UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.  )

Filed by the Registrant þ
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o

Check the appropriate box:

o		Preliminary Proxy Statement
o		Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
þ		Definitive Proxy Statement
o		Definitive Additional Materials
o		Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

 

ION Geophysical Corporation

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

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

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ		No fee required.
o		Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

	(1)		Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
	(2)		Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
	(3)		Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
	(4)		Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
	(5)		Total fee paid:

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.:
	(3)		Filing Party:
	(4)		Date Filed:

 

 

ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77042-2839
(281) 933-3339

 

 

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
To Be Held May 27, 2011

 

 

To ION’s Stockholders:

 

The 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of ION Geophysical Corporation will be held at 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Houston, Texas, on Friday, May 27, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., local time, for the following purposes:

 

1. To elect three directors to our Board of Directors, each to serve for a three-year term;

 

2. To approve certain amendments to ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan to provide for enforceability of our compensation recoupment (clawback) policy and to increase the total number of shares of ION’s common stock available for issuance under the plan from 10.2 million shares to 15.2 million shares;

 

3. To hold an advisory (non-binding) vote on the compensation of our named executive officers;

 

4. To hold an advisory (non-binding) vote on the frequency of stockholder advisory votes on executive compensation;

 

5. To ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm (independent auditors) for 2011; and

 

6. To consider any other business that may properly come before the annual meeting, or any postponement or adjournment of the meeting.

 

ION’s Board of Directors has set April 1, 2011, as the record date for the meeting. This means that owners of ION common stock at the close of business on that date are entitled to receive this notice of meeting and vote at the meeting and any adjournments or postponements of the meeting. For your reference, directions to the meeting location are included in this proxy statement.

 

Your vote is very important, and your prompt cooperation in voting your proxy is greatly appreciated. Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, please sign, date and return your enclosed proxy card as soon as possible so that your shares can be voted at the meeting.

 

By Authorization of the Board of Directors,

 

 

David L. Roland

Senior Vice President, General Counsel

and Corporate Secretary

 

April 21, 2011

Houston, Texas

 

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials
For the Annual Stockholders’ Meeting to be held on May 27, 2011

The proxy statement, proxy card and our 2010 annual report to stockholders
are available at www.iongeo.com under “Investor Relations — Investor Materials —
Stockholders’ Meeting.”

 

The Annual Meeting of Stockholders of ION Geophysical Corporation will be held on May 27, 2011, at 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Houston, Texas, beginning at 10:30 a.m., local time.

 

The matters intended to be acted upon are:

 

 

The Board of Directors recommends voting in favor of the nominees listed in the proxy statement, the approval of the amendments to the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers, the approval of an executive compensation vote to be held every three years, and the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP. However, notwithstanding the Board’s recommendation and the fact the stockholder vote on frequency of executive compensation vote is a non-binding advisory vote only, the Board intends to accept the results of the stockholder vote on that proposal and hold the next advisory vote on executive compensation within the timeframe approved by the stockholders at our 2011 Annual Meeting.

 

The following proxy materials are being made available at the website location specified above:

 

 

Directions to the annual meeting are also provided in the accompanying proxy statement under “About the Meeting — Where will the Annual Meeting be held?”.

 

ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77042-2839
(281) 933-3339

 

April 21, 2011

 

 

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

To Be Held May 27, 2011

 

 

 

Our Board of Directors is furnishing you this proxy statement to solicit proxies on its behalf to be voted at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of ION Geophysical Corporation (“ION”). The meeting will be held at 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Houston, Texas, on May 27, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., local time. The proxies also may be voted at any adjournments or postponements of the meeting.

 

The mailing address of our principal executive offices is 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839. We are mailing the proxy materials to our stockholders beginning on or about April 21, 2011.

 

All properly completed and returned proxies for the annual meeting will be voted at the meeting in accordance with the directions given in the proxy, unless the proxy is revoked before the meeting.

 

Only owners of record of our shares of common stock on April 1, 2011, are entitled to vote at the meeting, or at adjournments or postponements of the meeting. Each owner of common stock on the record date is entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held. On April 1, 2011, there were 155,846,294 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.

 

When used in this proxy statement, “ION Geophysical,” “ION,” “Company,” “we,” “our,” “ours” and “us” refer to ION Geophysical Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, except where the context otherwise requires or as otherwise indicated.

 

ABOUT THE MEETING

 

What is a proxy?

 

A proxy is your legal designation of another person to vote the stock you own on your behalf. That other person is referred to as a “proxy.” Our Board of Directors has designated Robert P. Peebler and James M. Lapeyre, Jr. as proxies for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. By completing and returning the enclosed proxy card, you are giving Mr. Peebler and Mr. Lapeyre the authority to vote your shares in the manner you indicate on your proxy card.

 

Who is soliciting my proxy?

 

Our Board of Directors is soliciting proxies on its behalf to be voted at the 2011 Annual Meeting. All costs of soliciting the proxies will be paid by ION. Copies of solicitation materials will be furnished to banks, brokers, nominees and other fiduciaries and custodians to forward to beneficial owners of ION’s common stock held by such persons. ION will reimburse such persons for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in forwarding solicitation materials. In addition to solicitations by mail, some of ION’s directors, officers and other employees, without extra compensation, might supplement this solicitation by telephone, personal interview or other communication. ION has also retained Georgeson Inc. to assist with the solicitation of proxies from banks, brokers, nominees and other holders, for a fixed fee of $9,500 plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, which fees and expenses will be paid by ION. We may also ask our proxy solicitor to solicit proxies on our behalf by telephone for a fixed fee of $6 per phone call and $3.50 per telephone vote, plus reasonable expenses.

 

What is a proxy statement?

 

A proxy statement is a document that the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission require us to give you when we ask you to sign a proxy card designating individuals as proxies to vote on your behalf.

 

What is the difference between a “stockholder of record” and a stockholder who holds stock in “street name”?

 

If your shares are registered directly in your name, you are a stockholder of record. If your shares are registered in the name of your broker, bank or similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in street name.

 

What different methods can I use to vote?

 

Most stockholders have a choice of voting over the Internet, by telephone, or by using a traditional proxy card. Please check your proxy card or the information forwarded by your bank, broker or other holder of record to see which options are available to you.

 

(a) In Writing:  All stockholders can vote by written proxy card.

 

(b) By Telephone and Internet:  Owners of shares held in street name may vote by telephone or the Internet if their bank or broker makes those methods available, in which case the bank or broker will enclose the instructions with the proxy statement. The telephone and Internet voting procedures, including the use of control numbers, are designed to authenticate stockholders’ identities, to allow stockholders to vote their shares, and to confirm that their instructions have been properly recorded.

 

(c) In Person:  All stockholders may vote in person at the meeting. If your shares are held in street name and you wish to vote in person, you will need to ask your broker or bank for a legal proxy. You will need to bring the legal proxy with you to the meeting.

Where will the Annual Meeting be held?

 

ION’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held on the 4th Floor of 2105 CityWest Boulevard in Houston, Texas.

 

Directions:  The site for the meeting is located on CityWest Boulevard off of Beltway 8, near the intersection of Beltway 8 and Briar Forest Drive. Traveling south on the Beltway 8 feeder road after Briar Forest Drive, turn right on Del Monte Drive. Enter Garage Entrance 3 on your immediate left. Advise the guard that you are attending the ION Annual Meeting. You may be required to show your driver’s license or other photo identification. The guard will then direct you where to park in the visitors section of the parking garage. The guard can also direct you to 2105 CityWest Boulevard, which is directly south of the garage. Once in the building, check in with the security desk and then take the elevators to the 4th floor.

 

Does my vote matter?

 

Yes! Corporations are required to obtain stockholder approval for the election of directors and other important matters. Stockholder participation is not a mere formality. Stockholder voting is essential for ION to continue to function. It is also important that you vote to assure that a quorum is obtained so that corporate business can be transacted at the meeting.

 

What is the effect of not voting?

 

It depends on how ownership of your shares is registered. If you are a stockholder of record, your unvoted shares will not be represented at the meeting and will not count toward the quorum requirement. Assuming a quorum is obtained, your unvoted shares will not be treated as a vote for or against a proposal.

 

If you own your shares in street name, your broker or bank may represent your shares at the meeting for purposes of obtaining a quorum. As described in the answer to the question immediately following, in the absence of your voting instruction, your broker may or may not vote your shares.

 

If I don’t vote, will my broker vote for me?

 

If you own your shares in street name and you do not vote, your broker may vote your shares in its discretion on proposals determined to be “routine matters” under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). With respect to “non-routine matters,” however, your broker may not vote your shares for you. Where a broker cannot vote your shares on non-routine matters because he has not received any instructions from you regarding how to vote, the number of unvoted shares on those matters is reported as “broker non-votes.” These “broker non-vote” shares are counted toward the quorum requirement, but, generally speaking, they do not affect the determination of whether a matter is approved. See “— How are abstentions and broker non-votes counted?” below. The election of directors, the proposal to approve the amendments to our 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the advisory vote on executive compensation and the advisory vote on the frequency of executive compensation votes are not considered to be routine matters under current NYSE rules, so your broker will not have discretionary authority to vote your shares held in street name on those matters. The proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm is considered to be a routine matter on which brokers will be permitted to vote your shares without instructions from you.

 

What is the record date and what does it mean?

 

The record date for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is April 1, 2011. The record date is established by the Board of Directors as required by Delaware law (the state in which we are incorporated). Holders of common stock at the close of business on the record date are entitled to receive notice of the meeting and vote at the meeting and any adjournments or postponements of the meeting.

How can I revoke a proxy?

 

A stockholder can revoke a proxy by taking any one of the following three actions before it is voted at the meeting:

 

(a) giving written notice to the Corporate Secretary of ION,

 

(b) delivering a later-dated proxy, or

 

(c) voting in person at the meeting.

 

If you hold shares through a bank or broker, you must contact that bank or broker in order to revoke any prior voting instructions.

 

What constitutes a quorum?

 

The presence, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock constitutes a quorum. We need a quorum of stockholders to hold a validly convened Annual Meeting. If you have signed and returned your proxy card, your shares will be counted toward the quorum. If a quorum is not present, the chairman may adjourn the meeting, without notice other than by announcement at the meeting, until the required quorum is present.

 

As of the record date, 155,846,294 shares of common stock were outstanding. Thus, the presence of the holders of common stock representing at least 77,923,148 shares will be required to establish a quorum.

 

What are my voting choices when voting for director nominees, and what vote is needed to elect directors?

 

In voting on the election of three director nominees to serve until the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, stockholders may vote in one of the following ways:

 

(a) in favor of all nominees,

 

(b) withhold votes as to all nominees, or

 

(c) withhold votes as to a specific nominee.

 

Directors will be elected by a plurality of the votes of the shares of common stock present or represented by proxy at the meeting. This means that director nominees receiving the highest number of “for” votes will be elected as directors. Votes “for” and “withheld” are counted in determining whether a plurality has been cast in favor of a director. You may not abstain from voting for purposes of the election of directors. Stockholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes in the election of directors.

 

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” all of the nominees.

 

What are my voting choices when voting on the proposal to approve the amendments to ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan and what vote is needed to approve the proposal?

 

In voting to approve the amendments to ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, stockholders may vote in one of the following ways:

 

(a) in favor of the approval of the amendments,

 

(b) against the approval of the amendments, or

 

(c) abstain from voting on the approval of the amendments.

 

The proposal to approve the amendments to ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal by holders of common stock in person or represented by proxy at the meeting, so long as the total votes cast on the proposal exceed 50% of the shares of common stock outstanding.

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” this proposal.

 

What are my voting choices when casting an advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers?

 

In casting an advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers, stockholders may vote in one of the following ways:

 

(a) in favor of the executive compensation,

 

(b) against the executive compensation, or

 

(c) abstain from voting.

 

The advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers will be approved if the number of votes cast in favor of the proposal exceeds the number of votes cast against it.

 

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” this proposal.

 

What are my voting choices when casting an advisory vote on the frequency of stockholder votes on executive compensation?

 

For the non-binding advisory vote on the frequency of future stockholder votes on executive compensation, stockholders may cast their vote in favor of one of the following four alternatives:

 

(a) every year,

 

(b) every two years,

 

(c) every three years, or

 

(d) abstain from voting.

 

The advisory vote regarding the frequency of future stockholder votes to approve executive compensation will be determined by a plurality of the votes cast in the advisory vote. This means that the alternative that receives the greatest number of votes will be considered the frequency that is recommended by our stockholders.

 

The Board recommends that you vote in favor of “EVERY THREE YEARS” with respect to the advisory vote regarding the frequency of the stockholder vote on executive compensation. However, notwithstanding the Board’s recommendation and the fact that this is a non-binding advisory vote only, the Board intends to accept the results of the stockholder vote on this proposal and hold the next advisory vote on executive compensation within the timeframe approved by the stockholders at our 2011 Annual Meeting.

 

What are my voting choices when voting on the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm — or independent auditors — and what vote is needed to ratify their appointment?

 

In voting to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors for 2011, stockholders may vote in one of the following ways:

 

(a) in favor of ratification,

 

(b) against ratification, or

 

(c) abstain from voting on ratification.

 

The proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal by holders of common stock in person or represented by proxy at the meeting.

 

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” this proposal.

Will any other business be transacted at the meeting? If so, how will my proxy be voted?

 

We do not know of any business to be transacted at the Annual Meeting other than those matters described in this proxy statement. We believe that the periods specified in ION’s Bylaws for submitting proposals to be considered at the meeting have passed and no proposals were submitted. However, should any other matters properly come before the meeting, and any adjournments or postponements of the meeting, shares with respect to which voting authority has been granted to the proxies will be voted by the proxies in accordance with their judgment.

 

What if a stockholder does not specify a choice for a matter when returning a proxy?

 

Stockholders should specify their choice for each matter on the enclosed form of proxy. If no instructions are given, proxies that are signed and returned will be voted “FOR” the election of all director nominees, “FOR” the approval of the amendments to ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, “FOR” the non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation, “EVERY THREE YEARS” with respect to the non-binding advisory vote on frequency of future stockholder votes on executive compensation, and “FOR” the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors for 2011.

 

How are abstentions and broker non-votes counted?

 

Abstentions are counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting. A properly executed proxy card marked “withhold” with respect to the election of one or more directors will not be voted with respect to the director or directors indicated, although it will be counted for purposes of determining whether there is a quorum.

 

An abstention will have the same legal effect as a vote against the proposal to amend the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan because it will represent a share present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and a vote cast on the proposal, thereby increasing the number of affirmative votes required to approve the proposal. Broker non-votes will have no effect on the outcome of the proposal to amend the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, so long as the total votes cast on that proposal represent more than 50% of our outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote.

 

With respect to (i) the proposal regarding the advisory vote on executive compensation, (ii) the proposal regarding the advisory vote on the frequency of future stockholder votes on executive compensation and (iii) the proposal to ratify the appointment of the independent auditors, an abstention from voting on any such proposal will be counted as present in determining whether a quorum is present but will not be counted in determining the total votes cast on such proposal. Thus, abstentions will have no effect on the outcome of the vote on these proposals. Broker non-votes will likewise have no effect on the outcome of the vote on these proposals.

 

What is the deadline for submitting proposals to be considered for inclusion in the 2012 proxy statement?

