Document
Table of Contents

 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCHEDULE 14A
 
 
 
 
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.     )
 
 
 
 

Filed by the Registrant                               Filed by a party other than the Registrant  
Check the appropriate box:
Preliminary Proxy Statement
 
 
 
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
 
 
 
Definitive Proxy Statement
 
 
 
Definitive Additional Materials
 
 
 
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC.
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than The Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
No fee required.
 
 
 
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
 
 
 
 
(1)
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4)
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(5)
Total fee paid:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
 
 
 
Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
 
 
 
 
(1)
Amount Previously Paid:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)
Form, Schedule or Registration No.:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)
Filing Party:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4)
Date Filed:
 
 
 



Table of Contents

g329621pcpg002new.jpg
2140 Lake Park Blvd.
Richardson, Texas 75080
April 4, 2018

Dear Stockholders:

It is my pleasure to invite you to the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Lennox International Inc. The meeting will be held at 10:30 a.m., local time, on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at the Lennox International Inc. Corporate Headquarters, 2140 Lake Park Blvd., Richardson, Texas 75080.

Lennox has elected to deliver our proxy materials to the majority of our stockholders over the Internet. This delivery process allows us to provide stockholders with the information they need while conserving natural resources and lowering the cost of delivery. On or about April 4, 2018, we mailed to our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) containing instructions on how to access our Proxy Statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and fiscal 2017 Annual Report to stockholders. The Notice also provides instructions on how to vote online or by telephone and includes instructions on how to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail.

The accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement describe the items of business that will be discussed and voted upon during the meeting.

YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. Whether or not you plan to attend the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we urge you to vote and submit your proxy by Internet, telephone or mail, pursuant to the instructions on your Notice or your proxy card. We encourage you to vote by Internet or telephone. It is convenient and saves the Company postage and other costs. Please use the website or telephone number shown on your Notice or your proxy card to vote by Internet or telephone. If you attend the meeting you will have the right to revoke the proxy and vote your shares in person.

On behalf of management and our Board of Directors, I want to thank you for your continued support and confidence in 2018.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
g329621g70p85.jpg
 
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



Table of Contents


g329621pcpg002newa01.jpg
2140 Lake Park Blvd.
Richardson, Texas 75080
April 4, 2018 
 
 
 
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON MAY 16, 2018
 
 
 
 
The 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Lennox International Inc. will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:30 a.m., local time, at the Lennox International Inc. Corporate Headquarters, 2140 Lake Park Blvd., Richardson, Texas 75080, to:
 
elect three Class II directors to hold office for a three-year term expiring at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders;
ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year;
conduct an advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”) as disclosed in this Proxy Statement; and
transact any other business that may properly come before the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in accordance with the terms of our Bylaws.
The Board of Directors has determined that our stockholders of record at the close of business on March 20, 2018 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MAY 16, 2018. This Proxy Statement and the Annual Report to Stockholders are available on our website at www.lennoxinternational.com/financialrep.html and also at the website appearing on your Notice or your proxy card. A Proxy Statement, Proxy Card, and Annual Report to Stockholders, which includes our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, accompany this Notice.

Most stockholders have a choice of voting on the Internet, by telephone or by mail. Please refer to your Notice, proxy card or other voting instructions included with these proxy materials for information on the voting method(s) available to you. If you vote by Internet or telephone, you do not need to return your proxy card. If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage firm, bank or other nominee of record, follow the voting instructions you receive from such holder of record to vote your shares.
 
By Order of the Board of Directors,
 
g329621g36z54.jpg
 
John D. Torres
 
Corporate Secretary



Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
Page
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-i-

Table of Contents

GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE 2018
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
Meeting Date and Location
The 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Lennox International Inc. (also referred to in this Proxy Statement as the “Company,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:30 a.m., local time, at the Company’s Corporate Headquarters, 2140 Lake Park Blvd., Richardson, Texas 75080. We began mailing or making available this Proxy Statement and the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Proxy Card and Annual Report to Stockholders, which includes our Annual Report on Form 10-K, to our stockholders on or about April 4, 2018 for the purpose of soliciting proxies on behalf of our Board of Directors (the “Board”).
Matters to be Voted On
At the meeting, you will be asked to vote on three proposals. Our Board recommends you vote “for” each of the director nominees in Proposal 1and “for” Proposals 2 and 3. The proposals to be voted on at the Annual Meeting are:
 
Proposal 1: To elect three Class II directors to hold office for a three-year term expiring at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders;
Proposal 2: To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year; and
Proposal 3: To conduct an advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”) as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.
Record Versus Beneficial Ownership of Shares
If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., you are the "stockholder of record" with respect to those shares. If you are a stockholder of record, we sent our proxy materials directly to you.
If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of shares held in street name. In that case, our proxy materials have been forwarded to you by your broker or bank, which is considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares. Your broker or bank will also send you instructions on how to vote. If you have not heard from your broker or bank, please contact them as soon as possible.
Record Date and Number of Votes
You are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting if you were a stockholder of record at the close of business on March 20, 2018, our Annual Meeting record date. At the close of business on the record date, there were 41,318,011 shares of our common stock outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote.
Quorum Requirement
A quorum is required to transact business at the Annual Meeting. To achieve a quorum at the Annual Meeting, stockholders holding a majority of our outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote must be present either in person or represented by proxy. Shares held by us in treasury will not count towards the calculation of a quorum.
If a quorum is not present at the Annual Meeting, we expect the Annual Meeting will be adjourned or postponed to solicit additional proxies. In such event, the Chairman or stockholders representing a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and present in person or by proxy at the meeting may adjourn the Annual Meeting.

