majority voting requirements for director nominees |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Proposal on supplemental retirement plan |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
o |
|
Mark here to vote FOR all nominees |
|
o |
|
Mark here to WITHHOLD vote from all nominees |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Voting Items |
|
|
|
|
o |
|
For All EXCEPT To withhold authority to vote for any nominee(s), write the name(s)
of such nominee(s) below. |
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Request for Admission Ticket to Annual Meeting
|
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board of
Directors recommends a vote FOR Proposal 2. |
|
Request for Guest Ticket to Annual Meeting |
|
o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
Abstain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Ratification of appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent registered public accounting firm |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
Special Action Discontinue Annual Report
Mailing for this Account |
|
o |
|
|
Change of Address Please print new address below. |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments Please print your comments below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
|
Authorized Signatures This Section must be completed for your vote to be counted. Date and Sign Below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign exactly as
name(s) appears hereon. Joint owners should each sign. When signing as attorney, executor,
administrator, corporate officer, trustee, guardian or custodian, please give full title as such.
|
|
Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Please print date below. |
|
Signature 1 Please keep signature within the box. |
|
Signature 2 Please keep signature within the box. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n
|
|
|
|
C 1234567890
1 U P X
|
|
J N T
0 1 2 6 2 3 1
|
|
MR A SAMPLE (THIS AREA IS SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE
140 CHARACTERS) MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND
MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND
MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND MR A SAMPLE AND
|
+ |
ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF PROXY MATERIALS
Sign
up to receive next years annual report and proxy materials via
the Internet. Next year when the materials
are available, we will send you an
e-mail with instructions which will enable you to review these materials on-line.
To sign up for this optional service, visit www.computershare.com/us/ecomms.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLANS
If you are an employee and hold stock in one of the Johnson & Johnson employee savings plans, this
proxy card covers those shares held for you in your savings plan, as well as any other shares
registered in your own name. By signing and returning this proxy card (or voting by telephone or
the Internet), you will authorize the trustee of your savings plan to vote those shares held for
you in your savings plan as you have directed.
6IF
YOU HAVE NOT VOTED VIA THE INTERNET OR TELEPHONE, FOLD ALONG THE PERFORATION, DETACH AND RETURN THE BOTTOM PORTION IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proxy Johnson & Johnson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice of 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Two Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ
Proxy Solicited by Board of Directors for Annual Meeting April 26, 2007, 10:00 a.m., Eastern Time
The signatory hereto hereby appoints D. J. Caruso and R. C. Deyo and each or either of them
as proxies, with full power of substitution and revocation, to represent the signatory hereto and
to vote all shares of the Common Stock of Johnson & Johnson which the signatory hereto is entitled
to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company to be held on April 26, 2007 at 10:00
a.m. at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Two Albany Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and any
adjournments or postponements thereof, upon the matters listed on the reverse side hereof and, in
their discretion, upon such other matters as may properly come before the meeting. The proxies
appointed hereby may act by a majority of said proxies present at the meeting (or if only one is
present, by that one).
Shares represented by this proxy will be voted by the shareholder. If no such directions are
indicated, the Proxies will have authority to vote FOR election of all nominees, FOR proposal 2
and AGAINST proposals 3 and 4.
In their discretion, the Proxies are authorized to vote upon such other business as may properly
come before the meeting.
(Items to be voted appear on reverse side.)