 

Stockholder proposals requested to be included in ION’s 2012 proxy statement must be received by ION not later than December 23, 2011. Proposals should be directed to David L. Roland, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ION Geophysical Corporation, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839.

 

What is the deadline for submitting a nomination for director of ION for consideration at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in 2012?

 

A proper director nomination may be considered at ION’s 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders only if the proposal for nomination is received by ION not later than December 23, 2011. All nominations should be directed to David L. Roland, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ION Geophysical Corporation, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839.

Will I have electronic access to the proxy materials and Annual Report?

 

The notice of Annual Meeting, proxy statement and 2010 Annual Report to Stockholders are also posted on ION’s Internet website in the Investor Relations section at www.iongeo.com.

 

How can I obtain a copy of ION’s Annual Report on Form 10-K?

 

A copy of our 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K is enclosed with our proxy statement and 2010 Annual Report to Stockholders. You may obtain an additional copy of our 2010 Form 10-K at no charge by sending a written request to David L. Roland, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ION Geophysical Corporation, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839. Our Form 10-K is also available (i) through the Investor Relations section of our website at www.iongeo.com and (ii) with exhibits on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

 

Please note that the contents of these and any other websites referenced in this proxy statement are not incorporated into this filing. Further, our references to the URLs for these and other websites listed in this proxy statement are intended to be inactive textual references only.

 

ITEM 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

Our Board of Directors consists of eight members. The Board is divided into three classes. Members of each class are elected for three-year terms and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified, unless the director dies, resigns, retires, is disqualified or is removed. Our stockholders elect the directors in a designated class annually. Directors in Class III, which is the class of directors to be elected at this meeting, will serve on the Board until our Annual Meeting in 2014.

 

The current Class III directors are Michael C. Jennings, Robert P. Peebler and John N. Seitz, and their terms will expire at the 2011 Annual Meeting. At its meeting on February 11, 2011, the Board approved the recommendation of the Governance Committee that Messrs. Jennings, Peebler and Seitz be nominated to stand for reelection at the Annual Meeting to hold office until our 2014 Annual Meeting and until their successors are elected and qualified.

 

We have no reason to believe that any of the nominees will be unable or unwilling to serve if elected. However, if any nominee should become unable or unwilling to serve for any reason, proxies may be voted for another person nominated as a substitute by the Board of Directors, or the Board of Directors may reduce the number of Directors.

 

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the election of Michael C. Jennings, Robert P. Peebler and John N. Seitz.

 

The biographies of each of the nominees and continuing directors below contains information regarding the person’s service as a director, business experience, education, director positions, and the experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills that caused the Governance Committee and the Board to determine that the person should serve as a director for the Company:

 

Class III Director Nominees For Re-Election For Term Expiring In 2014

 

 

 

 

Mr. Jennings joined our Board of Directors in December 2010. Mr. Jennings is currently the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Frontier Oil Corporation, an independent oil refining and marketing company. Prior to his appointment to President and Chief Executive Officer in January 2009, Mr. Jennings served as Frontier’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. From 2000 until joining Frontier in 2005, Mr. Jennings was employed by Cameron International Corporation as Vice President and Treasurer. From 1998 until 2000, he was Vice President Finance & Corporate Development of Unimin Corporation, a producer of industrial minerals. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Jennings was employed by

Cameron International Corporation as Director, Acquisitions and Corporate Finance. Mr. Jennings is a member of the Audit and Finance Committees of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and government from Dartmouth College and a Master of Business Administration degree in finance and accounting from the University of Chicago.

 

Mr. Jennings’ experience in the global oil refining, marketing and oilfield services businesses enables him to advise the Board on customer and industry issues and perspectives. Given his extensive experience in executive, financial, treasury and corporate development matters, Mr. Jennings is able to provide the Board with expertise in corporate leadership, financial management, corporate planning and strategic development, thereby supporting the Board’s efforts in overseeing and advising on strategic and financial matters.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Peebler has been our Chief Executive Officer since 2003 and a member of our Board of Directors since 1999. From 2003 until December 2008 and more recently commencing again in January 2010, Mr. Peebler also served as our President. Prior to joining ION on a full-time basis, Mr. Peebler was the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Virtual Partners, an asset development and management company for oil and gas properties. Prior to founding Energy Virtual Partners in April 2001, Mr. Peebler was Vice President of e-Business Strategy and Ventures of the Halliburton Company, a provider of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries. Mr. Peebler joined Halliburton in 1996 when Halliburton acquired Landmark Graphics Corporation, a provider of workstation-based software for oil and gas exploration and production, where he had served as CEO since 1992. Mr. Peebler began his career with Schlumberger, a global oilfield and information services company, in wireline operations and spent 17 years with Schlumberger in various positions, including as head of U.S. wireline operations and executive in charge of strategic marketing for the corporate energy services group. Mr. Peebler is a member of the Finance Committee of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Kansas.

 

Mr. Peebler’s day-to-day leadership and involvement with our company provides him with personal knowledge regarding our operations. In addition, Mr. Peebler has worked more than 30 years in and around seismic and other oilfield service companies and his extensive experience enables the Board to not only be informed with regard to our company’s operations and prospects, but also to better understand the direction of the industry.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Seitz joined our Board of Directors in 2003. Mr. Seitz is a founder and Vice Chairman of the Board of Endeavour International Corporation, an exploration and development company with activities in the North Sea and selected North American basins. From 2003 until 2006, Mr. Seitz served as co-CEO of Endeavour. From 1977 to 2003, Mr. Seitz held positions of increasing responsibility at Anadarko Petroleum Company, serving most recently as a Director and as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Seitz is a Trustee of the American Geological Institute Foundation and serves on the Board of Managers of Constellation Energy Partners LLC, a company focused on the acquisition, development and exploitation of oil and natural gas properties and related midstream assets. He also currently serves on the Board of Directors of Gulf United Energy, Inc., an OTC-listed independent energy company with interests in oil and natural gas properties in Peru and Colombia. Mr. Seitz is a member of the Compensation and Governance Committees of our Board of Directors. Mr. Seitz holds a Bachelor of Science degree in geology from the University of Pittsburgh, a Master of Science degree in geology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and is a Certified Professional Geoscientist in Texas. He also completed the Advanced Management Program at the Wharton School of Business.

 

Mr. Seitz’ extensive experience as a leader of global exploration and production companies such as Endeavour and Anadarko has proven to be an important resource for our Board when considering industry and customer issues. In addition, Mr. Seitz’ geology background and expertise assists the Board in better understanding industry trends and issues.

Class I Incumbent Directors — Term Expiring In 2012

 

 

 

 

Mr. Hao joined our Board of Directors on January 1, 2011. Mr. Hao has been employed by China National Petroleum Corporation (“CNPC”), China’s largest oil company, and its affiliates in various positions of increasing responsibility since 1984. Since 2006, Mr. Hao has been Chief Geophysicist of BGP Inc., China National Petroleum Corporation (“BGP”). BGP is a subsidiary of CNPC and is the world’s largest land seismic contractor. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Hao was Vice President of BGP, and from 2002 to 2004, he managed the marine department at BGP. Between 1984 and 2002, Mr. Hao served in various management positions at Dagang Geophysical Company, a seismic contractor company owned by CNPC. Mr. Hao is a member of the Finance Committee of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in geophysical exploration from China Petroleum University and Masters of Business Administration degrees from the University of Houston and Nankai University in China.

 

Mr. Hao has over 20 years of experience in geophysical technology research and development, particularly in seismic data processing and seismic data acquisition system research and development management. Mr. Hao’s position with BGP and his extensive knowledge of the global seismic industry enables our Board to receive current input and advice reflecting the perspectives of our seismic contractor customers. In addition, our land equipment joint venture with BGP and the ever-increasing importance of China in the global economy and the worldwide oil and gas industry has elevated our commercial involvement with China and Chinese companies. Mr. Hao’s insights with regard to issues relating to China provide our Board with an invaluable resource.

 

Mr. Hao was appointed to our Board of Directors under the terms of an agreement with BGP in connection with BGP’s purchase of 23,789,536 shares of our common stock in March 2010. Under the agreement, BGP is entitled to designate one individual to serve as a member of our Board unless BGP’s ownership of our common stock falls below 10%. In January 2011, Mr. Hao replaced Guo Yueliang, BGP’s initial appointee to our Board, and Mr. Hao will serve the remainder of Mr. Guo’s term on our Board, which term is scheduled to expire in 2012.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lapeyre has been Chairman of our Board of Directors since 1999 and a Director since 1998. Mr. Lapeyre has been President of Laitram L.L.C., a privately-owned, New Orleans-based manufacturer of food processing equipment and modular conveyor belts, and its predecessors since 1989. Mr. Lapeyre joined our Board of Directors when we bought the DigiCOURSE marine positioning products business from Laitram in 1998. Mr. Lapeyre is Chairman of the Governance Committee and a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Art degree in history from the University of Texas and Master of Business Administration and Juris Doctorate degrees from Tulane University.

 

Mr. Lapeyre’s status as a significant stockholder of our company enables our Board to have direct access to the perspective of our stockholders and ensures that the Board will take into consideration the interests of our stockholders in all Board decisions. In addition, Mr. Lapeyre has extensive knowledge regarding the marine products and technology that we acquired from Laitram in 1998.

 

Class II Incumbent Directors — Term Expiring In 2013

 

 

 

 

Mr. Barr joined our Board of Directors in December 2010. In 2009, Mr. Barr retired from Baker Hughes Incorporated, an oilfield services and equipment provider, after serving for 36 years in various manufacturing, marketing, engineering and product management functions. At the time of his retirement, Mr. Barr was Group

President — Eastern Hemisphere, responsible for all Baker Hughes products and services for Europe, Russia/Caspian, Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. From 2007 to 2009, he served as Group President — Completion & Production, and from 2005 to 2007, as Group President — Drilling and Evaluation. Mr. Barr served as President of Baker Atlas, a division of Baker Hughes Inc., from 2000 to 2005, and served as Vice President, Supply Chain Management for the Cameron division of ... Cameron International Corporation from 1999 to 2000. Prior to 2000, he held positions of increasing responsibility within Baker Hughes Inc. and its affiliates, including Vice President — Business Process Development and various leadership positions with Hughes Tool Company and Hughes Christensen. Mr. Barr initially joined Hughes Tool Company in 1972 after graduating from Texas Tech University with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Mr. Barr also currently serves on the Board of Directors and Audit, Remuneration and Governance Committees of Hunting PLC (a London Stock Exchange-listed provider of energy services), on the Board of Directors (serving as non-executive Chairman of the Board) and Audit and Compensation Committees of Logan International Inc. (a TSX-listed manufacturer and provider of oilfield tools and services), and on the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of Probe Holdings, Inc. (a designer and manufacturer of oilfield technology and tools). Mr. Barr is a member of the Compensation and Governance Committees of our Board of Directors.

 

Mr. Barr’s 36 years of experience in the oilfield equipment and services industry provides a uniquely valuable industry perspective for our Board. While at Baker Hughes, Mr. Barr obtained experience within a wide range of company functions, from engineering to group President. His breadth of experience enables him to better understand and inform the Board regarding a range of issues and decisions involved in the operation of our business, including development of business strategy.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Myers joined our Board of Directors in 2001. He is currently an Operating Advisor with Paine & Partners, LLC, a private equity firm focused on leveraged buyout transactions. Prior to joining Paine & Partners in October 2009, Mr. Myers was employed by Cameron International Corporation, an international manufacturer of oil and gas flow control equipment, as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (from 1995 to 1999), President of the Cooper Energy Services Division (from 1998 until 2002), Senior Vice President (from 2001 to 2003), Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (from 2003 to 2008) and Senior Advisor (from 2008 to October 2009). Prior to joining Cameron, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Baker Hughes Incorporated, an oilfield services and equipment provider, and an attorney and partner with the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. in Houston, Texas. Mr. Myers also currently serves on the Boards of Directors of Comfort Systems, Inc., a NYSE-listed provider of heating, ventilation and air conditioning services, and Frontier Oil Corporation, a NYSE-listed oil refining and marketing company. Mr. Myers is Chairman of the Compensation Committee, co-Chairman of the Finance Committee and a member of the Governance Committee of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial engineering from Mississippi State University and a Juris Doctorate degree with Honors from the University of Mississippi.

 

Mr. Myers’ extensive experience as both a financial and legal executive makes him uniquely qualified as a valuable member of our Board and the Chairman of our Compensation Committee. While at Cameron, Baker Hughes and Fulbright & Jaworski, Mr. Myers was responsible for numerous successful finance and acquisition transactions, and his expertise gained through those experiences have proven to be a significant resource for our Board. In addition, Mr. Myers’ service on Boards of Directors of other NYSE-listed companies enables Mr. Myers to observe and advise on favorable governance practices pursued by other public companies.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Nelson joined our Board of Directors in 2004. In 2004, Mr. Nelson retired from Cal Dive International, Inc. (now named Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc.), a marine contractor and operator of offshore oil and gas properties and production facilities, where he was a founding shareholder, Chief Financial

Officer (prior to 2000), Vice Chairman (from 2000 to 2004) and a Director (from 1990 to 2004). From 1985 to 1988, Mr. Nelson was the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Diversified Energies, Inc., a NYSE-traded company with $1 billion in annual revenues and the former parent company of Cal Dive. From 1980 to 1985, Mr. Nelson served as Chief Financial Officer of Apache Corporation, an oil and gas exploration and production company. From 1966 to 1980, Mr. Nelson was employed with Arthur Andersen & Co. where, from 1976 to 1980, he was a partner serving on the firm’s worldwide oil and gas industry team. Mr. Nelson also currently serves on the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of Oil States International, Inc. (a NYSE-listed diversified oilfield services company) and the Board of Directors and Audit and Compensation Committees of W&T Offshore, Inc. (a NYSE-listed oil and natural gas exploration and production company) and the general partner of Genesis Energy LP (an American Stock Exchange-listed operator of oil and natural gas pipelines and provider of services to refineries and industrial gas users). From 2005 until the company’s sale in 2008, he served as a member of the Board of Directors and Audit and Compensation Committees of Quintana Maritime, Ltd., a provider of dry bulk cargo shipping services based in Athens, Greece. Mr. Nelson, who is also a Certified Public Accountant, is Chairman of the Audit Committee and co-Chairman of the Finance Committee of our Board of Directors. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Holy Cross College and a Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard University.

 

Mr. Nelson is an experienced financial leader with the skills necessary to lead our Audit Committee. His service as Chief Financial Officer of Cal Dive International, Inc., Diversified Energies, Inc. and Apache Corporation, as well as his years with Arthur Andersen & Co., make him a valuable asset to ION, both on our Board of Directors and as the Chairman of our Audit Committee, particularly with regard to financial and accounting matters. In addition, Mr. Nelson’s service on audit committees of other companies enables Mr. Nelson to remain current on audit committee best practices and current financial reporting developments within the energy industry.

Ownership of Equity Securities of ION

 

Except as otherwise set forth below, the following table sets forth information as of March 1, 2011, with respect to the number of shares of common stock owned by (i) each person known by us to be a beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock, (ii) each of our directors, (iii) each of our executive officers named in the 2010 Summary Compensation Table included in this proxy statement and (iv) all of our directors and executive officers as a group. Except where information was otherwise known by us, we have relied solely upon filings of Schedules 13D and 13G to determine the number of shares of our common stock owned by each person known to us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock as of such date.