1

Table of Contents

Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes
If a broker or bank holds shares in “street name” (that is, in the name of a bank, broker, nominee or other holder of record) and the beneficial owner does not provide the broker or bank with specific voting instructions, the broker or bank only has discretion to vote on routine matters (referred to as “broker non-votes”) but does not have discretion to vote on non-routine matters.
Pursuant to New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules, Proposal 1 (election of directors), and Proposal 3 (advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs) are non-routine matters for which your broker or bank may not exercise voting discretion if it does not receive voting instructions from you. Proposal 2 (ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year) is a routine matter for which your broker or bank may exercise voting discretion even if it does not receive voting instructions from you. As a result, if you are a beneficial owner of shares held in street name, it is critical that you cast your vote in order for it to be counted on Proposals 1 and 3.
Broker non-votes will not be counted as votes “for” or “withheld” for Proposal 1 or “for” or “against” Proposal 3. Abstentions will be counted as votes “against” Proposals 2 and 3 but will not be counted as votes “for” or “withheld” for Proposal 1.
Vote Requirement for each Proposal
If a quorum is present, our Bylaws require, for purposes of Proposal 1, that a director nominee receive a majority of the votes cast with respect to his or her election in an uncontested election (that is, the number of shares voted “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of “withheld” votes cast for that nominee) to be elected. Each of our director nominees is currently serving on the Board. If a nominee who is currently serving as a director is not re-elected, Delaware law provides that the director would continue to serve on the Board as a “holdover director.” Under our Bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines, each director submits an advance, contingent resignation that the Board may accept if stockholders do not re-elect the director. In that situation, our Board Governance Committee would make a recommendation to the Board about whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether to take other action. The Board would act on the Board Governance Committee’s recommendation, and publicly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it within 90 days from the date that the election results were certified.
If a quorum is present, Proposal 2 (ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year), and Proposal 3 (advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs) will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote thereon.
Voting Procedures
Registered holders may vote in person at the Annual Meeting, by the Internet, by telephone, or, if they received a printed copy of these proxy materials, by mail. If your shares are held in street name, you will receive instructions from a bank, broker, nominee or other holder of record that you must follow in order for your shares to be voted. If you have not received voting instructions from your bank, broker, or other holder of record, please contact them as soon as possible.
A representative of Mediant Communication will tabulate the votes and act as inspector of election at the Annual Meeting.

2

Table of Contents

Changing Your Vote
You can revoke or change your vote on a proposal at any time before the Annual Meeting for any reason by revoking your proxy. For stockholders of record, proxies may be revoked by delivering a written notice of revocation, bearing a later date than your proxy, to our Corporate Secretary at or before the Annual Meeting. Proxies may also be revoked by:
submitting a new written proxy bearing a later date than a proxy you previously submitted prior to or at the Annual Meeting;
voting again by Internet or telephone before 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 15, 2018; or
attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.
In each case, the later submitted vote will be recorded and the earlier vote revoked. Any written notice of a revocation of a proxy should be sent to Lennox International Inc., 2140 Lake Park Blvd., Richardson, Texas 75080, Attention: Corporate Secretary. To be effective, the revocation must be received by our Corporate Secretary before the taking of the vote at the Annual Meeting.
If your shares are held in street name, you must follow the specific voting directions provided to you by your bank, broker, nominee or other holder of record to change or revoke any instructions you have already provided. Alternatively, you may obtain a proxy from your bank, broker or other holder of record and provide it with your vote at the Annual Meeting.
Other Business; Adjournments
We are not aware of any other business to be acted upon at the Annual Meeting. However, if you have voted by proxy and other matters are properly presented at the Annual Meeting for consideration in accordance with our Bylaws, the persons named in the accompanying Proxy Card will have discretion to act on those matters according to their best judgment or the Board’s recommendation. In the absence of a quorum, the Chairman or stockholders representing a majority of the votes present in person or by proxy at the meeting may adjourn the meeting.

