Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

of Republic Bancorp, Inc.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

 

To our shareholders:    You are cordially invited to attend the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Republic Bancorp, Inc.  The following are details for the meeting:

 

Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016

Time:9:00 A.M., EDT

Place: Republic Bank Building,  Lower Level,  9600 Brownsboro Road,  Louisville, Kentucky 40241

 

Items on the agenda:

 

Your vote is important.  Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, we hope you will vote as soon as possible.  Please review the instructions with respect to each of your voting options as described in the proxy statement and the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.

 

IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND:  Please note that space limitations may make it necessary to limit attendance at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders.    Shareholders holding stock in brokerage accounts (“street name holders”) may be asked to produce a brokerage statement reflecting stock ownership as of the record date and provide photo identification. Cameras, recording devices or other like forms of electronic devices will not be permitted at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

 

 

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials

for the Shareholder Meeting to be Held on April 21, 2016.

 

The proxy statement and annual report to shareholders are available online at www.investorvote.com/RBCAA. 

 

Republic Bancorp, Inc.

601 West Market Street

Louisville, Kentucky  40202

 

PROXY STATEMENT

 

This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors of Republic Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company” or “Republic”).  The proxies will be voted at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“Annual Meeting”) of Republic on April 21, 2016, and at any adjournments of the meeting.

 

This proxy statement, notice of annual meeting and form of proxy are first being mailed or made available to shareholders on or about March 11, 2016.  As used in this document, the terms “Republic,” the “Company,” “we,” and “our” refer to Republic Bancorp, Inc., a Kentucky corporation. 

 

VOTING

 

Record date.  You are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting, if you held of record, shares of our Class A Common Stock or Class B Common Stock at the close of business on February 12, 2016.  On that date, 18,659,147 shares of Class A Common Stock and 2,245,250 shares of Class B Common Stock were issued and outstanding for purposes of the Annual Meeting. 

 

Voting rights.  Each share of Class A Common Stock is entitled to one (1) vote and each share of Class B Common Stock is entitled to ten (10) votes.  Based on the number of shares outstanding as of the record date, the shares of Class A Common Stock are entitled to an aggregate of 18,659,147 votes, and the shares of Class B Common Stock are entitled to an aggregate of 22,452,500 votes at the Annual Meeting.

 

Voting by proxy.    If you received the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, you may follow the instructions on that notice to access the proxy materials and download the proxy and vote online via the Internet.  If you request a paper or electronic copy of the proxy materials, the proxy will be mailed or e-mailed to you along with the other proxy materials.  If you received a paper copy of this proxy statement, the proxy card is enclosed.  If a proxy card is properly executed, returned to Republic and not revoked, the shares represented by the proxy card will be voted in accordance with the instructions set forth on the proxy card.  If no instructions are given, the shares represented will be voted (i) “For” the Board of Director nominees named in this proxy statement and (ii) “For” the ratification of Crowe Horwath LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. For participants in the Republic Bancorp, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan Trustee shall vote the shares for which it has not received voting direction from the Plan participants, utilizing the same voting percentages derived from the Plan participants who did direct how their shares are to be voted.  The Board of Directors at present knows of no other business to be brought before the Annual Meeting. However, persons named in the proxy, or their substitutes, will have discretionary authority to vote on any other business which may properly come before the Annual Meeting and any adjournment thereof and will vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors.

 

You may attend the Annual Meeting even though you have executed a proxy. You may revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted by delivering written notice of revocation to the Secretary of Republic, by delivering a subsequent dated proxy, by voting by telephone or online through the Internet on a later date, or by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. 

 

Quorum and voting requirements and counting votes.  The presence in person or by proxy of the holders of a majority in voting power of the combined voting power of the Class A Common Stock and the Class B Common Stock will constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted as being present or represented at the Annual Meeting for the purpose of establishing a quorum. A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner is otherwise present by proxy but does not vote on a particular proposal because the nominee does not have discretionary voting power with respect to that item and has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner.

 

The affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes duly cast is required for the election of directors.  All other matters presented at the meeting will be approved if the votes cast in favor of the proposal exceed the votes cast opposing the proposal. Abstentions and broker non-votes are not counted as votes cast on any matter to which they relate and will have no impact on the outcome of any matter.

 

SHARE OWNERSHIP

 

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of the outstanding shares of Republic as of February 12, 2016, based on information available to the Company. The Class B Common Stock is convertible into Class A Common Stock on a share-for-share basis. In the following table, information in the column headed “Class A Common Stock” does not reflect the shares of Class A Common Stock issuable upon conversion of Class B Common Stock.  Information is included for:

 

 

 

 

 

Except as otherwise noted, Republic believes that each person named below has the sole power to vote and dispose of all shares shown as owned by such person.  Please note that the table provides information about the number of shares beneficially owned, as opposed to the voting power of those shares.

 

Executive officers, directors and director nominees as a group (collectively 15 persons) hold 67% of the combined voting power of the Class A and Class B Common Stock which represents 52% of the total number of shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock outstanding as of February 12, 2016 as detailed below:

 

 

*Represents less than 1% of total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)Includes 7,165,051 shares held of record by Teebank Family Limited Partnership (“Teebank”) and 750,067 shares held of record by Jaytee Properties Limited Partnership (“Jaytee”).  With respect to Teebank and Jaytee, Steven E. Trager is a co-general partner and co-trustee of a trust which is the other co-general partner of each of these limited partnerships.  Trusts for the benefit of, among others, Steven E. Trager’s two children and his mother, are limited partners of both Teebank and Jaytee.  Includes 7,478 shares held by Steven E. Trager’s spouse, Amy Trager.  Includes 370,100 shares held of record by the Trager Family Foundation, a charitable foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Steven E. Trager shares voting and investment power over these shares with Sheldon G. Gilman and the other directors of the Trager Family Foundation.  Also includes 12,085 shares held in Republic’s 401(k) plan, 188,400 shares held in an IRA in the name of Steven E. Trager’s deceased father, and 225 shares held by Trager Marital Trust, for which Steven E. Trager is trustee.