 

 

 

 

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

 

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), requires directors and certain officers of ION, and persons who own more than 10% of ION’s common stock, to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the NYSE initial statements of beneficial ownership on Form 3 and changes in such ownership on Forms 4 and 5. Based on our review of the copies of such reports, we believe that, with one exception, during 2010 our directors, executive officers and stockholders holding greater than 10% of our outstanding shares complied with all applicable filing requirements under

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, and that all of their filings had been timely made. A Form 4 for Mr. Morrison reflecting a sale of 2,500 shares of ION stock on November 29, 2010, was filed two days late due to an administrative error.

 

Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

 

Governance Initiatives.  ION is committed to excellence in corporate governance and maintains clear practices and policies that promote good corporate governance. Many of these practices and policies are designed to ensure compliance with the listing requirements of the NYSE and applicable governance requirements. We review our governance practices and update them, as appropriate, based upon Delaware law, rules and listing standards of the NYSE, SEC regulations, and practices recommended by our outside advisors.

 

Examples of our corporate governance initiatives include the following:

 

 

 

Code of Ethics.  We have adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all members of our Board of Directors and all of our employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and all other senior members of our finance and accounting departments. We require all employees to adhere to our Code of Ethics in addressing legal and ethical issues encountered in conducting their work. The Code of Ethics requires that our employees avoid conflicts of interest, comply with all laws and other legal requirements, conduct business in an honest and ethical manner, promote full and accurate financial reporting, and otherwise act with integrity and in ION’s best interest. Every year our management employees and senior finance and accounting employees affirm their compliance with our Code of Ethics and other principal compliance policies. New employees sign a written certification of compliance with these policies upon commencing employment.

 

We have made our Code of Ethics, corporate governance guidelines, charters for the committees of our Board (other than our Finance Committee charter) and other information that may be of interest to investors available on the Investor Relations section of our website at http://www.iongeo.com/Investor_Relations/Corporate_Governance/. Copies of this information may also be obtained by writing to us at ION Geophysical Corporation, Attention: Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839. Amendments to, or waivers from, our Code of Ethics will also be available on our website and reported as may be required under SEC rules; however, any technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendments to our Code of Ethics may not be posted.

 

Please note that the preceding Internet address and all other Internet addresses referenced in this proxy statement are for information purposes only and are not intended to be a hyperlink. Accordingly, no information found or provided at such Internet addresses or at our website in general is intended or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein.

 

Presiding Non-Management Director.  Under NYSE corporate governance listing standards, James M. Lapeyre, Jr. has been designated as the presiding non-management director to lead non-management directors meetings of the Board. Our non-management directors meet at regularly scheduled executive sessions without management, over which Mr. Lapeyre presides.

 

Communications to Board and Presiding Non-Management Director.  Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate with the Board and our presiding non-management director or non-management independent directors as a group by writing to “Chairman of the Board” (if the intended recipient is the Board) or “Presiding Non-management Director” (if the intended recipient is the presiding non-management director, or the non-management directors as a whole), c/o Corporate Secretary, ION Geophysical Corporation, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839. Inquiries sent by mail will be reviewed by our Corporate Secretary and, if they pertain to the functions of the Board or Board committees or if the Corporate Secretary otherwise determines that they should be brought to the intended recipient’s attention, they will be forwarded to the intended recipient. Concerns relating to accounting, internal controls, auditing or compliance matters will be brought to the attention of our Audit Committee and handled in accordance with procedures established by the Audit Committee.

 

Our Corporate Secretary’s review of these communications will be performed with a view that the integrity of this process be preserved. For example, items that are unrelated to the duties and responsibilities of the Board, such as personal employee complaints, product inquiries, new product suggestions, resumes and other forms of job inquiries, surveys, business solicitations or advertisements, will not be forwarded to those individuals. In addition, material that is considered to be hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly unsuitable

will not be forwarded to them. Except for these types of items, the Corporate Secretary will promptly forward written communications to the intended recipient. Within the above guidelines, the independent directors have granted the Corporate Secretary discretion to decide what correspondence should be shared with ION management and independent directors.

 

2010 Meetings of the Board and Stockholders.  During 2010, the Board of Directors held nine meetings and the four standing committees of the Board of Directors held a total of 20 meetings. Overall, the rate of attendance by our directors at such meetings exceeded 94%. With the exception of Mr. Guo Yueliang, no director attended less than 75% of these meetings. Mr. Guo was nominated to the Board of Directors by our stockholder BGP pursuant to the terms of an agreement that we entered into with BGP in connection with BGP’s purchase of shares of our common stock in March 2010. He served on the Board from April 1, 2010 until January 1, 2011. Mr. Guo, a resident of China, attended 60% of the meetings of the Board held during his tenure. We do not require our Board members to attend our Annual Meeting of Stockholders; however, five of our directors attended our Annual Meeting held in May 2010.

 

Independence.  In determining independence, each year the Board determines whether directors have any “material relationship” with ION. When assessing the “materiality” of a director’s relationship with ION, the Board considers all relevant facts and circumstances, not merely from the director’s standpoint, but from that of the persons or organizations with which the director has an affiliation, and the frequency or regularity of the services, whether the services are being carried out at arm’s length in the ordinary course of business and whether the services are being provided substantially on the same terms to ION as those prevailing at the time from unrelated parties for comparable transactions. Material relationships can include commercial, banking, industrial, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and familial relationships. Factors that the Board may consider when determining independence for purposes of this determination include (1) not being a current employee of ION or having been employed by ION within the last three years; (2) not having an immediate family member who is, or who has been within the last three years, an executive officer of ION; (3) not personally receiving or having an immediate family member who has received, during any 12-month period within the last three years, more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from ION other than director and committee fees; (4) not being employed or having an immediate family member employed within the last three years as an executive officer of another company of which any current executive officer of ION serves or has served, at the same time, on that company’s compensation committee; (5) not being an employee of or a current partner of, or having an immediate family member who is a current partner of, a firm that is ION’s internal or external auditor; (6) not having an immediate family member who is a current employee of such an audit firm who personally works on ION’s audit; (7) not being or having an immediate family member who was within the last three years a partner or employee of such an audit firm and who personally worked on ION’s audit within that time; (8) not being a current employee, or having an immediate family member who is a current executive officer, of a company that has made payments to, or received payments from, ION for property or services in an amount that, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million or 2% of the other company’s consolidated gross revenues; or (9) not being an executive officer of a charitable organization to which, within the preceding three years, ION has made charitable contributions in any single fiscal year that has exceeded the greater of $1 million or 2% of such organization’s consolidated gross revenues.

 

Our Board has affirmatively determined that, with the exception of Robert P. Peebler, who is our Chief Executive Officer and an employee of ION, no director has a material relationship with ION within the meaning of the NYSE’s listing standards, and that each of our directors is independent from management and from our independent registered public accounting firm, as required by NYSE listing standard rules regarding director independence. See “— Committees of the Board — Audit Committee” below.

 

Our Chairman, Mr. Lapeyre, is an executive officer and significant shareholder of Laitram, L.L.C., a company with which ION has ongoing contractual relationships, and Mr. Lapeyre and Laitram together owned approximately 5.3% of our outstanding common stock as of March 1, 2011. Our Board has determined that these contractual relationships have not interfered with Mr. Lapeyre’s demonstrated independence from our management, and that the services performed by Laitram for ION are being provided at arm’s length in the ordinary course of business and substantially on the same terms to ION as those prevailing at the time from

unrelated parties for comparable transactions. In addition, the services provided by Laitram to ION resulted in payments by ION to Laitram in an amount not exceeding 1% of Laitram’s 2010 consolidated gross revenues. As a result of these factors, our Board has determined that Mr. Lapeyre, along with each of our other non-management directors, is independent within the meaning of the NYSE’s director independence standards. For an explanation of the contractual relationship between Laitram and ION, see “— Certain Transactions and Relationships” below.

 

Risk Oversight.  Our Board oversees an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, designed to support the achievement of organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, to improve long-term organizational performance and enhance stockholder value. A fundamental part of risk management is not only understanding the risks a company faces and what steps management is taking to manage those risks, but also understanding what level of risk is appropriate for the company. The involvement of the full Board in setting ION’s business strategy is a key part of its assessment of the company’s appetite for risk and also a determination of what constitutes an appropriate level of risk for the company. The Board also regularly reviews information regarding the company’s credit, liquidity and operations, as well as the risks associated with each. While the Board has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, various committees of the Board also have responsibility for risk management. In particular, the Audit Committee focuses on financial risk, including internal controls, and receives an annual risk assessment report from ION’s internal auditors. In addition, in setting compensation, the Compensation Committee strives to create incentives that encourage a level of risk-taking behavior consistent with ION’s business strategies. While each committee is responsible for evaluating certain risks and overseeing the management of such risks, the entire Board is regularly informed through committee reports about such risks.

 

Separation of CEO and Chairman of the Board.  Mr. Lapeyre, a non-employee independent director, has served as our Chairman of the Board since 1999. Mr. Peebler has served as our Chief Executive Officer since 2003. We separate the roles of CEO and Chairman of the Board in recognition of the differences between the two roles. The CEO is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the company and the day-to-day leadership and performance of the company, while the Chairman of the Board provides guidance to the CEO and sets the agenda for Board meetings and presides over the meetings of the full Board. Separating these positions allows our CEO to focus on our day-to-day business, while allowing the Chairman of the Board to lead the Board in its fundamental role of providing advice to, and independent oversight of, management. The Board recognizes the time, effort and energy that the CEO is required to devote to his position, as well as the commitment required to serve as our Chairman. The Board believes that having separate positions and having an independent director serve as Chairman of the Board is the appropriate leadership structure for our company at this time and demonstrates our commitment to good corporate governance.

 

Committees of the Board

 

The Board of Directors has established four standing committees to facilitate and assist the Board in the execution of its responsibilities. The four standing committees are the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Governance Committee and the Finance Committee. The Governance Committee functions as the Board’s nominating committee. In addition, the Board establishes temporary special committees from time to time on an as-needed basis. The Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance Committee are composed entirely of non-employee directors. The Finance Committee consists of four directors, three of whom are non-employee directors. During 2010, the Audit Committee met eight times, the Compensation Committee met eight times, and the Governance Committee met four times. The Finance Committee did not meet during 2010.

The current members of the four standing committees of the Board of Directors are identified below.

 

 

 

 

 

Audit Committee

 

The Audit Committee is a separately-designated standing audit committee as defined in Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee oversees matters relating to financial reporting, internal controls, risk management and compliance. These responsibilities include appointing, overseeing, evaluating and approving the fees of our independent auditors, reviewing financial information that is provided to our stockholders and others, reviewing with management our system of internal controls and financial reporting process, and monitoring our compliance program and system.

 

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter, which sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the committee. A copy of the charter can be viewed on our website at http://www.iongeo.com/content/released/audit_committee_charter_ion_march52008.pdf.

 

The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and satisfies the definition of “independent” as established in the NYSE corporate governance listing standards and Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Nelson, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, is qualified as an audit committee financial expert within the meaning of SEC regulations, and that he has accounting and related financial management expertise within the meaning of the listing standards of the NYSE and Rule 10A-3.

 

Compensation Committee

 

The Compensation Committee has responsibility for the compensation of our executive officers, including our chief executive officer, and the administration of our executive compensation and benefit plans. The Compensation Committee also has authority to retain or replace outside counsel, compensation and benefits consultants or other experts to provide it with independent advice, including the authority to approve the fees payable and any other terms of retention. All actions regarding executive officer compensation require Compensation Committee approval. The Compensation Committee completes a comprehensive review of all elements of compensation at least annually. If it is determined that any changes to any executive officer’s total compensation are necessary or appropriate, the Compensation Committee obtains such input from management as it determines to be necessary or appropriate. All compensation decisions with respect to executives other than the chief executive officer are determined in discussion with, and frequently based in part upon the recommendation of, the chief executive officer. The Compensation Committee makes all determinations with respect to the compensation of the chief executive officer, including, but not limited to, establishing performance objectives and criteria related to the payment of his compensation, and determining the extent to which such objectives have been established, obtaining such input from the Committee’s independent compensation advisors as it deems necessary or appropriate.

As part of its responsibility to administer our executive compensation plans and programs, the Compensation Committee, usually near the beginning of the calendar year, establishes the parameters of the annual incentive plan awards, including the performance goals relative to our performance that will be applicable to such awards and the similar awards for our other senior executives. It also reviews our performance against the objectives established for awards payable in respect of the prior calendar year, and confirms the extent, if any, to which such objectives have been obtained, and the amounts payable to each of our executive officers in respect of such achievement.

 

The Compensation Committee also determines the appropriate level and type of awards, if any, to be granted to each of our executive officers pursuant to our equity compensation plans, and approves the total annual grants to other key employees, to be granted in accordance with a delegation of authority to our corporate human resources officer.

 

The Compensation Committee reviews, and has the authority to recommend to the Board for adoption, any new executive compensation or benefit plans that are determined to be appropriate for adoption by ION, including those that are not otherwise subject to the approval of our stockholders. It reviews any contracts or other transactions with current or former elected officers of the corporation. In connection with the review of any such proposed plan or contract, the Compensation Committee may seek from its independent advisors such advice, counsel and information as it determines to be appropriate in the conduct of such review. The Compensation Committee will direct such outside advisors as to the information it requires in connection with any such review, including data regarding competitive practices among the companies with which ION generally compares itself for compensation purposes.

 

The Compensation Committee operates pursuant to a written charter that sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the committee. A copy of the charter can be viewed on our website at http://www.iongeo.com/content/released/comp_committee_charterionfeb_2008.pdf. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee satisfies the definition of “independent” as established in the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

 

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

 

The members of the Compensation Committee are Franklin Myers (Chairman), David H. Barr, James M. Lapeyre, Jr. and John N. Seitz. No member of the Committee is, or was during 2010, an officer or employee of ION. Mr. Lapeyre is President and Chief Executive Officer and a significant equity owner of Laitram, L.L.C, which has had a business relationship with ION since 1999. During 2010, we paid Laitram and its affiliates a total of approximately $3.1 million, which consisted of approximately $2.3 million for manufacturing services, $700,000 for rent and other pass-through third party facilities charges, and $100,000 for reimbursement of costs related to providing administrative and other back-office support services in connection with our Louisiana marine operations. See “— Certain Transactions and Relationships” below. During 2010:

 

 

Governance Committee

 

The Governance Committee functions as the Board’s nominating and corporate governance committee and advises the Board of Directors with regard to matters relating to governance practices and policies, management succession, and composition and operation of the Board and its committees, including reviewing potential candidates for membership on the Board and recommending to the Board nominees for election as directors of ION. In addition, the Governance Committee reviews annually with the full Board and our Chief

Executive Officer the succession plans for senior executive officers and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the selection of individuals to occupy these positions.