3

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Our Bylaws provide that our Board may be composed of no less than three and no more than 15 members. The size of our Board is currently fixed at 10 members, divided into three classes, with each class serving a three-year term.
Upon the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee, the Board has nominated three Class II directors for re-election to our Board to hold office for a three-year term expiring at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. All Class I and III directors will continue in office until the expiration of their terms at the 2020 and 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, respectively. The process followed by the Board in nominating directors and the criteria considered for director nominees is described in the “Corporate Governance” section of this Proxy Statement.
We provide biographical information for each Class II director nominee and for each other director below. For each director and director nominee, the information presented includes the positions held, principal occupation, and business experience as of March 20, 2018. The biographical description below for each director and director nominee also includes the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that led to the Board’s conclusion that such person should serve as a director of the Company at this time, in light of our business and structure.
If you do not wish to vote your shares for any particular nominee, you may withhold your vote for that particular nominee. If any Class II director nominee becomes unavailable to serve, the persons named in the accompanying Proxy Card may vote for any alternate designated by the incumbent Board, or the number of directors constituting the Board may be reduced.

The Board has nominated the following directors for re-election as Class II directors for three-year terms expiring at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders:
g329621major.jpg
  
John E. Major, 72, has served as a director of our Company since 1993. He is the Chairman of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee and a member of the Board Governance Committee. Mr. Major is President of MTSG, a company that provides consulting, investment and governance services, which he formed in 2003. From 2003 to 2006, he served as CEO of Apacheta Corporation, a mobile wireless software company whose products are used to manage inventory and deliveries. From 2000 to 2003, he served as Chairman and CEO of Novatel Wireless, Inc., a leading provider of wireless Internet solutions. From 1997 to 1998, he served as Executive Vice President of QUALCOMM. Prior to joining QUALCOMM, Mr. Major served as Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Motorola, Inc., a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. Prior to that he served as Senior Vice President and General Manager for Motorola’s Worldwide Systems Group of the Land Mobile Products Sector.

Mr. Major currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Resonant Inc., a technology company creating RF filters for mobile devices, and on the Boards of Directors of Littelfuse, Inc., a manufacturer of circuit protection devices, and ORBCOMM Inc., a satellite communications service provider.

Mr. Major contributes substantial experience in product innovation, compensation programs, and mergers and acquisitions in his service as a director.

4

Table of Contents

g329621swienton.jpg
  
Gregory T. Swienton, 68, has served as a director of our Company since 2010. He is the Chair of the Audit Committee and a member of the Board Governance Committee. Mr. Swienton was an adviser to Ryder System, Inc., a supplier of transportation, logistics and supply chain management solutions from May 2013 until May 2015. He previously was Executive Chairman of Ryder System, Inc., from January 2013 to May 2013, after having been Chairman of Ryder System, Inc. since May 2002 and Chief Executive Officer since November 2000. Mr. Swienton joined Ryder as President and Chief Operating Officer in June 1999. Before joining Ryder, Mr. Swienton was Senior Vice President-Growth Initiatives of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF). Prior to that he was BNSF’s Senior Vice President-Coal and Agricultural Commodities Business Unit, and previously had been Senior Vice President of its Industrial and Consumer Units. He joined BNSF in June 1994 as Executive Vice President-Intermodal Business Unit. Prior to joining BNSF, Mr. Swienton was Executive Director-Europe and Africa of DHL Worldwide Express in Brussels, Belgium from 1991 to 1994, and prior to that, he was DHL’s Managing Director-Western and Eastern Europe from 1988 to 1990, also located in Brussels. For the five years prior to these assignments, Mr. Swienton was Regional Vice President of DHL Airways, Inc. in the United States. From 1971 to 1982, Mr. Swienton held various national account, sales and marketing positions with AT&T and Illinois Bell Telephone Company.

Mr. Swienton serves on the Board of Directors of Harris Corporation, a supplier of communications and information technology products.

Mr. Swienton contributes extensive international business experience, deep expertise in global distribution and supply chain innovations, as well as experience in growth initiatives, in his service as a director.
g329621teske.jpg
  
Todd J. Teske, 53, has served as a director of our company since 2011 and as Lead Director since May, 2015. He is the Chair of the Board Governance Committee and a member of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee.

Since 2010, Mr. Teske has served as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Briggs & Stratton Corporation, a world leader in gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment, portable generators, and lawn and garden powered equipment and related accessories. Before becoming CEO of Briggs & Stratton in January 2010, he served as its President and Chief Operating Officer, President of its power products business, head of corporate development and Controller.

Mr. Teske serves as the Chairman of the Board of Briggs & Stratton. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Badger Meter, Inc., a leading innovator, manufacturer and marketer of flow measurement and control products.

The Board recognizes that a director’s service in an executive officer role at another company can be time consuming. Accordingly, the Board reviewed Mr. Teske’s role as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Briggs & Stratton Corporation, and his directorship with Badger Meter, Inc., and determined that the experience gained in those roles enhances his contributions to the Board.

There is a strong consensus among the Board that Mr. Teske is willing and able to devote the time required to perform Board activities, and that his service with Briggs & Stratton and Badger Meter will not interfere with his duties to Lennox and its shareholders. Mr. Teske’s exemplary attendance record at Lennox indicates his commitment to his Board duties.