 

(2)Includes 939,449 shares held of record by Teebank and 168,066 shares held of record by Jaytee.  With respect to Teebank and Jaytee, Steven E. Trager is a co-general partner and co-trustee of a trust which is the other co-general partner of each of these limited partnerships.  Trusts for the benefit of, among others, Steven E. Trager’s two children and his mother, are limited partners of both Teebank and Jaytee.  Also includes 1,215 shares held in Republic’s 401(k) plan and 671,583 shares held by Trager Marital Trust, for which Steven E. Trager serves as trustee.

 

(3)Includes 7,165,051 shares held of record by Teebank and 750,067 shares held of record by Jaytee.  With respect to Teebank and Jaytee, Jean S. Trager is co-trustee of a trust which is a general partner of each of those limited partnerships and a beneficiary of certain trusts which are limited partners of each of those limited partnerships. 

 

(4)Includes 939,449 shares held of record by Teebank and 168,066 shares held of record by Jaytee.  With respect to Teebank and Jaytee, Jean S. Trager is co-trustee of a trust which is a general partner of each of these limited partnerships and a beneficiary of certain trusts which are limited partners of each of those limited partnerships.

 

(5)Includes 7,165,051 shares held of record by Teebank and 750,067 shares held of record by Jaytee.  A. Scott Trager is a limited partner of both Teebank and Jaytee.  A. Scott Trager shares voting authority over shares held by both Teebank and Jaytee as a member of each partnership’s voting committee.  Includes 51,697 shares held of record by a family trust of which A. Scott Trager is a co-trustee and a beneficiary.  Also includes 32,279 shares held in Republic’s 401(k) plan.    Also includes voting rights for 7,500 restricted shares which vest 50% in November 2017 and 50% in November 2018.

 

(6)Includes 939,449 shares held of record by Teebank and 168,066 shares held of record by Jaytee.  A. Scott Trager is a limited partner of both Teebank and Jaytee.  A. Scott Trager shares voting authority over shares held by both Teebank and Jaytee as a member of each partnership’s voting committee.  Includes 4,107 shares held of record by a family trust of which A. Scott Trager is a co-trustee and a beneficiary.  Also includes 1,190 shares held in Republic’s 401(k) plan.

 

(7)Includes 7,165,051 shares held of record by Teebank and 750,067 shares held of record by Jaytee.  Sheldon G. Gilman, as trustee of trusts, is a limited partner of both Teebank and Jaytee.  Sheldon G. Gilman shares voting authority over shares held by both Teebank and Jaytee as a member of each partnership’s voting committee.  Includes 370,100 shares held of record by the Trager Family Foundation, a charitable foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Sheldon G. Gilman shares voting and investment power over these shares with Steven E. Trager and the other directors of the Trager Family Foundation.  Also includes 39,307 shares held by Sheldon G. Gilman’s spouse.

 

(8)Includes 939,449 shares held of record by Teebank and 168,066 shares held of record by Jaytee.  Sheldon G. Gilman, as trustee of trusts, is a limited partner of both Teebank and Jaytee.  Sheldon Gilman shares voting authority of both Teebank and Jaytee as a member of each partnership’s voting committee.

 

(9)Teebank and Jaytee are limited partnerships of which Jean S. Trager, A. Scott Trager, Trager Marital Trust and trusts for which each of Steven E. Trager and Sheldon G. Gilman serve as trustees, are limited partners.  Steven E. Trager is also a co-general partner of each partnership and is co-trustee with Jean S. Trager of a trust which is the

other general partner of Teebank and Jaytee.  Teebank and Jaytee each has a voting committee comprised of Steven E. Trager, A. Scott Trager and Sheldon G.  Gilman.  These committees direct the voting of the shares held by Teebank and Jaytee.  Teebank and Jaytee each have a total of 2 million units outstanding.  The following table provides information about the units of Teebank and Jaytee beneficially owned by directors, officers and 5% shareholders of Republic:

 

 

* - Represents less than 1% of total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSAL ONE: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

Republic’s Board of Directors is comprised of one class of directors that are elected annually.  Each director serves a term of one (1) year or until his or her successor is duly elected or qualified.  Republic’s Bylaws provide for not less than five (5) nor more than fifteen (15) directors. In accordance with the Company’s Bylaws, the Board of Directors has fixed the number of directors to be elected at the 2016 Annual Meeting at seven  (7). The Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors have nominated for election as directors: Steven E. Trager, A. Scott Trager, Craig A. Greenberg, Michael T. Rust, R. Wayne Stratton, Susan Stout Tamme and Mark A. Vogt. Each of the nominees, except for Mark A. Vogt, is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Company.  Mark A. Vogt is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Bank.    

 

Director nominees Craig A. Greenberg, Michael T. Rust, R. Wayne Stratton, Susan Stout Tamme and Mark A. Vogt would collectively comprise a majority of the Board of Directors, and the Board has determined that each is an “independent director” as defined in Rule 5605(a)(2) of the NASDAQ listing standards. While the Company is a “controlled company” as defined under the NASDAQ rules and thus is entitled to an exemption from the majority independence rule, the Company has not elected this exemption for its 2016 election of directors, but reserves the right to claim this exemption in the future.

 

Neither the Nominating Committee nor the Board of Directors has reason to believe that any nominee for director will not be available for election or to serve following election. However, if any of the nominees should become unavailable for election, and unless authority is withheld, the holders of the proxies solicited hereby will vote for such other individual(s) as the Nominating Committee or the Board of Directors may recommend.