 

In identifying and selecting new director candidates, the Governance Committee considers the Board’s current and anticipated strengths and needs and a candidate’s experience, knowledge, skills, expertise, integrity, diversity, ability to make independent analytical inquiries, understanding of the company’s business environment, willingness to devote adequate time and effort to Board responsibilities, and other relevant factors. The Governance Committee has not established specific minimum age, education, years of business experience or specific types of skills for potential director candidates, but, in general, expects that qualified candidates will have ample experience and a proven record of business success and leadership. The committee also seeks an appropriate balance of experience and expertise in accounting and finance, technology, management, international business, compensation, corporate governance, strategy, industry knowledge and general business matters. In addition, the committee seeks a diversity of experience, professions, skills, geographic representation and backgrounds. The committee may rely on various sources to identify potential director nominees, including input from directors, management and others the committee feels are reliable, and professional search firms.

 

The Governance Committee will consider recommendations for director nominations made by a stockholder or other sources (including self-nominees) on the same basis as other candidates. For consideration by the Governance Committee, a recommendation of a candidate must be submitted in writing to the Governance Committee in care of our Corporate Secretary at our principal executive offices. The submission must include sufficient details regarding the qualifications of the potential candidate. In general, nominees for election should possess (1) the highest level of integrity and ethical character, (2) strong personal and professional reputation, (3) sound judgment, (4) financial literacy, (5) independence, (6) significant experience and proven superior performance in professional endeavors, (7) an appreciation for board and team performance, (8) the commitment to devote the time necessary, (9) skills in areas that will benefit the Board and (10) the ability to make a long-term commitment to serve on the Board.

 

Also, our Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate individuals for director for consideration at an annual stockholders’ meeting. A proper director nomination may be considered at ION’s 2012 Annual Meeting only if the proposal for nomination is received by ION not later than December 23, 2011. All nominations should be directed to David L. Roland, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ION Geophysical Corporation, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839.

 

The Governance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the committee. A copy of the charter can be viewed on our website at http://www.iongeo.com/content/released/Governance_Committee_Charter-ION.pdf. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Governance Committee satisfies the definition of “independent” as established in the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

 

Finance Committee

 

The Finance Committee has responsibility for overseeing all areas of corporate finance for ION. The Finance Committee is responsible for reviewing with ION management, and has the power and authority to approve on behalf of the Board, ION’s strategies, plans, policies and actions related to corporate finance, including, but not limited to, (a) capital structure plans and strategies and specific equity or debt financings, (b) capital expenditure plans and strategies and specific capital projects, (c) strategic and financial investment plans and strategies and specific investments, (d) cash management plans and strategies and activities relating to cash flow, cash accounts, working capital, cash investments and treasury activities, including the establishment and maintenance of bank, investment and brokerage accounts, (e) financial aspects of insurance and risk management, (f) tax planning and compliance, (g) dividend policy, (h) plans and strategies for managing foreign currency exchange exposure and other exposures to economic risks, including plans and strategies with respect to the use of derivatives, and (i) reviewing and making recommendations to the Board with respect to any proposal by ION to divest any asset, investment, real or personal property, or business interest if such

divestiture is required to be approved by the Board. The Finance Committee does not have oversight responsibility with respect to ION’s financial reporting, which is the responsibility of the Audit Committee.

 

The Finance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter that sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the committee. A copy of the charter can be obtained by writing to us at ION Geophysical Corporation, Attention: Corporate Secretary, 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77042-2839. The Board of Directors has determined that a majority of the members of the Finance Committee (including its co-Chairmen) satisfies the definition of “independent” as established in the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

 

Stock Ownership Requirements

 

The Board has adopted stock ownership requirements for ION’s directors. The Board adopted these requirements in order to align the economic interests of the directors with those of our stockholders and further focus our emphasis on enhancing stockholder value. Under these requirements, each non-employee director is expected to own at least 36,000 shares of ION stock. New and current directors will have three years to acquire and increase the director’s ownership of ION stock to satisfy the requirements. The stock ownership requirements are subject to modification by the Board in its discretion. The Board has also adopted stock ownership requirements for senior management of ION. See “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of Compensation — Stock Ownership Requirements; Hedging Policy” below.

 

The Governance Committee and the Board regularly review and evaluate ION’s directors’ compensation program on the basis of current and emerging compensation practices for directors, emerging legal, regulatory and corporate compliance developments and comparisons with director compensation programs of other similarly-situated public companies.

 

Certain Transactions and Relationships

 

The Board of Directors has adopted a written policy and procedures to be followed prior to any transaction, arrangement or relationship, or series of similar transactions, arrangements or relationships, including any indebtedness or guarantee of indebtedness, between ION and a “Related Party” where the aggregate amount involved is expected to exceed $120,000 in any calendar year. Under the policy, “Related Party” includes (a) any person who is or was an executive officer, director or nominee for election as a director (since the beginning of the last fiscal year); (b) any person or group who is a greater-than-5% beneficial owner of ION voting securities; or (c) any immediate family member of any of the foregoing, which means any child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, spouse, sibling, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and anyone residing in the home of an executive officer, director or nominee for election as a director (other than a tenant or employee). Under the policy, the Governance Committee of the Board is responsible for reviewing the material facts of any Related Party transaction and approve or ratify the transaction. In making its determination to approve or ratify, the Governance Committee is required to consider such factors as (i) the extent of the Related Party’s interest in the transaction, (ii) if applicable, the availability of other sources of comparable products or services, (iii) whether the terms of the Related Party transaction are no less favorable than terms generally available in unaffiliated transactions under like circumstances, (iv) the benefit to ION, and (v) the aggregate value of the Related Party transaction.

 

Mr. Lapeyre is the President and Chief Executive Officer and a significant equity owner of Laitram, L.L.C. and has served as President of Laitram and its predecessors since 1989. Laitram is a privately-owned, New Orleans-based manufacturer of food processing equipment and modular conveyor belts. Mr. Lapeyre and Laitram together owned approximately 5.3% of our outstanding common stock as of March 1, 2011.

 

We acquired DigiCourse, Inc., our marine positioning products business, from Laitram in 1998 and renamed it I/O Marine Systems, Inc. In connection with that acquisition, we entered into a Continued Services Agreement with Laitram under which Laitram agreed to provide us certain bookkeeping, software, manufacturing, and maintenance services. Manufacturing services consist primarily of machining of parts for our marine positioning systems. The term of this agreement expired in September 2001 but we continue to operate

under its terms. In addition, from time to time, when we have requested, the legal staff of Laitram has advised us on certain intellectual property matters with regard to our marine positioning systems. Under a lease of commercial property dated February 1, 2006, between Lapeyre Properties, L.L.C. (an affiliate of Laitram) and ION, we agreed to lease certain office and warehouse space from Lapeyre Properties until January 2011. Since January 2011, we have continued to lease this property on the same terms on a month-to-month basis. During 2010, we paid Laitram and its affiliates a total of approximately $3.1 million, which consisted of approximately $2.3 million for manufacturing services, $700,000 for rent and other pass-through third party facilities charges, and $100,000 for reimbursement for costs related to providing administrative and other back-office support services in connection with our Louisiana marine operations. For the 2009 and 2008 fiscal years, we paid Laitram and its affiliates a total of approximately $4.0 million and $4.3 million, respectively, for these services. In the opinion of our management, the terms of these services are fair and reasonable and as favorable to us as those that could have been obtained from unrelated third parties at the time of their performance.

 

Mr. Hao is Chief Geophysicist of BGP. BGP has been a customer of our products and services for many years. For our fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, BGP accounted for approximately 3.8% and 7.7% of our consolidated net sales, respectively. In addition, prior to Mr. Hao being appointed to the Board, we entered into the following transactions with BGP:

 

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

 

Our current executive officers are as follows:

 

 

For a description of the business background of Mr. Peebler, see “Item 1— Election of Directors — Class III Director Nominees for Re-Election for Term Expiring in 2014” above.

 

Mr. Hanson has been our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since May 2006. Prior to joining ION, Mr. Hanson served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Alliance Imaging, Inc., a NYSE-listed provider of diagnostic imaging services to hospitals and other healthcare providers, from July 2004 until November 2005. From 1998 to 2003, Mr. Hanson held a variety of positions at Fisher Scientific International, Inc., a NYSE-listed manufacturer and supplier of scientific and healthcare products and services, including Vice President Finance of the Healthcare group from 1998 to 2002 and Chief Operating Officer from 2002 to 2003. From 1986 until 1998, Mr. Hanson served in various positions with Culligan Water Conditioning, an international manufacturer of water treatment products and producer and retailer of bottled water products, most recently as Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Hanson received a Bachelors degree in engineering from the University of New Brunswick and a Master of Business Administration degree from Concordia University in Montreal.

 

Mr. Bernitsas has been Senior Vice President of our GXT Imaging Solutions group since January 2007. Mr. Bernitsas originally joined GX Technology Corporation (GXT) in 2000 as Senior Geophysical Advisor, became Senior Vice President, Operations of GXT in 2002 and continued in that position after ION acquired GXT in 2004. Prior to joining GXT, Mr. Bernitsas served as an Imaging Advisor for Vastar Resources, Inc., an exploration and production company, from 1998 to 2000, and in various geophysicist positions at Arco Exploration and Production Technology, a division of Atlantic Richfield Company, from 1990 to 1998. Mr. Bernitsas holds a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from the University of Athens (Greece), a Master of Science degree in geophysics from Ohio University, a Master of Business Administration degree in finance from the University of Texas at Dallas, and a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Texas at Austin.

 

Mr. Moffat has been Senior Vice President of our Marine Imaging Systems Division since June 2007. In 1989, he joined Concept Systems, Ltd., a Scotland-based supplier of advanced real-time navigation and data integration software and services to the E&P industry, and served in various engineering and managerial roles, including after ION’s acquisition of Concept in 2004. From 2006 to 2007, Mr. Moffat was the Vice President and Managing Director of Concept. Prior to joining Concept in 1989, Mr. Moffat was employed in various engineering design and development positions within the electronics defense and data security industry in the United Kingdom. Between 1973 and 1981, he served as an officer in the British Merchant Navy. Mr. Moffat holds a Bachelor of Science degree with Distinction in electronic and communication engineering from Edinburgh Napier University.

 

Mr. Roland joined ION as Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary in April 2004 and became a Senior Vice President in January 2007. Prior to joining ION, Mr. Roland held several positions within the legal department of Enron Corp., a multi-national energy trading and infrastructure development business, most recently as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel. Prior to joining Enron in 1998, Mr. Roland was an attorney with Caltex Corporation, an international oil and gas marketing and refining company. Mr. Roland was an attorney with the law firm of Gardere & Wynne (now Gardere Wynne Sewell

LLP) from 1988 until 1994, when he joined Caltex. Mr. Roland holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Houston and a Juris Doctorate degree with Distinction from St. Mary’s University.

 

Mr. Williamson joined ION as Vice President of our GXT Integrated Seismic Solutions group in September 2006 and became a Senior Vice President in January 2007. Between 1987 and 2006, Mr. Williamson was employed by Western Geophysical, which in 2000 became part of WesternGeco, a seismic solutions and technology subsidiary of Schlumberger, Ltd., a global oilfield and information services company. While at WesternGeco, Mr Williamson served as Vice President, Marketing from 2001 to 2003, Vice President, Russia and Caspian Region from 2003 to 2005 and Vice President, Marketing, Sales & Commercialization of WesternGeco’s electromagnetic services and technology division from 2005 to 2006. Mr. Williamson holds a Bachelor of Science degree in geophysics from Cardiff University in Wales.

 

Mr. Morrison joined ION in June 2002 as our Assistant Controller, became our Controller and Director of Accounting in November 2002 and Vice President and Corporate Controller in January 2007. Prior to joining ION, Mr. Morrison held several positions at Enron Corp., most recently as Director of Transaction Support. Mr. Morrison had held a variety of positions at Deloitte & Touche, LLP, a public accounting firm, from January 1994 until he joined Enron in June 2000. Mr. Morrison holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in accounting from Texas A&M University.

 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

 

Introductory note:  The following discussion of executive compensation contains descriptions of various employee benefit plans and employment-related agreements. These descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text or detailed descriptions of the plans and agreements, which are filed or incorporated by reference as exhibits to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. In this discussion, the terms “ION,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to ION Geophysical Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, except where the context otherwise requires or as otherwise indicated.

 

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

 

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis provides an overview of the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors, a discussion of the background and objectives of our compensation programs for our senior executives, and a discussion of all material elements of the compensation of each of the executive officers identified in the following table, whom we refer to as our named executive officers:

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The objectives and major elements of our executive compensation program did not materially change from 2010 to 2011. While we regularly review and fine-tune our compensation programs, we believe consistency in our compensation program and philosophy is important to effectively motivate and reward top-level management performance and for the creation of stockholder value. We continue to provide our named executive officers with total annual compensation that includes three principal elements: base salary, performance-based annual incentive cash compensation and long-term equity-based incentive awards. Our compensation program continues to be performance-based, and a significant portion of each executive’s total annual compensation is at risk and dependent upon our company’s achievement of specific, measurable performance goals. Our performance-based pay is designed to align our executive officers’ interests with those of our stockholders and to promote the creation of stockholder value, without encouraging excessive risk-taking. In addition, our equity program, combined with our executive share ownership requirements, reward long-term stock performance.

 

Our named executive officers did not receive base salary increases during 2009 or 2010. In fact, salaries for each of our executive officers were decreased for a seven-month period in 2009 as part of a company-wide salary reduction program. Base salaries for each of the named executive officers were increased in January 2011, consistent with our usual base salary review process and our practice prior to 2009.

 

Payments under our annual incentive award program for 2010 reflect our company’s performance and the achievement of our 2010 performance goals. As discussed further under the heading “Annual Incentive Compensation” beginning on page 32 of this proxy statement, we met our consolidated financial performance criteria under our 2010 incentive plan and, as a result, our named executive officers received cash incentive payments under the 2010 plan. In evaluating company performance, the Compensation Committee also considered several actions critical to the company’s success in 2010. Specifically, the Compensation Committee noted that in March 2010 the company successfully completed its joint venture transactions with BGP and related credit refinancing, which was considered strategically important for the company. After

considering the results of our corporate financial goals, together with the specific accomplishments noted above, the Compensation Committee approved various cash incentive payments for our named executive officers for 2010, including certain discretionary bonus payments in early 2010 in specific recognition of the timely completion of the transactions with BGP.

 

Grants made under our long-term stock incentive plan during 2010 also reflected our company’s successful performance during 2010. The annual grants made to our named executive officers on December 1, 2010 were generally consistent with grants made to named executive officers in previous years. Certain of our named executive officers who are in charge of our principal business units received special grants of stock options on March 1, 2010 to further increase the percentage of their compensation that emphasizes long-term performance and is directly tied to creation of stockholder value.

 

Introduction/Corporate Governance

 

Compensation Committee

 

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors reviews and approves, or recommends to the Board for approval, all salary and other remuneration for our executive officers and oversees matters relating to our employee compensation and benefit programs. No member of the Committee is an employee of ION. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Committee satisfies the definition of “independent” as established in the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

 

The Committee operates pursuant to a written charter that sets forth its functions and responsibilities. A copy of the charter can be viewed on our website at http://www.iongeo.com/content/released/comp_ committee_charterionfeb_2008.pdf. The Chairman of the Committee is in charge of the Committee’s meeting agendas and, with the assistance of our Corporate Secretary, establishes the Committee’s meetings and calendar. For a description of the responsibilities of the Compensation Committee, see “Item 1. — Election of Directors — Committees of the Board — Compensation Committee” above.