As an active CEO and former corporate controller, Mr. Teske contributes extensive expertise in the areas of management, finance, accounting, manufacturing and corporate governance in his service as a director.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR”
THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE ABOVE NOMINEES


5

Table of Contents

The following Class I directors’ terms will continue until the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders:

g329621g33r33.jpg
  
Janet K. Cooper, 64, has served as a director of our Company since 1999. She is a member of the Audit Committee and the Public Policy Committee. From 2002 to 2008, Ms. Cooper served as Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Qwest Communications International Inc. From 2001 to 2002, she served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of McDATA Corporation, a global leader in open storage networking solutions. From 2000 to 2001, she served as Senior Vice President, Finance of Qwest. From 1998 to 2000, she served in various senior level finance positions at US West Inc., a regional Bell operating company, including Vice President, Finance and Controller and Vice President and Treasurer. From 1978 to 1998, Ms. Cooper served in various capacities with the Quaker Oats Company, including Vice President, Treasurer and Tax from 1997 to 1998 and Vice President, Treasurer from 1992 to 1997.

Ms. Cooper serves on the Board of Directors of The Toro Company, a manufacturer of equipment for lawn and turf care maintenance and Resonant Inc., a technology company creating RF filters for mobile devices.

Ms. Cooper contributes a substantial financial background and extensive experience in capital markets, tax, accounting matters, and pension plan investments in her service as a director.
g329621g78c00.jpg
  
John W. Norris, III, 60, has served as a director of our Company since 2001. He is the Chairman of the Public Policy Committee and a member of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee. Mr. Norris is a partner and co-founder of Maine Network Partners and is the founding Chairman of the Environmental Funders Network. From 2000 to 2005, he served as the Associate Director of Philanthropy for the Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and from 2006 to 2007 as Program Officer for the Northern Forest Center. Mr. Norris was Co-Founder and President of Borealis, Inc., an outdoor products manufacturer, from 1988 to 2000 and served as an economic development Peace Corps Volunteer in Jamaica from 1985 to 1987. Before joining the Peace Corps, Mr. Norris completed a graduate school internship at Lennox Industries Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, in 1983.

Mr. Norris contributes substantial experience and knowledge on environmental issues, non-governmental organizations, and organizational development in his service as a director.
g329621g81m17.jpg
  
Karen H. Quintos, 54, has served as a director of our company since 2014. She is a member of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee and the Public Policy Committee.
Ms. Quintos is the Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer (CCO) of Dell Technologies Inc., leading a global organization devoted to customer advocacy. Under Ms. Quintos’ leadership, the CCO organization defines and develops Dell’s customer experience strategy and programs, with the goals of maximizing customer satisfaction, acquisition, retention and profitability. Ms. Quintos is also responsible for Dell’s strategy and programs for Diversity & Inclusion and Corporate Social Responsibility — business imperatives she is passionate about and that matter to Dell’s customers and team members around the world.
Previously at Dell, Ms. Quintos served as Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer since September 2010 and Vice President of Public Sector Marketing and North America Commercial from 2008 to 2010. She previously also held executive roles in services, support and supply chain management. Ms. Quintos joined Dell from Citigroup, where she was Vice President of Global Operations and Technology. She also held a variety of marketing, operations, planning and supply chain management roles at Merck & Co.
Ms. Quintos earned a master’s degree in marketing and international business from New York University, and a Bachelor of Science in supply chain management from Pennsylvania State University.
Ms. Quintos is also on the board of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Penn State’s Smeal College of Business, and was a 2014 recipient of the Smeal College of Business’ highest honor, the Distinguished Alumni Award. She also is founder and executive sponsor of Dell’s employee resource group dedicated to women.
Ms. Quintos contributes a broad knowledge of marketing, communications, brand strategy, operations and supply chain management in her service as a director.

6

Table of Contents

g329621g62h26.jpg
  
Paul W. Schmidt, 73, has served as a director of our Company since 2005. He is a member of the Audit Committee and the Public Policy Committee. In 2007, Mr. Schmidt retired from his position as Corporate Controller of General Motors Corporation, a position he held since 2002. He began his career in 1969 as an analyst with the Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors and subsequently served in a wide variety of senior leadership roles for General Motors, including financial, product and factory management, business planning, investor relations and international operations. Schmidt was a plant manager in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from 1982 to 1984 before managing the largest automotive product program in GM’s history from 1985 to 1991. He subsequently led the automotive finance organizations in Europe from 1991 to 1994 and then in North America from 1994 to 2001 before becoming Corporate Controller.
  
Mr. Schmidt contributes a thorough knowledge of U.S. GAAP and extensive experience in financial statement preparation, accounting matters, and risk management, as well as manufacturing expertise, in his service as a director.

7

Table of Contents

The following Class III directors’ terms will continue until the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders:
g329621g02h59.jpg
  
Todd M. Bluedorn, 54, became Chief Executive Officer and was elected as a director of our Company in April 2007. He was appointed as Chairman of the Board in May, 2012. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Bluedorn served in numerous senior management positions for United Technologies Corporation since 1995, including President, Americas — Otis Elevator Company; President, North America — Commercial Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning for Carrier Corporation; and President, Hamilton Sundstrand Industrial. He began his professional career with McKinsey & Company in 1992. A graduate of West Point with a B.S. in electrical engineering, Mr. Bluedorn served in the United States Army as a combat engineer officer and United States Army Ranger from 1985 to 1990. He received his M.B.A. from Harvard University School of Business in 1992.