 

The following table details the indicated information for each nominee and incumbent director:

 

 

 

 

None of the persons placed in nomination currently holds or has in the past five (5) years held any directorships in any other company with a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of such Act or any company registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

 

Republic’s directors were elected at the most recent Annual Meeting held on April 23, 2015, to a one (1) year term. The Company’s executive officers are recommended by the Compensation Committee and formally selected by the Board of Directors.  Executive officers hold office at the discretion of the Board of Directors.  All Company directors and Mark A. Vogt, a director nominee for 2016, attended the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

 

Steven E. Trager and A. Scott Trager are cousins.

 

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” all of the proposed Board of Director nominees named in this proxy statement.

 

The Board of Directors and its Committees

 

The Board

 

Each director is expected to devote sufficient time, energy and attention to ensure diligent performance of his or her duties and to attend all meetings of the shareholders, the Board, and the Board committees to which they are appointed. The Board of Directors held six (6) regularly scheduled board meetings in 2015 and one (1) special meeting.  Each of the directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors.  Also, each of the directors attended at least 75% of the meetings held by committees on which such directors served during their respective terms of service in 2015.  Also, some selected Company directors were paid a committee fee for attending certain Bank committee meetings. Directors that are also officers of the Company or the Bank are not paid for attending board or committee meetings. 

 

The Company believes it is both prudent and expedient and in the best interest of shareholders that the Chairman and CEO positions are combined and that such combination has no negative effect on the operation and direction of the Company.  This structure allows the independent directors to concentrate on the oversight of the Company without the added burden of also addressing what are normally less material day to day managerial concerns.  The Company does not have a lead independent director, but the independent directors meet privately following each regularly scheduled board meeting and have the authority to request to speak with any officer or other employee of the Company or the Bank.  They also have direct access to and the authority to retain, at the Company’s expense, any outside auditors, accountants or attorneys at their discretion.

 

While the Company’s Board is ultimately responsible for risk oversight, selected Board committees play an important role in assisting the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.  The Board evaluates risk factors at its regularly scheduled Board meetings and also more specifically through its Nominating Committee, Compensation Committee, Audit Committee and its Bank Compliance and Community Reinvestment Committee.    Craig A. Greenberg and Steven E. Trager, both Company directors, serve on the Compliance and Community Reinvestment Committee.  The Compliance and Community Reinvestment Committee assists the Board in monitoring the compliance and community reinvestment activity of the Bank, including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with respect to compliance and community reinvestment, and compliance with any and all orders or agreements entered into between the Bank or the Board with any of the Company or Bank regulatory supervisory agencies.  This Committee is also responsible for the oversight of the Company and its subsidiary Bank Third Party Risk Management Program.  The Third Party Management Steering Committee, chaired by the Bank’s Chief Risk Officer, reviews and approves third party due diligence completed by the Company’s management responsible for the Company and its subsidiary bank third party relationships.  Third party risk reports are provided through this Committee on at least an annual basis to the Company and Bank Board of Directors concerning the Third Party Management Program and any significant third party arrangements.  It also monitors and oversees the activities of the subsidiary Bank Compliance and Community Reinvestment Departments, monitors the Bank Compliance Management Systems and is responsible for reviewing the Compliance Policy of the Bank annually.

 

The Company Board and the subsidiary Bank Board receive regular and timely reports from all Company committees.  More specifically, the Audit Committee also regularly reviews risks associated with insurance, credit, debt, financial, accounting, legal, reputational, compliance, third party, information technology security and other risk matters involving the Company and the Bank.  Enterprise Risk Management reports and Business Continuity Planning reports are received and reviewed by the Audit Committee.  In addition, the Compensation Committee considers risks related to succession planning and approves the Company’s Succession Plan. The Compensation Committee also considers risks related to the attraction and retention of critical employees and risks relating to the Company’s compensation programs and contractual employee arrangements.  In addition, the Compensation Committee reviews compensation and benefit plans affecting employees generally in addition to those applicable to the NEOs. The Company’s Board considers strategic risks and opportunities and regularly receives detailed reports from its committees and other Bank committees regarding risk oversight. The Company’s Board also receives regular reports directly from management and committee

chairpersons. The Company’s Board is responsible for setting and formally approving policies regarding risk management and compliance oversight, as well as other matters. The Bank employs a high level Chief Risk Management Officer who regularly attends all Company Board meetings and who reports directly to the CHAIR/CEO of the Company.

 

Committees of the Company’s Board

 

The Company’s Board has three (3) standing committees to facilitate and assist the Board in the execution of its responsibilities. The Board committees consist of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating Committee. In accordance with NASDAQ listing standards, the Board has determined that each of the Board committee members meets the definition of “independent director” and satisfies the NASDAQ listing standards for service on the Board committees on which each serves.  In making these determinations, the Board considered all relevant factors, including that Craig A. Greenberg is designated as a Staff Attorney by the firm of Frost Brown Todd LLC, a law firm that provides general and corporate legal services to both the Company and the Bank.  Mr. Greenberg has an arrangement where he gets paid a percentage of revenues paid to the firm by certain clients, but not including the Company and the Bank.  He also receives a certain percentage of the profits of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the firm that he created and helps manage, but that business is exclusively related to the New Markets Tax Credit business that does no business with the Company or the Bank.  Mr. Greenberg does not maintain an office at the firm, is not an equityholder in the firm, and is not salaried by the firm.  The Bank paid the law firm $118,000 in 2015.  In addition, the Company paid the law firm $65,000 in 2015.

 

Charters for each Board committee, as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethics, are available on the Company’s website at www.republicbank.com.  The information contained on Republic’s website is not incorporated by reference in, or considered to be a part of, this proxy statement.