 

During 2010, the Compensation Committee met in person or by conference call eight times. In addition, the Committee took action by unanimous written consent, as permitted under Delaware law and our Bylaws, two times during 2010, primarily to approve individual non-executive employee grants of restricted stock and stock options. We believe that each of these individual grants made by unanimous written consent of the Committee complied with the applicable grant date requirements under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic (ASC) 718, “Compensation — Stock Compensation”) (“ASC Topic 718”).

 

Compensation Consultants

 

The Compensation Committee has the authority and necessary funding to engage, terminate and pay compensation consultants, independent legal counsel and other advisors in its discretion. Prior to retaining any such compensation consultant or other advisor, the Committee evaluates the independence of such advisor and also evaluates whether such advisor has a conflict of interest. From 2005 to 2008, the Compensation Committee retained Towers Perrin (now known as Towers Watson) as its independent compensation advisor to advise the Committee on our compensation practices and to assist in developing and implementing our executive compensation program and philosophy. Towers Perrin evaluated our long-term incentive strategy and our stock plans, analyzed our outstanding stock options, restricted stock and other stock-based awards, and provided the Committee with recommendations on our overall long-term incentive strategy and the number of shares to propose to add to our stock plans for future grants to employees and directors, which the Committee and the Board of Directors later approved. In addition, the firm provided the Committee with a summary of changes to disclosure requirements related to executive officer and director compensation. At the request of the Committee, the firm also performed an analysis of competitive compensation levels for our Chief Executive Officer.

During 2008, the Governance Committee of our Board retained Hewitt Associates to perform an analysis of prevailing industry compensation levels for our directors. During 2009, the Committee engaged Performensation Consulting, an equity compensation consultant, to assist the company and the Compensation Committee in designing a proposed new employee stock purchase plan and a proposed program to permit our current employees to exchange outstanding stock options having exercise prices substantially above the current market price of our common stock, and receive shares of our common stock (the “Replenishment Program”). The proposal to approve the Replenishment Program had provided that, even if approved by our stockholders, our Board of Directors or Compensation Committee could still decide not to implement the program. The proposal obtained stockholder approval but we ultimately decided not to implement the program because (i) the increase in the market price of our common stock after the date of mailing (in April 2009) of the proxy material for our 2009 annual meeting of shareholders had effectively reduced the number of participants who would have benefited from participating in the program and (ii) the expenditures involved in implementing the program and the compensation charges against our earnings that would result from the program outweighed the projected benefits that the program would provide ION and our employees.

 

During 2010, the Compensation Committee engaged ISS Corporate Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of RiskMetrics Group, Inc., to provide the company with benchmarking and modeling services related to its 2010 annual meeting proposals to (i) amend ION’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan to increase the total number of shares of ION’s common stock available for issuance under the plan, (ii) approve the proposed employee stock purchase plan and (iii) approve the proposed Replenishment Program.

 

During the first quarter of 2011, we engaged Performensation Consulting to provide advisory services with regard to the preparation of this proxy statement and to provide the Compensation Committee with analysis on the number of shares to propose to stockholders to add to our stock plan at our 2011 Annual Meeting for future grants to employees and directors.

 

In addition, when reviewing benchmark compensation data in connection with our annual review of employee salaries, in October 2010 our Human Resources department reviewed market survey data from Towers Watson, Mercer, Radford and Stone Partners. See “— Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Programs — Benchmarking” below.

 

From 2008 to 2010, none of Towers Watson, Hewitt Associates, Performensation Consulting, ISS, Mercer, Radford or Stone Partners advised our company or our executive officers on matters outside of these engagements.

 

Role of Management in Establishing and Awarding Compensation

 

On an annual basis, our Chief Executive Officer, with the assistance of our Human Resources department, recommends to the Compensation Committee any proposed increases in base salary, bonus payments and equity awards for our executive officers other than himself. No executive officer is involved in determining his own salary increase, bonus payment or equity award. When making officer compensation recommendations, our Chief Executive Officer takes into consideration compensation benchmarks, which include industry standards for similar sized organizations serving similar markets, as well as comparable positions, the level of inherent importance and risk associated with the position and function, and the executive’s job performance over the previous year. See “ — Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Programs — Benchmarking” and “— Elements of Compensation — Base Salary” below.

 

Our Chief Executive Officer, with the assistance of our Human Resources department and input from our executive officers and other members of senior management, also formulates and proposes to the Compensation Committee an employee bonus incentive plan for the ensuing year. For a description of our process for formulating the employee bonus incentive plan and the factors that we consider, see “— Elements of Compensation — Annual Incentive Compensation” below.

 

The Committee reviews and approves all compensation and awards to executive officers and all bonus incentive plans. With respect to equity compensation awarded to employees other than executive officers, the Compensation Committee reviews and approves all grants of restricted stock and stock options above

5,000 shares, generally based upon the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer, and has delegated option and restricted stock granting authority to the Chief Executive Officer as permitted under Delaware law for grants to non-executive officers of up to 5,000 shares.

 

On its own initiative, at least once a year, the Compensation Committee reviews the performance and compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and, following discussions with the Chief Executive Officer and other members of the Board of Directors, establishes his compensation level. Where it deems appropriate, the Compensation Committee will also consider market compensation information from independent sources. See “— Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Programs — Benchmarking” below.

 

Certain members of our senior management generally attend most meetings of the Compensation Committee, including our Chief Executive Officer, our Senior Vice President — Global Human Resources, and our General Counsel/Corporate Secretary. However, no member of management votes on items before the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee and Board of Directors do solicit the views of our Chief Executive Officer on compensation matters, particularly as they relate to the compensation of the other named executive officers and the other members of senior management reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. The Committee often conducts an executive session during each meeting, during which members of management are not present.

 

Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Programs

 

General Compensation Philosophy and Policy

 

Through our compensation programs, we seek to achieve the following general goals:

 

 

Our governing principles in establishing executive compensation have been:

 

Long-Term and At-Risk Focus.  Premium compensation opportunities should be composed of long-term, at-risk pay to focus our management on the long-term interests of our company. Base salary, annual incentives and employee benefits should be at competitive levels when compared to similarly-situated companies.

 

Equity Orientation.  Equity-based plans should comprise a major part of the at-risk portion of total compensation to instill ownership thinking and to link compensation to corporate performance and stockholder interests.

 

Competitive.  We emphasize total compensation opportunities consistent on average with our peer group of companies. Competitiveness of annual base pay and annual incentives is independent of stock performance. However, overall competitiveness of total compensation is generally contingent on long-term, stock-based compensation programs.

Focus on Total Compensation.  In making decisions with respect to any element of an executive officer’s compensation, the Committee obtains information on and considers the total compensation that may be awarded to the executive officer, including salary, annual bonus and long-term incentive compensation. These total compensation reports are prepared by our Human Resources department and present the dollar amount of each component of the named executive officers’ compensation, including current cash compensation (base salary, past bonus and eligibility for future bonus), equity awards and other compensation. The overall purpose of these total compensation reports is to bring together, in one place, all of the elements of actual and potential compensation of our named executive officers, as well as information about wealth accumulation, so that the Compensation Committee may analyze both the individual elements of compensation (including the compensation mix) as well as the aggregate total amount of actual and projected compensation. In its most recent review of total compensation reports, the Committee determined that annual compensation amounts for our Chief Executive Officer and our other named executive officers remained generally consistent with the Committee’s expectations. However, the Committee reserves the right to make changes that it believes are warranted.

 

Internal Pay Equity.  Our core compensation philosophy is to pay our executive officers competitive levels of compensation that best reflect their individual responsibilities and contributions to our company, while providing incentives to achieve our business and financial objectives. While comparisons to compensation levels at other companies (discussed below) are helpful in assessing the overall competitiveness of our compensation program, we believe that our executive compensation program also must be internally consistent and equitable in order for our company to achieve our corporate objectives. Each year our Human Resources department reports to the Compensation Committee the total compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer and all other senior executives, which includes a comparison for internal pay equity purposes. Over time there have been variations in the comparative levels of compensation of executive officers and changes in the overall composition of the management team and the overall accountabilities of the individual executive officers; however, we and the Committee are satisfied that total compensation received by executive officers reflects an appropriate differential for executive compensation.

 

These principles apply to compensation policies for all of our executive officers and key employees. We do not follow the principles in a mechanistic fashion; rather, we apply experience and judgment in determining the appropriate mix of compensation for each individual. This judgment also involves periodic review of discernible measures to determine the progress each individual is making toward agreed-upon goals and objectives.

 

Benchmarking

 

When making compensation decisions, we also look at the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers relative to the compensation paid to similarly-situated executives at companies that we consider to be our industry and market peers — a practice often referred to as “benchmarking.” We believe, however, that a benchmark should be just that — a point of reference for measurement — but not the determinative factor for our executives’ compensation. The purpose of the comparison is not to supplant the analyses of internal pay equity, total wealth accumulation and the individual performance of the executive officers that we consider when making compensation decisions. Because the comparative compensation information is just one of the several analytic tools that are used in setting executive compensation, the Compensation Committee has discretion in determining the nature and extent of its use. Further, given the limitations associated with comparative pay information for setting individual executive compensation, including the difficulty of assessing and comparing wealth accumulation through equity gains, the Committee may elect to not use the comparative compensation information at all in the course of making compensation decisions.

 

In most years, at least once each year, our Human Resources department, under the oversight of the Compensation Committee, reviews data from market surveys, independent consultants and other sources to assess our competitive position with respect to base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentive compensation. When reviewing compensation data in October 2010, we utilized data primarily from Radford

salary surveys, the Mercer U.S. Compensation Planning Survey, Towers Watson executive salary surveys and Stone Partners’ Oilfield Manufacturing and Services Industry Executive Compensation Survey. The survey information from most of these resources covered a broad range of industries and companies. However, the 2010 Oilfield Manufacturing and Services Industry Executive Compensation Survey compiled proxy compensation data from 50 oilfield services companies and survey results from the following 19 oilfield services companies:

 

 

The overall results of the compensation surveys provide the starting point for our compensation analysis. We believe that the surveys contain relevant compensation information from companies that are representative of the sector in which we operate, have relative size as measured by market capitalization and experience relative complexity in the business and the executives’ roles and responsibilities. Beyond the survey numbers, we look extensively at a number of other factors, including our estimates of the compensation at our most comparable competitors and other companies that were closest to our company in size, profitability and complexity. We also consider an individual’s current performance, the level of corporate responsibility, and the employee’s skills and experience, collectively, in making compensation decisions.

 

In the case of our Chief Executive Officer and some of our other executive officers, we also consider our company’s performance during the person’s tenure and the anticipated level of compensation that would be required to replace the person with someone of comparable experience and skill.

 

In addition to our periodic review of compensation, we also regularly monitor market conditions and will adjust compensation levels from time to time as necessary to remain competitive and retain our most valuable employees. When we experience a significant level of competition for retaining current employees or hiring new employees, we will typically reevaluate our compensation levels within that employee group in order to ensure our competitiveness.

 

Elements of Compensation

 

The primary components of our compensation are:

 

 

Below is a summary of each component:

 

Base Salary

 

General.  The general purpose of base salary for our executive officers is to create a base of cash compensation for the officer that is consistent on average with the range of base salaries for executives in similar positions and with similar responsibilities at comparable companies. In addition to salary norms for persons in comparable positions at comparable companies, base salary amounts may also reflect the nature and scope of responsibility of the position, the expertise of the individual employee and the competitiveness of the market for the employee’s services. Base salaries of executives other than our Chief Executive Officer may also reflect our Chief Executive Officer’s evaluation of the individual executive officer’s job performance. As a

result, the base salary level for each individual may be above or below the target market value for the position. The Compensation Committee also recognizes that the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation should reflect the greater policy- and decision-making authority that he holds and the higher level of responsibility he has with respect to our strategic direction and our financial and operating results. At December 31, 2010, our Chief Executive Officer’s annual base salary was 43% higher than the annual base salary for the next highest-paid executive officer and 54% higher than the average annual base salary for all of our other executive officers. In addition, minimum base salaries for certain of our executive officers are determined by employment agreements with these officers.

 

Base salary is designed to provide an income level that is comparable to the income of executives in similar positions and with similar responsibilities at comparable companies. The base salaries for our executives reflect levels that we have concluded were appropriate based upon our general experience and market data. We do not intend for base salaries to be the vehicle for long-term capital and value accumulation for our executives.

 

2009 and 2010 Actions.  In typical years, base salaries are reviewed at least annually and may also be adjusted from time to time to realign salaries with market levels after taking into account individual responsibilities and changes in responsibilities, performance and contribution to ION, experience, impact on total compensation, relationship of compensation to other ION officers and employees, and changes in market levels. Salary increases for executive officers do not follow a preset schedule or formula but do take into account changes in the market and individual circumstances.

 

Commencing in late 2008, our business experienced a significant decline, due in large part to the global recession and the decline in oil and gas prices. We took a number of actions to reduce costs in our businesses and seek to improve our operating performance. In late 2008, we decided to defer any future base salary increases for employees. In April 2009, we implemented a base salary reduction program in a further effort to reduce our operating costs. Under the salary reduction program, base salaries for employees were reduced by certain percentages ranging from a 12% reduction in base salary for our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, a 10% reduction for other executives and management and a 5% reduction for most other employees. The program remained in effect until October 2009, when management and the Board determined that developments and outlook for our business had improved to the extent that the program should end. During 2010, we decided that employee base salaries would not be increased until early 2011. As a result, none of our executive officers received an increase in his base salary during 2009 or 2010. Each of our named executive officers received an increase in base salary in January 2011, as described below:

 

 

Annual Incentive Compensation

 

Our employee annual bonus incentive plan is intended to promote the achievement each year of company performance objectives and performance objectives of the employee’s particular business unit, and to recognize those employees who contributed to the company’s achievements. The plan provides cash compensation that is at-risk on an annual basis and is contingent on achievement of annual business and operating objectives and individual performance. The plan provides all participating employees the opportunity to share in the company’s performance through the achievement of established financial and individual objectives. The financial and individual objectives within the plan are intended to measure an increase in the value of our company and, in turn, our stock.

 

In recent years, we have adopted an annual incentive plan with regard to each year. Performance under the annual incentive plan is measured with respect to the designated plan fiscal year. Payments under the plan are paid in cash in an amount reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee and are ordinarily made in a single installment in the first quarter following the completion of a fiscal year, after the financial results for that year have been determined.

 

Our annual incentive plan is usually consistent with our operating plan for the same year. In late 2009, we prepared a consolidated company operating budget for 2010 and individual operating budgets for each operating unit. The budgets took into consideration market opportunities, customer and sale opportunities, technology enhancements for new products, product manufacturing and delivery schedules and other operating factors. The Board of Directors analyzed the proposed budgets with management extensively and, after analysis and consideration, the Board approved the consolidated 2010 operating plan. During late 2009 and early 2010, our Chief Executive Officer worked with our Human Resources department and members of senior management to formulate our 2010 incentive plan, consistent with the 2010 operating plans approved by the Board.