Mr. Bluedorn also serves on the Board of Directors of Eaton Corporation, a diversified industrial manufacturer, Texas Instruments Incorporated, a global designer and manufacturer of semiconductors and the Washington University in St. Louis Board of Trustees.

Mr. Bluedorn possesses considerable industry knowledge and executive leadership experience. Mr. Bluedorn’s extensive knowledge of our Company and its business, combined with his drive for excellence and innovation, position him well to serve as CEO and a director of our Company.
g329621g62k41.jpg
  
Max H. Mitchell, 54, has served as a director of our company since 2016. He is a member of the Audit Committee and the Board Governance Committee. Mr. Mitchell is the President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Crane Co., a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. Before being elected President and Chief Executive Officer of Crane Co. in 2014, he served as the President and Chief Operating Officer of Crane Co. from 2013 to 2014, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Crane Co. from 2011 to 2013, and Group President, Fluid Handling segment of Crane Co. from 2005 to 2012. Mr. Mitchell also served as an executive of Pentair Corporation and Danaher Corporation and served in finance and operational roles at Ford Motor Company.
 
Mr. Mitchell has a M.B.A. in finance and strategic planning from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.A. from Tulane University.
 
As an experienced executive in large manufacturing companies, Mr. Mitchell contributes extensive knowledge of the operations, supply chain, distribution and customer service functions in manufacturing companies and of the design and implementation of manufacturing, supply chain and customer service strategies, improvements and efficiencies.
g329621g36i25.jpg
  
Kim K.W. Rucker, 51, has served as a director of our Company since 2015. She is a member of the Board Governance Committee and the Compensation and Human Resources Committee.
 
Ms. Rucker has served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary at Andeavor (formerly Tesoro Corporation) and Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Andeavor Logistics LP (formerly Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC) since March 2016. Previously, she was Executive Vice President, Corporate & Legal Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at Kraft Foods Group, Inc., a global manufacturer and distributor of food products and beverages until July 2015. Prior to joining Kraft in 2012, Ms. Rucker served as the Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer at Avon Products, Inc., a global manufacturer of beauty and related products, since 2008. Before joining Avon, Ms. Rucker was Senior Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Chief Governance Officer for Energy Future Holdings, Corp., an energy company, since 2004. She began her legal career at Sidley Austin LLP in its Chicago, Illinois office.

Ms. Rucker has a B.B.A. in Economics from the University of Iowa, a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Master in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Ms. Rucker contributes a broad knowledge of law, corporate governance, internal and external communications, community involvement activities and government affairs in her service as a director.


8

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 2

RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF KPMG LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE 2018 FISCAL YEAR
The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed KPMG LLP to continue as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2018 fiscal year. We are asking our stockholders to ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. If our stockholders do not ratify this appointment, the Audit Committee will consider the reasons for the rejection and whether it should select a different firm; however, it is not required to do so. Even if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee, in its discretion, may select a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that a change would be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.
A representative of KPMG LLP will be present at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The representative will also have an opportunity to make a statement at the meeting if he or she desires to do so.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF
KPMG LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE
2018 FISCAL YEAR.

9

Table of Contents

Audit and Non-Audit Fees
The following table sets forth the fees for audit and other services rendered by KPMG LLP for each of the last two fiscal years (in thousands).

 
 
2017
 
2016
Audit Fees(1)
 
$
3,081

 
$
2,671

Audit-Related Fees(2)
 
276

 
477

Tax Fees(3)
 
285

 
265

All Other Fees
 
9

 
5

TOTAL
 
$
3,651

 
$
3,418

 
(1)
Represents fees billed for the audit of our financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and review of financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, the audit of our internal control over financial reporting, and for services that are provided by KPMG LLP in connection with statutory regulatory filings or engagements.
(2)
Represents fees billed for assurance and consultative related services.
(3)
Represents fees billed for tax compliance, including review of tax returns, tax advice, and tax planning.

Audit Committee Approval of Audit and Non-Audit Services
The Audit Committee pre-approves all audit services provided by our independent registered public accountants. In addition, all non-audit services provided by KPMG LLP are pre-approved in accordance with our policy that prohibits our independent registered public accountants from providing services specifically prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). For permissible non-audit services, the Audit Committee has delegated pre-approval authority to the Audit Committee Chairman. In addition, the Audit Committee has approved annual maximum amounts for tax advisory and tax return services. No engagements are commenced until the Audit Committee Chairman’s approval has been received. All approved services are reported to the full Audit Committee at each quarterly meeting. In accordance with the foregoing, all services provided by KPMG LLP in 2016 and 2017 were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.