 

The table below details current membership for each of the standing Board committees:

 

 

*Denotes Committee Chairperson

 

The Audit Committee held eight (8) meetings during 2015. The Company’s Board of Directors has evaluated the credentials of and designated and appointed R. Wayne Stratton, CPA, as Chairman of the Audit Committee and as the “audit committee financial expert” as required by Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

The Company’s Board of Directors adopted a written charter for the Audit Committee, which sets out the functions and responsibilities of the Audit Committee.  As described in the charter, the Audit Committee, among other things, is directly responsible for the selection, oversight and compensation of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.  It is also responsible for the oversight of the accounting and financial reporting processes of the Company, audits of the financial statements and pre-approval of any non-audit services of the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the Company’s Board of Directors with respect to: the review and scope of audit arrangements; the independent registered public accounting firm’s suggestions for strengthening internal accounting controls; matters of concern to the Audit Committee, the independent registered public accounting firm, or management relating to the Company’s consolidated financial statements or other results of the annual audit; the review of internal accounting procedures and controls with the Company’s financial and accounting staff; the review of the activities and recommendations of the Internal Auditor and compliance auditors; and the review of the consolidated financial statements and other financial information published by the Company. Auditors for the Company are required to report directly to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is required to pre-approve all audit and permitted non-audit services provided by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

 

The Audit Committee has recommended, and the Board of Directors has approved and adopted, a Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy that applies to all directors, officers and employees of the Company and its bank subsidiary, including the principal executive and financial officers, the controller and the principal accounting officer. The Company intends to post amendments to, or waivers from, its Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy, if any, that apply to the principal executive and financial officers, the controller or the principal accounting officer on its website.  There were no amendments or waivers approved, granted or posted in 2015.

 

The Compensation Committee held four (4) meetings during 2015. The Compensation Committee makes recommendations to the Company’s Board of Directors as to the amount and form of NEO compensation and option awards, if any. The Compensation Committee also reviews and approves the Company’s and the Bank’s Management Succession Plan on an annual basis. Neither the Compensation Committee,  the Board, the Company, nor its management utilized the services of an independent compensation consultant in 2015, nor do any of them have any current arrangements with any compensation advisors or consultants. The CHAIR/CEO makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee with respect to all NEO compensation, including his own compensation.  

 

The Nominating Committee held one (1) meeting in 2015. In 2016, the Nominating Committee and the Company’s Board of Directors approved the director nominees to be considered for election at the Annual Meeting.  All director nominees for 2016 served as Company directors during 2015, except Bank Director, Mark A. Vogt. No candidates for director nominees for the 2016 Annual Meeting election of directors were submitted to the Nominating Committee or the Company’s Board of Directors for consideration by any non-management shareholder.

 

The Nominating Committee will consider candidates for director nominees at the 2017 Annual Meeting properly put forth by shareholders. Shareholders should submit such nominations, if any, to the Company’s Secretary, Michael A. Ringswald, at 601 West Market Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 no later than November 11, 2016.  The Nominating Committee will consider candidates who have a strong record of community leadership in the Company’s and its banking subsidiary’s market.  Candidates should possess a strong record of achievement in both business and civic endeavors, possess strong ethics and display leadership qualities including the ability to analyze and interpret banking financial statements and regulatory requirements, the competence to evaluate endeavors of an entrepreneurial nature and be able to attract new Company banking relationships.  Board diversity as a whole is also considered, although the Company does not have a formal diversity policy.   Recommendations of the “Trager Family Members” (generally defined to include Steven E. Trager and Jean S. Trager and their descendants, and companies, partnerships or trusts in which they are majority owners or beneficiaries), as well as prior service and performance as a director, will also be strongly considered.    The Company does not pay a third party fee to assist in identifying and evaluating director nominees, but the Company does not preclude the potential for utilizing such services, if needed, as may be determined at the discretion of the Nominating Committee.  No candidate that was recommended by a beneficial owner of more than five percent (5%) of the Company’s voting Common Stock was rejected.  The “Trager Family Members” recommended all director nominees submitted to the Nominating Committee and the Company’s Board of Directors.  No other shareholders submitted a recommendation for a director nominee for 2016.

 

All Company directors attended the 2015 Annual Meeting.    All Company directors and the new director nominee are requested and are expected to attend the 2016 Annual Meeting.

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

The Compensation Committee, which is comprised of three independent Republic Bancorp, Inc. (“Company”) directors, is responsible for approving the compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) and NEO compensation policies. The Compensation Committee also recommends the appointment of the Company’s and Republic Bank & Trust Company’s (“Bank”) other Executive Officers (“EOs”).  The Compensation Committee’s determinations are routinely subsequently approved by the Company’s and the Bank’s Board of Directors without change. The Company does not separately compensate its NEOs, all of whom are EOs of the Company’s sole banking subsidiary, the Bank, and compensated directly by the Bank for their services.

 

In deciding to generally continue with the Company’s existing executive compensation practices, the Compensation Committee has considered that holders of over 92% of the votes cast on an advisory basis at the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders approved the compensation of the Company’s NEOs.  Also, in accordance with the affirmative votes cast at the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to hold advisory voting on executive compensation every two (2) years, shareholders will have the opportunity to cast their advisory vote on executive compensation at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

 

Objectives of the Company’s Compensation Program.  The purpose of the Company’s Compensation Program is to establish and maintain suitable financial compensation and financial rewards for job performance that principally focus on the degree to which the Company’s profit objectives, as outlined in the Company’s budget, have been met or substantially met.  Other goals are assigned and attributed to certain NEOs in the primary areas of loan and deposit growth, risk management and regulatory control, loan loss control, customer service, product development and operations.

 

With respect to the NEOs listed in the Summary Compensation Table included in this proxy statement, the Compensation Committee approves goals other than profit objectives in order to provide incentives for the NEOs to perform in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders and also to provide additional metrics against which the NEOs’ total performance and contributions can be evaluated.  These additional goals are approved by the Compensation Committee and reviewed by management with each NEO, except for the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CHAIR/CEO”) whose goals are not subject to management review, but only the review and approval of the Compensation Committee.  Gross operating profit (“GOP”) for the Company and the Bank remains the central and most important metric in evaluating and determining NEO compensation. GOP is defined as “income before income taxes” in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) adjusted for any extraordinary income or other non-recurring items as determined by the CHAIR/CEO.  Some NEOs are evaluated based on Total Company GOP, including the GOP of the Republic Processing Group (“RPG”) business segment, while other NEOs are evaluated on the Core Bank GOP, i.e., the Company’s GOP excluding the RPG business segment (“Core Bank GOP”).  The President of RPG is evaluated on the GOP relating solely to the RPG business segment. If GOP goals are met, base salary and incentive compensation generally result in increases and some significant percentage of the NEOs’ incentive bonus potential will normally, but not necessarily, be awarded, even if other NEO goals not related to GOP may not have been fully achieved.