 

At the beginning of 2010, the Compensation Committee approved our 2010 annual incentive plan for executives and certain designated non-executive employees. The computation of awards generated under the plan is required to be approved by the Committee. In February 2011, the Committee reviewed the company’s actual performance against each of the plan performance goals established at the beginning of the year and evaluated each individual’s performance during the preceding year. The results of operations of the company

for that year and individual performance evaluations determined the appropriate payout under the annual incentive plan.

 

The Compensation Committee has discretion in circumstances it determines are appropriate to authorize discretionary incentive compensation awards that might exceed amounts that would otherwise be payable under the terms of the incentive plan. These discretionary awards can be payable in cash, stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights or a combination thereof. Any stock options, restricted stock or restricted stock units awarded would be granted under one of our existing long-term equity compensation plans. Any stock appreciation rights awarded would be granted under our Stock Appreciation Rights Plan. The Committee also has the discretion, in appropriate circumstances, to grant a lesser incentive award, or no incentive award at all, under the incentive plan. The Committee intends to review our annual incentive compensation program annually to ensure that the key elements of the program continue to meet the objectives described above.

 

As described above, our cash incentive plans are designed to track consistently with the financial performance of our company. The general intent of the plans is to reward key employees when the company performs well and not reward them when the company does not perform well. The graph shown below illustrates how the amount of the average annual incentive plan cash payment to named executive officers has varied over the years in relation to our financial performance. As clearly demonstrated in the graph, in most years when company financial performance is strong, incentive payments are relatively higher. Likewise, when our financial performance is relatively weaker, incentive payments are low. In 2008, we achieved an improved financial performance over the previous year, but incentive payments were relatively low because we did not achieve our internal financial and growth objectives. This demonstrates a clear and consistent link between our executive officer compensation and our performance.

 

 

Below is a general description of our 2010 incentive plan and a general summary of the company performance criteria applicable to the plan:

 

2010 Incentive Plan

 

The purpose of the 2010 incentive plan was to:

 

 

Designated employees, including our named executive officers, were eligible to participate in our 2010 incentive plan. The 2010 incentive plan was designed to equate the size of the incentive award to the performance of the individual participant and the performance of our company as a whole. Every participating named executive officer had the opportunity to earn an incentive payment based on their performance against criteria as defined by our Chief Executive Officer, and achievement of our company’s performance against designated consolidated financial objectives. Award determinations for the named executive officers under the plan were also based on evaluations of employee performance by our Chief Executive Officer. Under the 2010 incentive plan, 25% of the funds allocated for distribution were available to award to eligible employees regardless of the company’s 2010 financial performance, and 75% of the funds were available for distribution to eligible employees only to the extent the company satisfied the designated 2010 financial performance criteria. As a result, the amount of total dollars available for distribution under the incentive plan was largely dependent on the company’s achievement of the pre-defined financial objectives.

 

As reported in the chart below, our 2010 incentive plan established a 2010 target consolidated operating income performance goal. The Committee selected consolidated operating income as the most appropriate performance goal for our incentive plan because of its direct correlation with the interests of our stockholders and our overall company performance. Under the plan, every participating named executive officer other than our Chief Executive Officer had the opportunity to earn up to 100% of his base salary depending on performance of our company against the designated performance goal and performance of the executive against personal criteria determined at the beginning of 2010 by our Chief Executive Officer. Under separate terms approved by the Compensation Committee and contained in his employment agreement, our Chief Executive Officer participated in the plan with potential to earn a target incentive payment of 75% of his base salary, depending on achievement of the company’s target consolidated performance goal and pre-designated personal critical success factors, and a maximum of 150% of his base salary upon achievement of the maximum consolidated performance goal and the personal critical success factors.

 

Performance Criteria.  In 2010, the Compensation Committee approved the following corporate consolidated operating income performance criteria for consideration of bonus awards to the named executive officers and other covered employees under the 2010 incentive plan:

 

 

Where an employee is primarily involved in a particular business unit, the financial performance criteria under our incentive plan are heavily weighted toward the operational performance of the employee’s business unit rather than consolidated company performance. All of our named executive officers have broader corporate responsibility; as a result, their performance goals are heavily weighted toward the consolidated performance of the company as a whole.

 

The “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of our 2010 Summary Compensation Table below reflects the payments that our named executive officers earned and received under our 2010 incentive plan, and the “Bonus” column of the same table reflects any discretionary bonus payments received by our named executive officers during 2010. During 2010, on a consolidated basis, we achieved consolidated operating income of $52.8 million. Because on a consolidated basis we exceeded our financial objectives in 2010 under our 2010 incentive plan, the named executive officers and many other eligible executives and employees generally received a payout of bonus payments under the incentive plan. In addition, when determining bonus payments to be made for 2010, the Compensation Committee evaluated company performance during the year and specifically the achievement of certain business objectives that the Board considered to be critical to the company’s success in 2010. Specifically, the Compensation Committee noted that in March 2010 the company successfully completed its joint venture transactions with BGP and related credit refinancing, which was considered strategically important for the company. In addition, in early 2010, the Committee awarded discretionary bonus payments to certain of our executive officers in recognition of their critical roles and efforts in achieving the timely completion of the transactions with BGP.

In addition to overall company performance, when considering the discretionary bonuses and the 2010 incentive plan bonus payments paid to our named executive officers, the Compensation Committee also considered the individual performances and accomplishments of each officer. For example, when considering the bonus payments paid to Mr. Peebler, among the factors the Committee took into consideration were Mr. Peebler’s leadership in our company’s successful negotiation and completion of our joint venture with BGP and our company’s strong financial and operating performance during 2010. When considering the bonus payments for Mr. Hanson, among the factors the Committee took into consideration were Mr. Hanson’s critical involvement in the completion of the BGP joint venture and Mr. Hanson’s leadership in completing several key finance transactions during 2010, including the completion of a refinancing of most of the Company’s debt in connection with the completion of the BGP joint venture. When considering the bonus payment for Mr. Bernitsas, among the factors the Committee took into consideration were the strong operating and financial performance of the data processing group during 2010. When considering the bonus payments for Mr. Roland, among the factors the Committee took into consideration were Mr. Roland’s involvement in the completion of the BGP joint venture and Mr. Roland’s leadership in securing several major litigation judgments that our company had pursued against certain of our competitors. When considering the bonus payment for Mr. Williamson, among the factors the Committee took into consideration were the strong operating and financial performance of the Integrated Seismic Solutions group during 2010.

 

In February 2011, the Compensation Committee approved our 2011 annual incentive plan. The general structure of our 2011 annual incentive plan is similar to that of our 2010 incentive plan. The particular performance goals designated under our 2011 plan are higher than those designated for our 2010 plan, but reflect our confidential strategic plans, and cannot be disclosed at this time because it would provide our competitors with confidential information regarding our market and segment outlook and strategies. We are currently unable to determine how difficult it will be for our company to meet the designated performance goals under our 2011 plan. Generally, the Committee attempts to establish the threshold, target and maximum levels such that the relative difficulty of achieving each level is approximately consistent from year to year.

 

Long-Term Stock-Based Incentive Compensation

 

We have structured our long-term incentive compensation to provide for an appropriate balance between rewarding performance and encouraging employee retention and stock ownership. There is no pre-established policy or target for the allocation between either cash or non-cash or short-term and long-term incentive compensation; however, in most years long-term incentives comprise a large portion of the total compensation package for executive officers and key employees. As reflected in our 2010 Summary Compensation Table below, the long-term incentives received by each of our named executive officers as a percentage of their respective total compensation during 2010 were as follows: Mr. Peebler — 50%; Mr. Hanson — 4%; Mr. Bernitsas — 47%; Mr. Roland — 23% and Mr. Williamson — 44%.

 

For 2010, there were three forms of long-term incentives utilized for executive officers and key employees: stock options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units. For 2011, we have again recommended that stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units be the only forms of long-term equity-based incentives to be utilized for executive officers and key employees. Our long-term incentive plans have provided the principal method for our executive officers to acquire equity or equity-linked interests in our company.

 

Of the total stock option or restricted stock employee awards made by ION during 2010, 61% were in the form of stock options and 39% were in the form of restricted stock or restricted stock units.

 

Stock Options.  Under our equity plans, stock options may be granted having exercise prices equal to either the closing price of our stock on the date before the date of grant or the average of the high and low sale prices of our stock on the date of grant, depending on the terms of the particular stock option plan that governs the award. In any event, all awards of stock options are made at or above the market price at the time of the award. The Compensation Committee will not grant stock options having exercise prices below the market price of our stock on the date of grant, and will not reduce the exercise price of stock options (except in connection with adjustments to reflect recapitalizations, stock or extraordinary dividends, stock splits,

mergers, spin-offs and similar events, as required by the relevant plan) without the consent of our stockholders. Our stock options generally vest ratably over four years, based on continued employment. Prior to the exercise of an option, the holder has no rights as a stockholder with respect to the shares subject to such option, including voting rights and the right to receive dividends or dividend equivalents. New option grants normally have a term of ten years.

 

The purpose of stock options is to provide equity compensation with value that has been traditionally treated as entirely at-risk, based on the increase in our stock price and the creation of stockholder value. Stock options also allow our executive officers and key employees to have equity ownership and to share in the appreciation of the value of our stock, thereby aligning their compensation directly with increases in stockholder value. Stock options only have value to their holder if the stock price appreciates in value from the date options are granted.

 

Stock option award decisions are generally based on past business and individual performance. In determining the number of options to be awarded, we also consider the grant recipient’s qualitative and quantitative performance, the size of stock option and other stock based awards in the past, and expectations of the grant recipient’s future performance. In 2010, a total of 95 employees received option awards, covering 1,214,900 shares of common stock. In 2010, the named executive officers received option awards for a total of 250,000 shares, or approximately 21% of the total options awarded in 2010.

 

Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units.  We use restricted stock and restricted stock units to focus executives on our long-term performance and to help align their compensation more directly with stockholder value. Vesting of restricted stock and restricted stock units typically occurs ratably over three years, based solely on continued employment of the recipient-employee. In 2010, 114 employees received restricted stock or restricted stock unit awards, covering an aggregate of 762,680 shares of restricted stock and shares underlying restricted stock units. The named executive officers received awards totaling 348,730 shares of restricted stock in 2010, or approximately 46% of the total shares of restricted stock awarded in 2010.

 

Awards of restricted stock units have been made to certain of our foreign employees in lieu of awards of restricted stock. Restricted stock units provide certain tax benefits to our foreign employees as the result of foreign law considerations, so we expect to continue to award restricted stock units to certain foreign employees for the foreseeable future.

 

Cash-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights.  In 2008, we awarded cash-settled stock appreciation rights to Mr. Hanson as a special grant in lieu of grants of stock options to provide further emphasis on our long-term performance and to further align his compensation more directly with stockholder value. Full vesting of all of the stock appreciation rights awarded to Mr. Hanson occurs after three years, based solely on his continued employment. No stock appreciation rights were awarded in 2009 or 2010.

 

The Compensation Committee intends to review both the annual incentive compensation program and the long-term incentive program annually to ensure that their key elements continue to meet the objectives described above.

 

Approval and Granting Process.  As described above, the Compensation Committee reviews and approves all stock option, restricted stock, restricted stock unit and stock appreciation right awards made to executive officers, regardless of amount. With respect to equity compensation awarded to employees other than executive officers, the Committee reviews and approves all grants of restricted stock, stock options and restricted stock units above 5,000 shares, generally based upon the recommendation of our Chief Executive Officer. Committee approval is required for any grant to be made to an executive officer in any amount. The Committee has granted to our Chief Executive Officer the authority to approve grants to any employee other than an executive officer of (i) up to 5,000 shares of restricted stock and (ii) stock options for not more than 5,000 shares. Our Chief Executive Officer is also required to provide a report to the Committee of all awards of options and restricted stock made by him under this authority. We believe that this policy is beneficial because it enables smaller grants to be made more efficiently. This flexibility is particularly important with respect to attracting and hiring new employees, given the increasingly competitive market for talented and experienced technical and other personnel in locales in which our employees work.

All grants of restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock options and stock appreciation rights to employees or directors are granted on one of four designated quarterly grant dates during the year: March 1, June 1, September 1 or December 1. The Compensation Committee approved these four dates because they are not close to any dates that would normally be anticipated to contain earnings announcements or other announcements of material events. For an award to a current employee, the grant date for the award is the first designated quarterly grant date that occurs after approval of the award. For an award to a newly hired employee who is not yet employed by us at the time the award is approved, the grant date for the award is the first designated quarterly grant date that occurs after the new employee commences work. We believe that this process of fixed quarterly grant dates is beneficial because it serves to remove any perception that the grant date for an award could be capable of manipulation or change for the benefit of the recipient. In addition, having all grants occur on a maximum of four days during the year simplifies certain fair value accounting calculations related to the grants, thereby minimizing the administrative burden associated with tracking and calculating the fair values, vesting schedules and tax-related events upon vesting of restricted stock and also lessening the opportunity for inadvertent calculation errors.

 

With the exception of significant promotions, new hires or unusual circumstances, we generally make most awards of equity compensation on December 1 of each year. This date was selected because (i) it enables us to consider individual performance eleven months into the year, (ii) it simplifies the annual budget process by having the expense resulting from the equity award occur late in the year, (iii) the date is approximately three months before the date that we normally pay any annual incentive bonuses and (iv) generally speaking, December 1 is not close to any dates that would normally be anticipated to contain earnings announcements or other announcements of material events. During 2010, however, certain of our named executive officers who are in charge of our principal business units received special grants of stock options on March 1, 2010 to (i) further increase the percentage of their compensation that emphasizes long-term performance and is directly tied to creation of stockholder value and (ii) promote retention.

 

Clawback Policy

 

We have implemented a Compensation Recoupment Policy (commonly referred to as a “clawback” policy). The policy provides that, in the event of a restatement of our financial results due to material noncompliance with applicable financial reporting requirements, the Board may, if it determines appropriate and subject to applicable laws and the terms and conditions of our applicable stock plans, programs or arrangements, seek reimbursement of the incremental portion of performance-based compensation, including performance-based bonuses and long term incentive awards, paid to current or former executive officers within three years of the restatement date, in excess of the compensation that would have been paid had the compensation amount been based on the restated financial results.

 

Personal Benefits, Perquisites and Employee Benefits

 

When analyzing the total compensation received by our Chief Executive Officer and other executives, the Compensation Committee also considers whether the executives should be provided additional compensation in the form of perquisites through the availability of benefits that are convenient for the executives to use when faced with the demands of their positions. Our executives have concluded that most perquisites traditionally offered to executives of similarly-sized companies are unnecessary for our company. As a result, perquisites and any other similar personal benefits offered to executive officers are substantially the same as those offered to our general salaried employee population. These benefits include access to medical and dental insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, vision plan, charitable gift matching (up to designated limits), 401(k) plan, flexible spending accounts for healthcare and dependent care and other customary employee benefits. We also provide all employees with a company match of certain levels of 401(k) contributions; however, as part of our cost-cutting measures taken as a result of the economic recession and decline in oil and gas prices, in April 2009 we temporarily discontinued the company match for all employees, including executive officers, for a period of approximately six months. Business-related relocation benefits are generally reimbursed but are individually negotiated when they occur. We intend to continue applying our general policy

of not providing specific personal benefits and perquisites to our executives; however, we may, in our discretion, revise or add to any executive’s personal benefits and perquisites if we deem it advisable.

