UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (AMENDMENT NO.
)
Filed by the Registrant [X]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [ ]
Check the appropriate box:
[ ] |
Preliminary Proxy Statement
| |||||
[ ] |
Confidential, for Use of the
Commission Only (as permitted by
Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|||||
[ ] |
Definitive Proxy Statement |
|||||
[X] |
Definitive Additional Materials |
|||||
[ ] |
Soliciting Material Pursuant to
Section 240.14a-12 |
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[X] | No fee required. |
[ ] | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-12. |
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
(5) | Total fee paid: |
[ ] | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |
[ ] | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
(1) | Amount Previously Paid: |
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
(3) | Filing Party: |
(4) | Date Filed: |
Q1. | Why is this Compensation Survey Provided? |
A1. | The Schering-Plough Board from time to time has conducted shareholder surveys to obtain feedback on issues of interest. Surveys are just one of the many methods used to learn about shareholders perspectives in the active shareholder relations program led by Schering-Ploughs Governance and Investor Relations teams. |
For example, an earlier survey on majority voting for Directors was used to help the Board in decision making on Schering-Ploughs majority vote by-law provision. |
In October 2008, the Board announced this survey. Including the survey with the annual report and proxy materials allowed Schering-Plough to reach all holders, while avoiding the cost of a separate distribution. |
Q2. | Wouldnt it be easier to conduct a Vote, instead of a survey? |
A2. | Yes. But our Board does not believe a vote provides enough information to be useful. Compensation is a broad topic, and there are many major aspects to consider when evaluating a compensation program, including the mix of cash and equity; the mix of fixed compensation and performance-based compensation; the performance metrics and goals; how to handle early termination for various reasons; benchmarking and peer groups. |
If a shareholder votes to ratify executive pay, it does not mean he/she likes every aspect of the current compensation system. Likewise, if a shareholder votes not to ratify executive pay, the Company must then talk to the shareholder to learn what aspects of the compensation system led to the negative vote. So Schering-Plough believes the survey is a more efficient way to obtain useful shareholder input on compensation. |
Also, a number of Schering-Ploughs large institutional holders told us they do not favor a say-on-pay vote. They use dialogue when they have a specific issue about compensation with a particular company. They told us that their resources would be taxed evaluating pay generally at many companies where they have no particular concern, rather than working in a concentrated fashion at only those companies where they have identified an issue. Because voting carries fiduciary duties that a survey does not, shareholders who have no concerns over compensation at our company will be more comfortable skipping the survey than they would be skipping a vote. |
Q3. | With the proposed combination of Schering-Plough with Merck, how will the survey be reported? |
A3. | At the time the survey was announced in October 2008, the Board had planned to discuss the survey results in the 2010 proxy statement. We are evaluating a process to complete and discuss the survey before the proposed transaction with Merck closes. The timing for closing depends on antitrust approvals and other contingencies. |
Name: |
Address: |
Date of response: |
Survey Number
|
Survey Number |
Very | Reasonably | Less | ||||||||||||
comfortable | comfortable | comfortable | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very | Reasonably | Less | ||||||||||||
comfortable | comfortable | comfortable | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very | Reasonably | Less | ||||||||||||
comfortable | comfortable | comfortable | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Strongly | Strongly | |||||||||||||
favor | Neutral | oppose | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very clear | Reasonably clear | Less clear | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very clear | Reasonably clear | Less clear | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very | Reasonably | Less | ||||||||||||
comfortable | comfortable | comfortable | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
Very | Reasonably | Less | ||||||||||||
comfortable | comfortable | comfortable | ||||||||||||
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||