 

The Company’s Incentive Compensation Program is flexible in design and takes into account factors beyond the control of any NEO in determining the amount of compensation to be paid a particular NEO in any given year. If the Company’s budgeted GOP goals are not fully achieved, then a percentage of a potential incentive payout may be awarded based on intervening factors, such as economic factors, regulatory changes impacting profit objectives, or management decisions that may impact current profitability, normally made in return for the potential for greater long-term profitability.  Management decisions may include such things as technology upgrades, by way of example, or other similar management actions that were not evident when the Company budget was initially approved by the Company’s Board of Directors. 

 

The Company establishes two budget goals relating to GOP.  The first is commonly referred to as the “Entry Level” budget goal, and the second is commonly referred to as the “Maximum Level” budget goal.  Generally, if the Entry Level budget goal is met, the NEOs will be awarded 50% of their bonus potential payout and, if the Maximum Level budget goal is obtained, the NEOs will typically be awarded 100% of their respective bonus potential payout.  Nonetheless, the Company’s Incentive Compensation Program does not automatically result in incentives being paid based on a pre-set percentage of any particular goal or budgetary GOP attainment, as the final decision rests with the CHAIR/CEO, subject to Compensation Committee approval. 

 

The NEOs are comprised of Steven E. Trager, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CHAIR/CEO”); A. Scott Trager, President (“PRES”); Kevin D. Sipes, Executive Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”); Juan M. Montano, Senior Vice President and Managing Director of Mortgage Lending (“SVP/ML”), and William R. Nelson, President/Republic Processing Group (“PRES/RPG”).

 

Compensation Elements.    Republic’s Compensation Program has three (3) principal components: base salary, the Incentive Compensation Program or Incentive Bonus Program, and the Stock Incentive Program. Base salary compensation and the Company’s performance-based incentive program are annual programs. The Stock Incentive Program is not typically an annual program, but stock incentives may be awarded at any time during the year to some or all of the Company’s NEOs, subject to the recommendation of the CHAIR/CEO and the approval by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors.

 

In addition to the three components listed above, some NEOs, based on their respective participation, may be included in the Company’s Acquisition Bonus Program. The Company’s Acquisition Bonus Program provides for a bonus payout for the achievement of profit objectives based solely on the profitability of the Company’s acquisitions, as may be applicable.  There were no awards under the Company’s Acquisition Bonus Program during 2015.

 

NEOs also participate in Company-wide employee benefit plans and typically are rewarded, as part of their base compensation, additional selected customary business-related perquisites such as, by way of examples, car allowances and country club memberships.

 

Purpose of the Company’s Compensation Elements.    The primary purpose of the base salary component of the Company’s Compensation Program is to provide base compensation for ordinary living expenses.  The Company wants to provide its NEOs with a base salary that supports a reasonable lifestyle that is comparable to their high and visible standing in the community, one that supports the demands from the community given that standing and their community visibility and one that also provides reasonable compensation for the performance of their duties and responsibilities directly associated with their NEO status.  As long as the Company’s financial performance is deemed acceptable in the view of the CHAIR/CEO, regardless of whether or not the Company’s GOP goals are met, annual increases to base salary are typically, but not always, granted in response to generally recognized cost of living factors and as a reward for acceptable performance. While the Compensation Committee considers cost of living adjustments when evaluating base pay, such adjustments are not automatic, but are also dependent on satisfactory earnings and other performance factors.  The Compensation Committee does not apply any particular formula or measurement in making these determinations.  The Compensation Committee used its collective judgment and considered the recommendations of the CHAIR/CEO in determining base compensation levels for 2015 and 2016. Going forward, the Compensation Committee will continue to make its determinations by using its collective judgment and by giving strong consideration to the recommendations of the CHAIR/CEO.  It will continue not to apply any particular formula or measurement regarding base salary compensation, but the degree to which the Company’s GOP budget goals were attained remains a primary consideration in all compensation decisions.

 

EO bonus incentive goals, in terms of both incentive to be paid and GOP profit goal, are set at the beginning of the Company’s fiscal year (except for the PRES/RPG whose goals are set at mid fiscal year) by the Compensation Committee and are used to provide the NEOs and EOs with incentives to improve both short-term and long-term Company performance.  Stock compensation awards are also granted from time to time to provide the NEOs and EOs with incentives to maximize the Company’s GOP, as well as provide retention incentives.  Acquisition bonus awards are granted to incentivize NEOs, EOs and other Company associates to maximize Company earnings and to implement target integration components relating to acquisitions, such as timely and accurate system conversions, in order to maximize operational efficiencies associated with acquisitions.

 

Establishment of Compensation Levels.    The Company’s compensation elements are designed to be generally competitive with similar employment opportunities or positions in similarly sized companies in the metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky area. The Compensation Committee, however, does not rely on benchmarking to determine its compensation elements; rather, the Compensation Committee gives strong consideration and has not historically deviated from the recommendations of the CHAIR/CEO, whose recommendations are based upon his individual judgment.  The Compensation Committee does annually review various benchmarking publications and peer data to determine if compensation levels are within reasonable ranges as compared to those benchmarks, but the benchmarks are not used to set NEO compensation. The Compensation Committee has not previously engaged a third-party executive compensation consultant and has no immediate plans to do so in the future.