 

Risk Management Considerations

 

The Committee believes that our company’s performance-based bonus and equity programs create incentives for employees to create long-term stockholder value. The Committee has discussed the concept of risk as it relates to the company’s compensation programs, and the Committee has concluded that the company’s compensation programs do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking. Several elements of the compensation programs are designed to promote the creation of long-term value and thereby discourage behavior that leads to excessive risk:

 

 

Indemnification of Directors and Executive Officers

 

Our Bylaws provide certain rights of indemnification to our directors and employees (including our executive officers) in connection with any legal action brought against them by reason of the fact that they are or were a director, officer, employee or agent of our company, to the full extent permitted by law. Our Bylaws also provide, however, that no such obligation to indemnify exists as to proceedings initiated by an employee or director against us or our directors unless (a) it is a proceeding (or part thereof) initiated to enforce a right to indemnification or (b) was authorized or consented to by our Board of Directors.

 

In 2002, we also entered into indemnity agreements with certain of our outside directors that provide for us to indemnify the director in connection with any proceeding in which the director is involved by reason of the fact that the director is or was a director of the company. In order to be indemnified under these agreements, the director must have acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the company and, in the case of a criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was unlawful.

 

As discussed below, we have also entered into employment agreements with certain of our executive officers that provide for us to indemnify the executive to the fullest extent permitted by our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws. The agreements also provide that we will provide the executive with coverage under our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies to the same extent as provided to our other executives.

 

Stock Ownership Requirements; Hedging Policy

 

We believe that broad-based stock ownership by our employees (including our executive officers) enhances our ability to deliver superior stockholder returns by increasing the alignment between the interests of our employees and our stockholders. Accordingly, the Board has adopted stock ownership requirements applicable to each of our senior executives, including our named executive officers. The policy requires each executive to retain direct ownership of at least 50% of all shares of our company’s stock received upon exercise of stock options and vesting of awards of restricted stock or restricted stock units until the executive owns shares with an aggregate value equal to the following multiples of the executive’s annual base salary:

 

President and Chief Executive Officer — 4x
Executive Vice President — 2x
Senior Vice President — 1x

 

In recommending these requirements to the Board for adoption, the Governance Committee considered our historical grant practices, historical retention practices for senior executives, and value of current holdings by our senior executives, and concluded that this policy would meet our desired objectives. As of the date of this proxy statement, all of our senior executives were in compliance with the stock ownership requirements.

 

We do not permit any of our executive officers or directors to enter into any derivative or hedging transactions with respect to our stock, including short sales, market options, equity swaps and similar instruments.

 

Impact of Regulatory Requirements on Compensation

 

The financial reporting and income tax consequences to our company of individual compensation elements are important considerations for the Compensation Committee when it is analyzing the overall level of compensation and the mix of compensation among individual elements. Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and the related federal treasury regulations, we may not deduct annual compensation in excess of $1 million paid to certain employees — generally our Chief Executive Officer and our four other

most highly compensated executive officers — unless that compensation qualifies as “performance-based” compensation. Overall, the Committee seeks to balance its objective of ensuring an effective compensation package for the executive officers with the need to maximize the immediate deductibility of compensation — while ensuring an appropriate (and transparent) impact on reported earnings and other closely followed financial measures.

 

In making its compensation decisions, the Committee has considered the limit of deductibility within the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and its related Treasury regulations. As a result, the Committee has designed much of the total compensation packages for the executive officers to qualify for the exemption of “performance-based” compensation from the deductibility limit. However, the Committee does have the discretion to design and use compensation elements that may not be deductible within the limitations under Section 162(m), if the Committee considers the tax consequences and determines that those elements are in our best interests. To maintain flexibility in compensating executive officers in a manner designed to promote varying corporate goals, we have not adopted a policy that all compensation must be deductible.

 

Certain payments to our named executive officers under our 2010 annual incentive plan may not qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) because the awards are calculated and paid in a manner that may not meet the requirements under Section 162(m) and the related Treasury regulations. Given the rapid changes in our business during 2010 and those that we foresee for the remainder of 2011, we believe that we are better served in implementing a plan that provides for adjustments and discretionary elements for our senior executives’ incentive compensation for 2011, rather than ensuring that we implement all of the requirements and limitations under Section 162(m) into these incentive plans.

 

For accounting purposes, we apply the guidance in ASC Topic 718 to record compensation expense for our equity-based compensation grants. ASC Topic 718 is used to develop the assumptions necessary and the model appropriate to value the awards as well as the timing of the expense recognition over the requisite service period, generally the vesting period, of the award.

 

Executive officers will generally recognize ordinary taxable income from stock option awards when a vested option is exercised. We generally receive a corresponding tax deduction for compensation expense in the year of exercise. The amount included in the executive officer’s wages and the amount we may deduct is equal to the common stock price when the stock options are exercised less the exercise price, multiplied by the number of stock options exercised. We do not pay or reimburse any executive officer for any taxes due upon exercise of a stock option. We have not historically issued any tax-qualified incentive stock options under Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Executives will generally recognize taxable ordinary income with respect to their shares of restricted stock at the time the restrictions lapse (unless the recipient elects to accelerate recognition as of the date of grant). Restricted stock unit awards are generally subject to ordinary income tax at the time of payment or issuance of unrestricted shares of stock. We are generally entitled to a corresponding federal income tax deduction at the same time the executive recognizes ordinary income.

 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

 

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement with management of ION. Based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated into ION’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

Franklin Myers, Chairman

David H. Barr

James M. Lapeyre, Jr.

John N. Seitz

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

The following table summarizes the compensation paid to or earned by our named executive officers, which are our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and three other most highly compensated executive officers, at December 31, 2010:

 

 

Discussion of Summary Compensation Table

 

Stock Awards Column.  All of the amounts in the “Stock Awards” column reflect the grant-date fair value of awards of restricted stock made during the applicable fiscal year (excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture rates) under our 2000 Restricted Stock Plan, 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and April 2005 Inducement Equity Program. While unvested, a holder of restricted stock is entitled to the same voting rights as all other holders of common stock. In each case, unless stated otherwise below, the awards of shares of restricted stock vest in one-third increments each year, over a three-year period. In addition to the grants and awards in 2010 described in the “2010 Grants of Plan-Based Awards” table below:

 

 

 

 

Option Awards Column.  All of the amounts shown in the “Option Awards” column reflect stock options and cash-settled stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) granted under our 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan, 2003 Stock Option Plan, 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan and April 2005 Inducement Equity Program and our Stock Appreciation Rights Plan, respectively. In each case, unless stated otherwise below, the options vest 25% each year over a four-year period and the SARs will vest in full on December 1, 2011. The values contained in the Summary Compensation Table are based on the grant date fair value of all awards (excluding any impact of assumed forfeiture rates). For a discussion of valuation assumptions, see Note 15, Stockholders’ Equity and Stock-Based Compensation — Valuation Assumptions, in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. All of the exercise prices for the options and SARs equal or exceed the fair market value per share of ION common stock on the date of grant. In addition to the grants and awards in 2010 described in the “2010 Grants of Plan-Based Awards” table below:

 

 

Other Columns.  All payments of non-equity incentive plan compensation reported for 2010 were made in February 2011 with regard to the 2010 fiscal year and were earned and paid pursuant to our 2010 incentive plan. On March 31, 2010, each of Messrs. Peebler, Hanson and Roland also received discretionary bonus awards related to our successful and timely completion of various transactions related to our land seismic equipment joint venture with BGP. In making the discretionary bonus awards, among the factors considered by the Compensation Committee was Mr. Peebler’s leadership during the negotiation and completion of the joint venture transactions, Mr. Hanson’s critical involvement in the completion of the transactions and the related refinancing of most of our debt, and Mr. Roland’s contributions to the completion of the transactions. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Elements of Compensation — Annual Incentive Compensation” above.

 

We do not sponsor for our employees (i) any defined benefit or actuarial pension plans (including supplemental plans), (ii) any non-tax-qualified deferred compensation plans or arrangements or (iii) any nonqualified defined contribution plans.

 

Our general policy is that our executive officers do not receive any executive “perquisites,” or any other similar personal benefits that are different from what our salaried employees are entitled to receive. ION provides the named executive officers with certain group life, health, medical and other non-cash benefits generally available to all salaried employees, which are not included in the “All Other Compensation” column in the Summary Compensation Table pursuant to SEC rules. The amounts shown in the “All Other Compensation” column solely consist of employer matching contributions to ION’s 401(k) plan.

2010 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Agreements

 

We enter into employment agreements with senior officers, including some of the named executive officers, when the Compensation Committee determines that an employment agreement is desirable for us to obtain a measure of assurance as to the executive’s continued employment in light of prevailing market competition for the particular position held by the executive officer, or where the Committee determines that an employment agreement is necessary and appropriate to attract an executive in light of market conditions, the prior experience of the executive or practices at ION with respect to other similarly situated employees. As of December 31, 2010, the only executives with employment agreements were Mr. Peebler, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Roland.

 

The following discussion describes the material terms of the employment agreements:

 

Robert P. Peebler

 

Our employment agreement with Mr. Peebler, dated March 31, 2003, provided that Mr. Peebler would serve as President and Chief Executive Officer for a five-year term, unless sooner terminated. We amended Mr. Peebler’s employment agreement in September 2006, February 2007, August 2007, January 2009 and June 2010, to extend the term of the agreement (most recently) to December 31, 2012, and to make certain other changes. This description reflects Mr. Peebler’s employment agreement as so amended, except where the context requires otherwise.

 

Under the agreement, Mr. Peebler is entitled to an annual base salary of at least $500,000, and to participate in all of our employee benefit plans available to senior executives at a level commensurate with his position. Mr. Peebler’s annual base salary is currently $625,000.

 

Mr. Peebler’s agreement currently provides that he will be eligible to participate in our annual incentive plan, with a target incentive plan bonus amount equal to 75% of his base salary and with a maximum incentive plan bonus amount equal to 150% of his base salary. His annual bonus will be earned upon achievement of our consolidated operating income performance targets applicable to the senior leadership bonus plan for the relevant year, and Mr. Peebler’s critical success factors as determined in advance by the Compensation Committee.

 

Under his original employment agreement, Mr. Peebler received a grant in 2003 of an option to purchase 1,325,000 shares of our common stock at $6.00 per share, which exercise price exceeded the market price of our shares on the date of grant by 60% (at March 31, 2003, the date of his grant, the closing sales price per

share of our common stock on the NYSE was $3.60). Mr. Peebler’s 2006 amendment to his employment agreement provided that he was entitled to receive (a) in 2007, an award of shares of restricted common stock based on the amount of the annual incentive plan bonus earned by him for 2006, vesting on the date that is the second anniversary of the date of the award; (b) in 2007, an award of shares of restricted stock equivalent in value to his annual base salary, vesting on the date that is the third anniversary of the date of the award; and (c) in years following 2007 through the end of the term of his agreement, an award of shares of restricted stock based on the amount of the annual incentive plan bonus, if any, earned by Mr. Peebler for the preceding year, vesting on the date that is the second anniversary of the date of the award, and additional stock options as may be determined by the Compensation Committee.

 

In June 2010, Mr. Peebler’s employment agreement was amended to, among other things, terminate the above annual grant award provisions in the agreement and instead provide for a one-time grant to Mr. Peebler on June 1, 2010, of 300,000 shares of our restricted stock. The 300,000 shares of restricted stock will cliff vest on the date that is the earliest of:

 

i. June 1, 2013;

 

ii. The date that a “Change in Control” occurs (as defined in his employment agreement);

 

iii. The date of Mr. Peebler’s termination of employment due to his “Disability” (as defined in his employment agreement) or death;

 

iv. The date of Mr. Peebler’s “Retirement” (as defined in our 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan);

 

v. The date of Mr. Peebler’s voluntary termination of employment from ION at any time after his successor is appointed; or

 

vi. The date that Mr. Peebler’s employment is terminated (a) by us for no reason or for any reason other than “Cause,” Mr. Peebler’s death or Disability, or the expiration of the term of the employment agreement, or (b) by Mr. Peebler for “Good Reason” (as defined in his employment agreement).

 

The shares of restricted stock will be subject to restrictions on disposition and, during the period that the shares of restricted stock are unvested, Mr. Peebler will be entitled to the same voting rights as all other holders of common stock.

 

We may at any time terminate our employment agreement with Mr. Peebler for “Cause” if Mr. Peebler (i) willfully and continuously fails to substantially perform his obligations, (ii) willfully engages in conduct materially and demonstrably injurious to our property or business (including fraud, misappropriation of funds or other property, other willful misconduct, gross negligence or conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude) or (iii) commits a material breach of the agreement. In addition, we may at any time terminate the agreement if Mr. Peebler suffers permanent and total disability for a period of at least 180 consecutive days, or if Mr. Peebler dies. Mr. Peebler may terminate his employment agreement for “Good Reason” if we breach any material provision of the agreement, we assign to Mr. Peebler any duties materially inconsistent with his position, we remove him from his current office, materially reduce his duties, functions, responsibilities or authority, or take other action that results in a diminution in his office, position, duties, functions, responsibilities or authority, or we relocate his workplace by more than 30 miles.

 

In his agreement, Mr. Peebler agrees not to compete against us, assist any competitor, attempt to solicit any of our suppliers or customers, or solicit any of our employees, in any case during his employment and for a period of two years after his employment ends. The employment agreement also contains provisions relating to protection of our confidential information and intellectual property. We also agreed to indemnify Mr. Peebler to the fullest extent permitted by our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, and to provide him coverage under our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies to the same extent as our other executives.

 

Mr. Peebler’s agreement further provides that, upon his termination of employment due to (i) his “Retirement” (as that term is defined in his agreement) or (ii) his voluntary termination of employment from the Company at any time after his successor is appointed, Mr. Peebler will serve as a non-employee consultant to the Board of Directors of the Company for a term of five years for a consulting fee of $150,000 per year.

For a discussion of the provisions of Mr. Peebler’s employment agreement regarding compensation to Mr. Peebler in the event of our change of control or his termination by us without cause or by him for good reason, see “— Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control — Robert P. Peebler” below.

 

R. Brian Hanson

 

Our employment agreement with Mr. Hanson became effective in May 2006. We amended Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement in August 2007 and in December 2008. This description reflects Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement as so amended.

 

The agreement provides for Mr. Hanson to serve as our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for an initial term of three years, with automatic two-year renewals thereafter. Any change of control of our company will cause the remaining term of Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement to automatically adjust to a term of two years, which will commence on the effective date of the change of control.

 

The agreement provides for Mr. Hanson to receive an initial base salary of $275,000 per year and be eligible to receive an annual performance bonus under our incentive compensation plan, with a target plan incentive amount equal to 50% of his annual base salary and an opportunity to earn up to 100% of his annual base salary. Mr. Hanson’s annual base salary is currently $353,000.