10

Table of Contents

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT
The Audit Committee maintains effective working relationships with the Board, management, the Company’s internal auditors and KPMG LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm (the “Independent Accountants”). As set forth in the Audit Committee Charter, it is not the duty of the Audit Committee to plan or conduct audits or to determine that our Company’s consolidated financial statements and disclosures are complete and accurate and in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and applicable rules and regulations. The Independent Accountants are responsible for auditing the Company’s consolidated financial statements and expressing an opinion as to the conformity of these financial statements with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
The Audit Committee has (1) reviewed and discussed the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the Company’s management and with the Independent Accountants; (2) discussed with the Independent Accountants the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 1301, Communications with Audit Committees, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; and (3) received the written disclosures and the letter from the Independent Accountants required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the Independent Accountants’ communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and the Audit Committee has discussed with the Independent Accountants the Independent Accountants’ independence and considered whether the provision of non-audit services by the Independent Accountants to the Company is compatible with the Independent Accountants’ independence.
Members of the Audit Committee rely, without independent verification, on the information provided and on the representations made by management and the Independent Accountants. Accordingly, the Audit Committee’s oversight does not provide an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles or appropriate internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Audit Committee’s considerations and discussions referred to above do not assure that the audits of the Company’s consolidated financial statements have been carried out in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, that the consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles or that the Company’s Independent Accountants are in fact “independent.”
Based upon the reviews and discussions described above, and subject to the limitations on the role and responsibilities of the Audit Committee referred to in this report and in the Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
Submitted by the Audit Committee of the Board:
Gregory T. Swienton (Chairperson)
 
Janet K. Cooper
Max H. Mitchell
 
Paul W. Schmidt


11

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Director Independence
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines require that a majority of our directors be “independent,” and that the Compensation & Human Resources, Board Governance and Audit Committees consist exclusively of independent directors as defined under the NYSE listing standards, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and any other applicable laws or regulations regarding independence. No director qualifies as “independent” unless the Board affirmatively determines that the director has no material relationship with the Company.
Applying these standards, the Board has determined that all of our Board members are independent, except Todd Bluedorn, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), and that all of the members of the Board’s standing committees consist exclusively of independent directors (see table under “Board Committees”).
In making its determination as to the independence of our directors, the Board Governance Committee and the Board considered that Ms. Quintos serves as Chief Customer Officer of Dell, Inc., which provides computer equipment and related items to the Company in the ordinary course of business.
Board Meetings and Leadership Structure
Mr. Bluedorn serves as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). The Board has determined that Mr. Bluedorn’s position as Chairman allows him to be a liaison between management and the Board of Directors, providing the Board with the benefit of management’s perspective on our business strategy and all other aspects of the business as the Board performs its oversight role.
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide for a Lead Director position, and the Board elected Todd J. Teske as Lead Director in 2015. The Board believes the Lead Director position provides helpful guidance to the independent directors in their oversight of management. The Lead Director, among other things, presides at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors, serves as liaison between the Chairman and the independent directors, assists the Chairman in planning agendas for Board meetings and advises on the quality of the information provided to the Board. The Lead Director also has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors, and, if requested by major stockholders, is available for consultation and direct communication.
The Board met six times in 2017. All directors attended more than 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and committees of the Board on which they served. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines include a policy that Board members are expected to attend the annual meeting of stockholders. All of the individuals serving as directors at the time of our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders attended our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Risk Oversight and Compensation Risk Analysis
The Board oversees the Company’s processes to manage risk at the Board and senior management levels. The Audit Committee oversees the guidelines and policies that govern the Company’s processes to assess and manage significant enterprise risk exposure. While the Board and Audit Committee oversee the Company’s risk management, our management is responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of our risk management processes. Management provides periodic reports to the Board and Board committees, as appropriate, on its assessment of strategic, operational, legal and compliance, and financial reporting risks to the Company. The Board and Board committees, as appropriate, review and consider the management reports provided on the Company’s enterprise risk and risk management strategy.
The Board has reviewed the Company’s compensation policies and practices to determine if risks arising from those policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Based on this review, the Board has not identified any risks arising from the compensation policies and practices that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company incorporates short-term and long-term incentive programs for cash and equity awards that are designed to reward successful execution of its business strategy and achievement of desired business results. Additionally, the Company has stock ownership

12

Table of Contents

requirements and clawback provisions to align the interests of its executive officers with the interests of its stockholders. For non-executive employees, the Company uses a variety of incentive compensation programs to motivate its employees to attain individual goals and support the financial performance of the Company. All of the Company’s material incentive compensation plans are reviewed at least annually by senior management.
Board Committees
The standing committees of the Board are as follows: Audit, Board Governance, Compensation and Human Resources, and Public Policy. The Board has adopted charters for each of these committees, copies of which are available on our website at www.lennoxinternational.com by following the links “About Us — Corporate Governance — Committee Charters.” Each of these Board committees is led by a different independent director and all members of our Board committees are independent directors.
The following table provides current membership information for each of the Board committees and indicates which directors our Board determined are independent, as defined by the NYSE.
 