 

The CHAIR/CEO makes specific executive compensation recommendations to the Compensation Committee on all NEO compensation elements, including his own. Typically, the CHAIR/CEO also considers the recommendations of the PRES when formulating his recommendations to the Compensation Committee.  The CHAIR/CEO will recommend his own compensation, which, if reasonable in the subjective judgment of the Compensation Committee, is normally and historically accepted and approved by the Compensation Committee and ultimately the Board of Directors without modification.  The Compensation Committee or the CHAIR/CEO is authorized to make adjustments in the terms and conditions of, and the criteria included in, the Incentive Compensation Program in recognition of unusual or nonrecurring events, including acquisitions and dispositions of businesses and assets affecting the Company, or the financial statements of the Company, or in response to changes in applicable laws, regulations, accounting principles, tax rates and regulations or business conditions or in view of the Compensation Committee’s or CHAIR/CEO’s assessment of the business strategy of the Company, economic and business conditions, personal performance of a particular NEO and any other circumstances deemed relevant.

 

The compensation of the remaining NEOs is also principally recommended by the CHAIR/CEO.  In the case where a Company NEO reports to another NEO, the supervising NEO’s recommendations are also strongly considered.  These recommendations, if reasonable in the subjective judgment of the Compensation Committee, are also normally and typically accepted and approved by the Compensation Committee, and ultimately the Board of Directors, without change.  All NEO base salary and incentive compensation is approved by the Board of Directors upon recommendation by the Compensation Committee. 

 

The Company’s Incentive Compensation Program.  The Incentive Compensation Program is designed to reward those individuals who contribute through their own performance and their influence on others to achieve and exceed the Company’s financial goals, and to a lesser extent, other goals that target performance in areas required to run a successful banking operation. The incentive bonus compensation potential for the CHAIR/CEO and the CFO was tied to the Total Company GOP.  The incentive bonus compensation potential of the PRES was tied principally to the Core Bank GOP.  The Total Company GOP and Core Bank GOP objectives at the “Entry Level” for 2015 were $46.5 million and $36.7 million, respectively.  The Total Company GOP and Core Bank GOP objectives at the “Maximum Level” were $55.0 million and $45.2 million, respectively.  The RPG business segment’s only GOP budgeted objective for the 2015 measurement period was $10.0 million.  Unlike other NEOs, whose goals are based on the Company’s fiscal year of January 1 through December 31, the PRES/RPG has goals based on RPG’s seasonally based measurement period from July 1 through June  30.  The SVP/ML has multiple goals, including goals related to Total Company GOP and Core Bank GOP that will be discussed in greater detail below.

 

NEO incentive compensation is tied principally, but not exclusively, to the degree actual Total Company GOP compares to the Entry Level and Maximum Level budget goals approved by the Board of Directors. With respect to the NEOs, other than the PRES/RPG and the SVP/ML, the Company budget had two levels of financial performance targets identified for 2015 and also for 2016. The first level, the “Entry Level” budget goal, typically has a 50% bonus potential associated.  The higher “Maximum Level” budget goal, which, if achieved, usually results in the full NEO bonus potential being awarded.  RPG had only one budget goal identified for the 2015 measurement period and two budget goals for the 2016 measurement period.  Bonus potentials for all NEOs, including himself, are recommended by the CHAIR/CEO and are subsequently approved by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors.  No incentive compensation adjustments were made to the Incentive Compensation Program in 2015 other than for the SVP/ML. See “Awards Under the Company’s Bonus Incentive Compensation Program” below.

 

The amount of incentive compensation or bonus actually awarded to the NEOs is determined by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors.  The “Entry Level” and “Maximum Level” budget goals are designed to be a challenge to meet, particularly for the “Maximum Level” performance tier, but the budget goals and the tiers associated with those goals are not set so as to be impractical or impossible to achieve.  For the 2015 measurement period, there was no Entry Level budget goal for the PRES/RPG as that business segment had only a Maximum Level budget goal.  For 2016, the NEO budget goals are designed to provide an incentive for the NEOs to achieve performance which meets or exceeds operating budgeted financial expectations.  The Company’s budgeted goals should not be relied upon by any investor or shareholder as an indication of management’s prediction of its future financial performance.

 

In its discretion, the Company may modify its budget goals and the Compensation Committee may elect to exclude any extraordinary income or other non-recurring items from its determination as to whether or not the budget goals were, in fact, met or substantially met.  A percentage of the total bonus potential may be awarded to the NEOs even if the “Entry Level” budget goals for incentive compensation purposes are not fully achieved.

 

By written agreement with each NEO, the incentive compensation potential is subject to amendment, either upward or downward, at the discretion of the CHAIR/CEO, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee and ultimately the Board of Directors.  With respect to the incentive compensation paid for 2015 performance, the Compensation Committee deferred to the recommendations of the CHAIR/CEO regarding non-recurring items.  There are potentially some occasions when NEOs may be awarded incentive compensation based on factors such as competitive information about the salaries or bonuses paid for similar positions at other local companies or awarded based on achievements other than profit, although no such incentive bonuses above 50% of the stated incentive bonus potential for any NEO were awarded in 2015 other than the SVP/ML.  See “Awards Under the Company’s Bonus Incentive Compensation Program” below.

 

The Compensation Committee, on the recommendation of the CHAIR/CEO, sets individual incentive bonus potentials at the end of each fiscal year to be applied to the next fiscal year, except for the PRES/RPG, whose bonus potential is typically determined in the third quarter of each calendar year. 

 

Participants in the Company’s Incentive Compensation Program described above agree that during their employment or service with Republic and for a period of two years following the date of their termination of employment of service for whatever reason, they shall not (i) solicit or divert or attempt to divert from Republic or its affiliates, any customer’s business enjoyed by or specifically targeted by Republic or its affiliates at any time during their employment or service with Republic; and (ii) directly or indirectly, solicit to employ or engage, offer employment or engagement to, hire, employ or engage any employees or independent contractors of Republic or any of its affiliates.