 

Under the agreement, in May 2006 Mr. Hanson was granted 75,000 shares of restricted stock and options to purchase 75,000 shares of our common stock. The agreement also provided that Mr. Hanson is entitled to receive (a) in 2010, an award of shares of restricted stock based on the amount of the annual incentive plan bonus earned by him for 2009; and (b) in years following 2010 through the end of the term of his agreement, an award of shares of restricted stock based on the amount of the annual incentive plan bonus, if any, earned by Mr. Hanson with respect to the preceding year. The shares of restricted stock will be subject to restrictions on disposition and will vest on the date that is the third anniversary date of the date of the award. During the period that the shares of restricted stock are unvested, Mr. Hanson will be entitled to the same voting rights as all other holders of common stock. In the agreement, we also agreed to indemnify Mr. Hanson to the fullest extent permitted by our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, and to provide him coverage under our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies to the same extent as other company executives.

 

For a discussion of the provisions of Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement regarding compensation to Mr. Hanson in the event of our change of control or his termination by us without cause or by him for good reason, see “— Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control — R. Brian Hanson” below.

 

David L. Roland

 

Our employment agreement with Mr. Roland provides for Mr. Roland to serve as our Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for an initial term of two years, with automatic one-year renewals thereafter. He will also be eligible to receive an annual performance bonus under our incentive compensation plan, with his target incentive compensation amount to be set at 50% of his annual base salary, and an opportunity under the plan to earn incentive compensation in an amount of up to 100% of his annual base salary. In the agreement, we also agreed to indemnify Mr. Roland to the fullest extent permitted by our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, and to provide him coverage under our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies to the same extent as other company executives.

 

For a discussion of the provisions of Mr. Roland’s employment agreement regarding compensation to him in the event of his termination without cause or for good reason, see “— Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control — David L. Roland” below.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END

 

The following table sets forth information concerning unexercised stock options (including SARs) and shares of restricted stock held by our named executive officers at December 31, 2010:

 

 

 

 

2010 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

 

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to option and stock exercises by the named executive officers during the year ended December 31, 2010:

 

 

 

 

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

 

Under the terms of our equity-based compensation plans and our employment agreements, our Chief Executive Officer and certain of our other named executive officers are entitled to payments and benefits upon the occurrence of specified events including termination of employment (with and without cause) and upon a change in control of our company. The specific terms of these arrangements, as well as an estimate of the compensation that would have been payable had they been triggered as of December 31, 2010, are described in detail below. In the case of each employment agreement, the terms of these arrangements were established through the course of arms-length negotiations with each executive officer, both at the time of hire and at the times of any later amendment. As part of these negotiations, the Compensation Committee analyzed the terms of the same or similar arrangements for comparable executives employed by companies in our industry group. This approach was used by the Committee in setting the amounts payable and the triggering events under the arrangements. The termination of employment provisions of the employment agreements were entered into in order to address competitive concerns by providing those individuals with a fixed amount of compensation that would offset the potential risk of leaving their prior employer or foregoing other opportunities in order to join our company. At the time of entering into these arrangements, the Committee considered the aggregate potential obligations of our company in the context of the desirability of hiring the individual and the expected compensation upon joining us. However, these contractual severance and post-termination arrangements have not affected the decisions the Committee has made regarding other compensation elements and the rationale for compensation decisions made in connection with these arrangements.

 

The following summaries set forth estimated potential payments payable to our named executive officers upon termination of employment or a change of control of our company under their current employment agreements and our stock plans and other compensation programs as if his employment had so terminated for these reasons, or the change of control had so occurred, on December 31, 2010. The Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, agree to revise, amend or add to the benefits if it deems advisable. For purposes of the following summaries, dollar amounts are estimates based on annual base salary as of December 31, 2010, benefits paid to the named executive officer in fiscal 2010 and stock and option holdings of the named executive officer as of December 31, 2010. The summaries assume a price per share of ION common stock of $8.48 per share, which was the closing price per share on December 31, 2010, as reported on the NYSE. The actual amounts to be paid to the named executive officers can only be determined at the time of each executive’s separation from the company.

 

The amounts of potential future payments and benefits as set forth in the tables below, and the descriptions of the assumptions upon which such future payments and benefits are based and derived, may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are estimates of payments and benefits to certain of our executives upon their termination of employment or a change in control, and actual payments and benefits may vary materially from these estimates. Actual amounts can only be determined at the time of such executive’s actual separation from our company or the time of such change in control event. Factors that could affect these amounts and assumptions include the timing during the year of any such event, the company’s stock price, unforeseen future changes in our company’s benefits and compensation methodology and the age of the executive.

 

Robert P. Peebler

 

Termination and Change of Control.  Mr. Peebler is entitled to certain benefits under his employment agreement upon any of the following events:

 

 

Under Mr. Peebler’s employment agreement, a “change of control” occurs upon any of the following:

 

(1) the acquisition by a person or group of beneficial ownership of 51% or more of the outstanding shares of our common stock other than any acquisitions directly from ION, acquisitions by ION or an employee benefit plan maintained by ION, or certain permitted acquisitions in connection with a “business combination” (as defined in sub-paragraph (3) below);

 

(2) changes in directors on ION’s Board such that the individuals that constitute the entire Board cease to constitute at least a majority of directors of the Board, other than new directors whose appointment or nomination for election was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the directors then constituting the entire Board (except in the case of election contests);

 

(3) a “business combination” — that is, a merger or consolidation involving ION or a sale of all or substantially all of ION’s assets — unless owners of ION common stock immediately following such business combination together own more than 60% of the total outstanding stock or voting power of the entity resulting from the business combination; or

 

(4) ION’s stockholders approve the liquidation or dissolution of ION.

 

Upon the occurrence of any of the above events, Mr. Peebler would be entitled to receive the following (less applicable withholding taxes and subject to compliance with his two-year non-compete, non-solicit and no-hire obligations):

 

 

We believe the 18-month change-of-control benefit referenced above maximizes stockholder value because it motivates Mr. Peebler to remain in his position for a sufficient period of time following a change of control to ensure a smoother integration and transition for the new owners. Given his unique and high levels of experience and expertise in the seismic industry, we believe Mr. Peebler’s severance structure is in our best interest because it ensures that for a two-year period after leaving our employment, Mr. Peebler will not be in a position to compete with us or otherwise adversely affect our business. Mr. Peebler’s severance provisions are more generous than those of the other named executive officers and reflect the greater interest we have in protecting against any future competition from Mr. Peebler following his employment with us, and also the greater opportunity costs that he would bear if we decided to change our chief executive officer.

 

Change of Control Under Equity Compensation Plans.  Mr. Peebler and our other named executive officers currently hold outstanding awards under one or more of the following four equity compensation plans: our Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, our 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan, our 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan and our Stock Appreciation Rights Plan. Under these plans, a “change of control” will be deemed to have occurred upon any of the following (which we refer to in this section as a “Plan Change of Control”):

 

(1) the acquisition by a person or group of beneficial ownership of 40% (or 51% under the 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan) or more of the outstanding shares of common stock other than acquisitions directly from ION, acquisitions by ION or an employee benefit plan maintained by ION, or certain permitted acquisitions in connection with a business combination described in sub-paragraph (3) below;

 

(2) changes in directors such that the individuals that constitute the entire board of directors cease to constitute at least a majority of directors of the board, other new directors whose appointment or nomination for election was approved by a vote of at least a majority of the directors (two-thirds of the

directors under the 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan) then constituting the entire board of directors (except in the case of election contests);

 

(3) approval by our stockholders of a reorganization, merger, consolidation or similar business combination involving ION, unless (i) owners of our common stock immediately following such transaction together own more than 50% of the total outstanding stock or voting power of the entity resulting from the transaction (60% under the 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan) and (ii) at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the entity resulting from the transaction were members of our board of directors at the time the agreement for the transaction is signed; or

 

(4) the sale of all or substantially all of the our assets (in the case of the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Stock Appreciation Rights Plan), or our stockholders approve our liquidation or dissolution (in the case of the 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan).

 

Upon any such “Plan Change of Control,” all of Mr. Peebler’s stock options granted to him under the 2003 Employee Stock Option Plan and the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will become fully exercisable, and all restricted stock granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will automatically accelerate and become fully vested. Upon any of the above events, we would not be required to provide any medical continuation or death or disability benefits for Mr. Peebler that are not also available to our other employees as required by law or the applicable benefit plan.

 

Death or Disability.  Upon his death or disability, any options or restricted stock Mr. Peebler holds under our 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan would automatically accelerate and become fully vested. As of December 31, 2010, Mr. Peebler held 415,305 shares of unvested restricted stock granted under our 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

 

Termination by Us for Cause or by Mr. Peebler Other Than for Good Reason.  Upon his termination by us for Cause or his resignation other than for Good Reason, Mr. Peebler is not entitled to any payment or benefit other than the payment of unpaid salary and accrued and unused vacation pay.

 

Mr. Peebler’s vested stock options will remain exercisable after his termination of employment, death, disability or retirement for periods of between 180 days and one year following such event, depending on the event and the terms of the applicable stock plan and grant agreement.

 

In addition, any voluntary termination of employment by Mr. Peebler after December 31, 2010 will be treated for all purposes under our 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan as a termination due to his retirement, thereby causing all of his unvested stock options and restricted stock granted under that plan to automatically accelerate and become fully vested.

 

If any payment or benefit under his employment agreement is determined to be subject to the excise tax for “excess parachute payments” under U.S. federal income tax rules, we have agreed to pay to Mr. Peebler an additional amount to adjust for the incremental tax costs of those payments to him.

 

Assuming Mr. Peebler’s employment was terminated under each of these circumstances or a change of control occurred on December 31, 2010, his payments and benefits would have an estimated value as follows (less applicable withholding taxes):

 

 

 

R. Brian Hanson

 

Termination and Change of Control.  Mr. Hanson is entitled to certain benefits under his employment agreement upon any of the following events:

 

 

Under Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement, a “change in control” occurs upon any of the following:

 

(1) the acquisition by a person or group of beneficial ownership of 40% or more of our outstanding shares of common stock other than any acquisitions directly from ION, acquisitions by ION or an employee benefit plan maintained by ION, or certain permitted acquisitions in connection with a “Merger” (as defined in sub-paragraph (3) below);

 

(2) changes in directors on our board of directors such that the individuals that constitute the entire board cease to constitute at least a majority of directors of the board, other than new directors whose appointment or nomination for election was approved by a vote of at a majority of the directors then constituting the entire board of directors (except in the case of election contests);

 

(3) approval by our stockholders of a “Merger” — that is, a reorganization, merger, consolidation or similar business combination involving ION — unless (i) owners of ION common stock immediately following such business combination together own more than 50% of the total outstanding stock or voting power of the entity resulting from the business combination in substantially the same proportion as their ownership of ION voting securities immediately prior to such Merger and (ii) at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the corporation resulting from such Merger (or its parent corporation) were members of our board at the time of the execution of the initial agreement providing for the Merger; or

 

(4) the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of our assets.

 

Upon the occurrence of any of the above events, Mr. Hanson would be entitled to receive the following (less applicable withholding taxes and subject to compliance with non-compete, non-solicit and no-hire obligations):

 

 

 

We believe Mr. Hanson’s 12-month change-of-control benefit referenced above maximizes stockholder value because it motivates Mr. Hanson to remain in his position for a sufficient period of time following a change of control to ensure a smoother integration and transition for the new owners.

 

Upon a “Plan Change of Control” (see “— Robert P. Peebler — Change of Control Under Equity Compensation Plans” above), all of Mr. Hanson’s stock options granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will become fully exercisable, all restricted stock awards granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will automatically accelerate and become fully vested and all SARs granted to him under the Stock Appreciation Rights Plan will become fully vested and immediately exercisable. In addition, any change of control of our company will cause the remaining term of Mr. Hanson’s employment agreement to automatically adjust to two years, commencing on the effective date of the change of control.

 

Death, Disability or Retirement.  Upon his death, disability or retirement, all options, restricted stock and SARs that Mr. Hanson holds would automatically accelerate and become fully vested.

 

Termination by Us for Cause or by Mr. Hanson Other Than for Good Reason.  Upon any termination by us for cause or any resignation by Mr. Hanson for any reason other than “good reason” (as defined in his employment agreement), Mr. Hanson is not entitled to any payment or benefit other than the payment of unpaid salary and accrued and unused vacation pay.

 

Mr. Hanson’s vested stock options and SARs will remain exercisable after his termination of employment, death, disability or retirement for periods of between 180 days and one year following such event, depending on the event and the terms of the applicable plan and grant agreement. If Mr. Hanson is terminated for cause, all of his vested and unvested stock options, unvested restricted stock and unvested SARs will be immediately forfeited.

 

If any payment or benefit under his employment agreement is determined to be subject to the excise tax for “excess parachute payments” under U.S. federal income tax rules, we have agreed to pay to Mr. Hanson an additional amount to adjust for the incremental tax costs of those payments to him.

 

Assuming Mr. Hanson’s employment was terminated under each of these circumstances or a change of control occurred on December 31, 2010, his payments and benefits would have an estimated value as follows (less applicable withholding taxes):

 

 

 

 

 

Nikolaos Bernitsas

 

Mr. Bernitsas is not entitled to receive any contractual severance if we terminate his employment without cause. Upon a “Plan Change of Control” (see “— Robert P. Peebler — Change of Control Under Equity Compensation Plans” above), all of his unvested stock options granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan will become fully exercisable and all restricted stock awards granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will automatically accelerate and become fully vested. Upon his retirement, death or disability, all unvested options and restricted stock he holds will automatically accelerate and become fully vested.

 

The vested stock options held by Mr. Bernitsas will remain exercisable after his termination of employment, death, disability or retirement for periods of between 180 days and one year following such event, depending on the event and the terms of the applicable stock plan and grant agreement. If Mr. Bernitsas is terminated for cause, all of his vested and unvested stock options and unvested restricted stock will be immediately forfeited.

 

Assuming his employment was terminated under each of these circumstances or a change of control occurred on December 31, 2010, his payments and benefits would have an estimated value as follows (less applicable withholding taxes):

 

 

 

 

David L. Roland

 

Termination and Change of Control.  Mr. Roland is entitled to certain benefits under his employment agreement upon any of the following events:

 

 

In the above scenarios, Mr. Roland would be entitled to receive the following (less applicable withholding taxes):

 

 

Upon a “Plan Change of Control” (see “— Robert P. Peebler — Change of Control Under Equity Compensation Plans” above), all of Mr. Roland’s unvested stock options granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will become fully exercisable, and all restricted stock granted to him under the Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan will automatically accelerate and become fully vested. Mr. Roland’s employment agreement contains no change-of-control severance payment rights.

 

Death, Disability or Retirement.  Upon his death, disability or retirement, all options and restricted stock that Mr. Roland holds would automatically accelerate and become fully vested.

 

Termination by Us for Cause or by Mr. Roland Other Than for Good Reason.  Upon any termination by us for cause or any resignation by Mr. Roland for any reason other than “good reason” (as defined in his employment agreement), Mr. Roland is not entitled to any payment or benefit other than the payment of unpaid salary and accrued and unused vacation pay.

 

Mr. Roland’s vested stock options will remain exercisable after his termination of employment, death, disability or retirement for periods of between 180 days and one year following such event, depending on the event and the terms of the applicable stock plan and grant agreement. If Mr. Roland is terminated for cause, all of his vested and unvested stock options and unvested restricted stock will be immediately forfeited.

 

Assuming Mr. Roland’s employment was terminated under each of these circumstances or a change of control occurred on December 31, 2010, his payments and benefits would have an estimated value as follows (less applicable withholding taxes):