Name
  
Independent      
  
Audit      
  
Board Governance
  
Compensation      
and Human
Resources
  
Public Policy
Todd M. Bluedorn
  
  
  
  
  
Janet K. Cooper
  
X
  
X
  
  
  
X
John E. Major
  
X
  
  
X
  
 X*
  
Max H. Mitchell
  
X
  
X
  
X
  
  
John W. Norris, III
  
X
  
  
  
X
  
 X*
Karen H. Quintos
  
X
  
  
  
X
  
X
Kim K.W. Rucker
  
X
  
  
X
  
X
  
Paul W. Schmidt
  
X
  
X
  
  
  
X
Gregory T. Swienton
  
X
  
 X*
  
X
  
  
Todd J. Teske
  
X
  
  
 X*
  
X
  
*
Committee Chairperson
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities relating to the integrity of our financial statements and related systems of internal controls, our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, independence and performance and the performance of our internal audit function. The Audit Committee also has the direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of our Independent Accountants.
The Board has determined that each Audit Committee member is independent, as independence is defined for audit committee members by the SEC and the NYSE. The Board has also determined that each Audit Committee member is “financially literate” as defined by the NYSE, has accounting or related financial management expertise and is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the SEC. The Audit Committee met nine times in 2017.
Board Governance Committee
The Board Governance Committee assists the Board by identifying individuals qualified to become Board members, developing qualification criteria for Board membership, making recommendations to the Board regarding the appropriate size of the Board and appointment of members to the Board’s committees, developing and recommending to the Board any changes to the Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct applicable to our Company, developing our Company’s director education programs, and overseeing the evaluation of our Board. The Board Governance Committee also conducts an individual peer review for any directors who are scheduled to be re-nominated. The Board has determined that each member of the Board Governance Committee is independent as independence is defined by the NYSE. The Board Governance Committee met twice in 2017.

13

Table of Contents

Compensation and Human Resources Committee
The Compensation and Human Resources Committee determines the compensation philosophy and oversees the compensation programs for the Company’s executive officers and the non-employee members of the Board. This Committee’s responsibilities include oversight of the short- and long-term incentive plans and the senior management succession plans. The Committee also reviews the funding requirements and investment policies for the defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans, and the performance of investment funds, investment advisors and investment managers under those plans. The Compensation Committee may delegate its responsibilities to a subcommittee comprised of Compensation Committee members.
Although the Committee seeks input from the CEO on various elements of executive compensation, the Committee determines and approves the final compensation elements and amounts to be provided to the Company’s NEOs. The independent members of the Board (rather than the Committee) have direct responsibility for approving CEO and Board compensation; however, the Committee reviews and recommends proposed changes to CEO and Board compensation to the independent members of the Board for approval. See “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for information concerning the committee’s philosophy and objectives in overseeing executive compensation. The Board has affirmatively determined that each member of the Committee is independent as defined for compensation committee members by the NYSE. The Board has also determined that each member of the Committee is a “non-employee director” for purposes of Section 16b-3 of the Exchange Act and, along with each of the independent directors, is an “outside director” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Committee met five times in 2017.
The Committee’s charter authorizes the Committee to retain third-party compensation consultants and to obtain advice and assistance from internal or external legal, accounting or other advisors. The Committee retains Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”) as its executive compensation consultant to provide objective analysis, advice and recommendations regarding the compensation of our executives and non-employee directors. FW Cook does not provide any other services to the Company. See “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for further information regarding our executive compensation programs and the scope of services provided by FW Cook. The Committee has concluded that FW Cook’s work does not raise any conflicts of interest that require disclosure under applicable SEC regulations.

Public Policy Committee
The Public Policy Committee is responsible for overseeing our Company’s environmental, health and safety issues, and our position on corporate social responsibility and significant public issues that affect our stockholders. The Board has determined that each Public Policy Committee member is independent as defined by the NYSE. The Public Policy Committee met twice in 2017.
Director Nomination Process and Nominee Criteria
The Board is responsible for nominating candidates for Board membership. The Board has delegated the director screening and recruitment process to the Board Governance Committee. In this capacity, the Board Governance Committee develops and periodically reviews the qualification criteria for Board membership, identifies new director candidates, and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the appropriate size of the Board and appointment of members to the Board’s committees. The Board Governance Committee typically retains a third-party search firm to assist in identifying and evaluating potential new director candidates. Qualifications required of individuals for consideration for Board membership will vary according to the particular areas of expertise, experience and skills being sought as a complement to the existing Board composition at the time of any vacancy.
Neither the Board nor the Board Governance Committee has a formal diversity policy. However, our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that, when nominating new members to the Board, the Board will seek the best qualified candidates with consideration for diversity. This consideration may include diversity of experience, functional expertise and industry knowledge. Our Board of Director Qualification Guidelines further provide that the Board Governance Committee consider a candidate’s diversity of viewpoints in determining the particular qualifications desired for any new Board member.