 

The Company’s Acquisition Bonus Plan.    In addition to the incentive potential described above, certain NEOs may qualify under the Company’s Acquisition Bonus Plan for an additional incentive bonus to be determined by the CHAIR/CEO and approved by the Company’s Compensation Committee relating to Company or Bank acquisitions.

 

The purpose of the Acquisition Bonus Plan is to set forth the terms and conditions of financial rewards for the job performance of associates of the Company, including certain NEOs who materially participate in the negotiation, consummation and transition of an acquisition or merger and contribute to the long-term profitability of the acquisitions, whether through an asset purchase, stock purchase, merger or other corporate transaction.  The Company may engage in a number of acquisitions from time to time, and each acquisition may have a specific bonus incentive program subject to the provisions of the Acquisition Bonus Plan.

 

The bonus incentive pool, with respect to each acquisition, will be in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000, the amount determined by the Company’s CHAIR/CEO within sixty (60) days of the closing of each acquisition and subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 

 

The determination of the amount of Acquisition Bonus Plan awards that may be paid to any individual will be based on performance criteria as determined by the Compensation Committee and may include one or more of the following criteria:  (a) successful branch consolidations and core system conversions; (b) a limitation of any losses resulting from operational errors to less than a discretionary dollar amount as determined by the CHAIR/CEO; (c) operating profit (gross or net); (d) earnings including operating income, net operating income, earnings before or after taxes, earnings before or after interest, depreciation, amortization, or extraordinary or special items, or book value per share (which may exclude non-recurring items) or net earnings; (e) pre-tax income, after-tax income, pre-tax profits or after-tax profits; (f) revenue, revenue growth or rate of revenue growth; (g) return on assets (gross or net), return on investment (including cash flow return on investment), return on capital (including return on total capital or return on invested capital), or return on equity; (h) return on sales or revenues; (i) operating expenses; (j) cash flow (before or after dividends), free cash flow, cash flow return on investment (discounted or otherwise), net cash provided by operations, cash flow in excess of cost of capital or cash flow per share (before or after dividends); (k) implementation or completion of critical projects or processes; (l) operating margin or profit margin; (m) cost targets, reductions and savings,

productivity and efficiencies; (n) strategic business criteria, consisting of one or more objectives based on meeting specified market penetration, geographic business expansion, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, human resources management, supervision of litigation and other legal matters, information technology, and goals relating to budget comparisons; (o) personal professional objectives, including any of the foregoing performance targets, the implementation of policies and plans, the negotiation of transactions, and the development of long-term business goals; (p) improvement in or attainment of expense levels or working capital levels; (q) operating portfolio metrics, or (r) any combination of, or a specified increase in, any of the foregoing.  Where applicable, the performance targets may be expressed in terms of attaining a specified level of the particular criteria or the attainment of a percentage increase or decrease in the particular criteria, all as determined by the Compensation Committee.  The performance targets may include a threshold level of performance below which no payment will be made, levels of performance at which specified payments will be made, and a maximum level of performance above which no additional payment will be made.  Each performance target shall be determined in accordance with GAAP, if applicable, and shall be subject to certification by the Compensation Committee provided that the Compensation Committee shall have the authority to adjust such targets in recognition of extraordinary items or other items that may not be infrequent or unusual but which may have inconsistent effects on performance. 

 

The Acquisition Bonus Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee has delegated to the CHAIR/CEO of the Company the authority, subject to such terms as the Compensation Committee shall determine, to perform such functions, including administrative functions, except that the Compensation Committee may not delegate authority to an officer or employee to grant a bonus award or otherwise make determinations with respect to the officer or employee to whom the authority is delegated. 

 

Unless otherwise specifically determined by the Compensation Committee or the CHAIR/CEO, an acquisition bonus incentive award is deemed earned and vested only with respect to a participant who remains employed at the Company and is in good standing at the time of the determination.  However, under certain special conditions, this requirement may be subject to waiver by the CHAIR/CEO.

 

The Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.    The Company’s primary form of equity-based incentive compensation has historically been stock option awards. This form of compensation was historically used by the Company due to previously favorable accounting and tax treatment. Stock option awards are also granted by the Company’s competitors and the Compensation Committee believes stock option awards have been an expectation of business executives in Republic’s marketplace.  Despite the ramifications from the adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC Topic 718, the Compensation Committee believes that stock option awards, as well as stock grants, constitute a favorable retention factor and enhance the Company’s ability to maintain the employment of its high performing executives. Additionally, Republic’s equity-based incentive agreements provide for a two (2) year prohibition, following the termination of employment of an equity-based incentive recipient, on the solicitation of any customer of the Company or the recruitment and hiring of any Company associate. The Company’s equity-based incentive agreement also has confidentiality requirements which act to protect the Company’s proprietary information. A violation of those provisions allows the Company to require a forfeiture of equity-based incentives or the profits derived from the sale of that stock if sold. All equity-based incentive agreements have a change in control provision providing for immediate vesting of any unexercised equity-based incentives.

 

Overall Company market stock performance is not a component of evaluation for the purpose of NEO incentive compensation.  Republic’s stock is not actively traded and thus may be subject to market fluctuations beyond the reasonable control of management. Also, in the Compensation Committee’s view, the significant stock holdings of the CHAIR/CEO and his related interests provide material executive motivation to not only preserve but to grow shareholder value, particularly long-term shareholder value.  Therefore, stock awards have not been traditionally awarded to the CHAIR/CEO.

 

Ultimately, the Compensation Committee believes that reasonable and consistent earnings over time will translate into appropriate and favorable stock performance. The Compensation Committee’s policies are not designed to encourage Republic’s NEOs to manage the Company on a quarter to quarter time horizon or even over a one year time period.  Investment in capital improvements, product development and new market expansion can act to reduce short-term profits while providing for a larger future, longer-term profit potential and/or provide for the long-term soundness

and sustainability of the Company’s operations and, thus, its long-term profit potential.  All of these factors are taken into account by the Compensation Committee in its subjective annual evaluation process and deliberations.

 

Any equity stock incentives for NEOs are typically recommended to the Compensation Committee by the CHAIR/CEO. In choosing the date for the grant of equity stock incentives, the Compensation Committee gives no consideration to market events, as any relationship between the equity stock incentive date and the price of the Company’s stock on that date is strictly coincidental.

 

Awards Under the Company’s Base Salary Compensation Program.  All NEOs, except the PRES/RPG who is on a different review schedule, and the CFO, received a base salary increase for 2015 of approximately 1%.  The CFO received a base salary increase of approximately 4%.  All increases, except the PRES/RPG, were effective December 22, 2014.  Upon the recommendation of the CHAIR/CEO, the Compensation Committee approved a salary increase for the CHAIR/CEO to $368,502, a salary increase for the PRES to $364,000, a salary increase for the CFO to $305,000 and a salary increase for the SVP/ML to $250,000.  Similarly, the Compensation Committee approved the salary for the PRES/RPG of $276,040 as of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, effective as of July, 2015. 

 

All NEOs, except the PRES/RPG who is on a different review schedule, and the SVP/ML, received a base salary increase based on 2015 performance and other competitive factors.  All base salary increases, except the PRES/RPG, were effective December 21, 2015.  Upon the recommendation of the CHAIR/CEO, the Compensation Committee approved a salary increase for the CHAIR/CEO to $371,500, approximately a 1% increase, a salary increase for the PRES to $367,000, approximately a 1% increase, a salary increase for the CFO to $314,200, approximately a 3% increase, and a salary increase for the SVP/ML to $268,600, approximately a 7.4% increase. The annualized salary for the PRES/RPG was set at $280,040 as of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

 

Awards Under the Company’s Bonus Incentive Compensation Program.  The bonus incentive potential for 2015 was $185,000 for the CHAIR/CEO, $175,000 for the PRES, $125,000 for the CFO and $95,000 for the SVP/ML.  The bonus incentive potential for the PRES/RPG was $175,000 for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.  The SVP/ML was awarded incentive compensation of $80,000 during 2015, which constituted an increase over his potential stated incentive compensation achievement level; however, the level of incentive compensation awarded was below his Maximum potential incentive compensation award. The SVP/ML had multiple areas of responsibility including Mortgage Lending, Warehouse Lending and Correspondent Lending.  Collectively, these areas exceeded budgeted expectations, particularly Warehouse Lending, and contributed significantly to the Company’s overall GOP in 2015.  As a result, the SVP/ML received additional incentive compensation of $7,500 over his realized incentive compensation relative to his goal achievement, largely because he specifically exceeded the Maximum Level budget related to Warehouse Lending.   Actual GOP results for 2015 for the Total Company, Core Bank and the RPG segment were $35.2 million, $30.0 million and $7.9 million, respectively.  GOP for the Total Company and the Core Bank are for the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, while the GOP for the RPG segment is for the twelve months ended June 30, 2015.  Awards for the NEOs and related factors are outlined in the table below:

 

 

 

 

Awards Under the Company’s Acquisition Bonus Plan.    There were no awards under this program during 2015.

 

Awards Under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.    For 2015, the Compensation Committee approved certain EO stock incentive awards pursuant to the 2015 Stock Incentive Plan.  The CHAIR/CEO declined to accept any stock incentive awards in 2015.  The date for the strike price of the stock incentive awards was the close of business on April 24, 2015 at $24.47 per share.  The stock option awards total 5,500 shares each for seven of the nine 2015 EOs. The SVP/ML was awarded 10,500 option shares and 2,500 stock grant awards.  Total option shares awarded to the eight remaining EOs in 2015 were 43,500.  Fifty percent of the options are exercisable four (4) years from the issue date and the remaining fifty percent are exercisable five years from the issue date. 

 

Post-Employment Benefits.  As described under the heading “Post-Employment Compensation” elsewhere in this proxy statement, the Company has entered into Officer Compensation Continuation Agreements with each of the NEOs who served in that capacity during 2015, with the exception of William R. Nelson and Juan M. Montano.  As described herein, the Officer Compensation Continuation Agreements provide for the payment to an NEO terminated following a change in control equal to or up to 24 months of the NEO’s base salary and benefits. The Company deems the agreements necessary for the maintenance of sound management and essential to protecting the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The agreements are intended to encourage the NEOs to remain in the employment of the Company and to continue to perform their assigned duties without distraction in the face of potentially disruptive events that would normally surround a Company change in control.  Potential payments and benefits under these arrangements have no bearing on the Compensation Committee’s deliberations regarding all other compensation elements.  The Company has modified these agreements to conform them to changes in law under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

 

The Compensation Committee of the Company has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

 

Members of the Compensation Committee:

Sandra Metts Snowden, Chairwoman

Craig A. Greenberg

Susan Stout Tamme

 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

During 2015, non-employee directors of Republic and its principal banking subsidiary received fees of $2,000 for each board meeting attended and fees ranging from $150 to $750, based on the particular committee, for each committee meeting attended.  On occasion, brief, typically single-issue telephonic meetings may be held for which there is no compensation.  Non-employee directors have the option of allocating their fees into a Director Deferred Compensation Plan.  Amounts deferred in the Director Deferred Compensation Plan are deemed to be invested in Republic stock.  Cash dividend equivalents with respect to deferred amounts are accumulated and converted into stock equivalents on a quarterly basis.  Compensation paid or deferred to directors of Republic during 2015 for services as a director of Republic were as follows:

 

2015 DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

 

 

 

 

CERTAIN INFORMATION AS TO MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

The following table contains information concerning the compensation received by Republic’s CHAIR/CEO,  its CFO and its other three most highly compensated NEOs for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015:

 

2015 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS DURING 2015