14

Table of Contents

According to our Board of Director Qualification Guidelines, the Board Governance Committee considers the following factors in evaluating candidates, in addition to other factors that the Board Governance Committee deems relevant:
 
Personal Characteristics: leadership, integrity, interpersonal skills and effectiveness, accountability, and high performance standards;
Business Attributes: high levels of leadership experience in business, substantial knowledge of issues faced by publicly-traded companies, experience in positions demonstrating expertise, including on other boards of directors, financial acumen, industry and Company knowledge, diversity of viewpoints, and experience in international markets and strategic planning;
Independence: independence based on the standards established by the NYSE, the SEC, and any other applicable laws or regulations;
Professional Responsibilities: willingness to commit the time required to fully discharge his or her responsibilities, commitment to attend meetings, ability and willingness to represent the stockholders’ long- and short-term interests, awareness of our responsibilities to our customers, employees, suppliers, regulatory bodies and the communities in which we operate and willingness to advance his or her opinions while supporting the majority Board decision, assuming questions of ethics or propriety are not involved;
Governance Responsibility: ability to understand, and distinguish between, the roles of governance and management; and
Availability and Commitment: availability based on the number of commitments to other entities existing or contemplated by the candidate.

The full text of our Board of Directors Qualification Guidelines can be found on our website at http://www.lennoxinternational.com by following the links “About Us — Corporate Governance — Board of Director Qualification Guidelines.”
When a vacancy occurs on the Board, a majority of the directors then in office may fill the vacancy, or the vacancy may remain open or the size of the Board may be reduced. The Board Governance Committee evaluates nominees to the Board to fill any vacancy on the Board.
Stockholder Nominations for Director
The Board Governance Committee considers nominees for election to the Board recommended by stockholders in the same manner as other candidates. A stockholder wishing to nominate a candidate for election to the Board at a meeting of the stockholders (“Nominating Stockholder”) is required to give written notice to our Corporate Secretary of his or her intention to make a nomination in accordance with the terms of our Bylaws. The Nominating Stockholder must be a holder of record of stock of the Company entitled to vote at the annual meeting of stockholders and must appear at the annual meeting of stockholders to nominate such person. The Nominating Stockholder must include a written consent from its proposed director nominee. The proposed director nominee must also represent and agree that he or she (1) has not and will not give any assurance or commitment not disclosed to the Company on how he or she would vote on any issue or question, (2) has not and will not become party to any agreement not disclosed to the Company regarding direct or indirect compensation (other than from the Company) for his or her service as a director, and (3) if elected, will comply with all applicable policies and guidelines of the Company. We must receive the notice of nomination at least 60 days but no more than 90 days prior to the annual meeting of stockholders. However, if we give less than 70 days’ notice of the date of the annual meeting of stockholders, the notice of nomination must be received within 10 days following the date on which notice of the date of the annual meeting of stockholders was mailed or such public disclosure was made to our stockholders.

15

Table of Contents

Pursuant to our Bylaws, the notice for the proposed director nominee must contain certain information about the nominee, the Nominating Stockholder and any person “acting in concert” with the Nominating Stockholder, including descriptions of any arrangements or understanding related to the nomination, the information that would be required if such person was making a stockholder proposal (as described under “Stockholder Proposals for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders — Proposals Not for Inclusion in the Proxy Statement to be Offered at the 2019 Annual Meeting”) and other information sufficient to allow the Board Governance Committee to determine if the candidate meets our qualification criteria for Board membership. The Board Governance Committee may require the proposed director nominee to furnish additional information in order to determine that person’s eligibility to serve as a director. A nomination that does not comply with the above procedure will be disregarded. Nominating Stockholders whose nominations comply with the foregoing procedure and who meet the criteria described above under the heading “Director Nomination Process and Nominee Criteria,” and in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, will be evaluated by the Board Governance Committee in the same manner as the Board Governance Committee’s nominees.
Stockholder Communications with Directors
Stockholders may send written communications to the Board by email to directors@lennoxintl.com, or by regular mail to 2140 Lake Park Blvd., Richardson, Texas 75080, Attention: Board of Directors, c/o Corporate Secretary.
Stockholder communications received by the Corporate Secretary will be delivered to one or more members of the Board or management, as determined by the Corporate Secretary. Any allegations of accounting, internal controls or auditing-related complaints or concerns will be directed to the Chairman of the Audit Committee.
Interested parties may communicate with non-management directors of the Board by sending written communications to the address listed above to the attention of the Lead Director.
Other Corporate Governance Policies and Practices
Code of Business Conduct
The Company has adopted a Code of Business Conduct that applies to all its directors and employees, including its senior financial and principal executive officers. The Code of Business Conduct covers a variety of matters, such as acting with integrity and compliance with laws, including anti-corruption laws. Amendments to and waivers, if any, of the Code of Business Conduct as it pertains to the executive officers will be disclosed on our website. The Code of Business Conduct is available on the Company’s website at www.lennoxinternational.com by following the links “About Us — Our Core Values — Code of Conduct.”
Corporate Governance Guidelines
The Company has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines that are available on the Company’s website at www.lennoxinternational.com by following the links “About Us — Corporate Governance — Corporate Governance Guidelines.”
Executive Session Meetings
In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the non-management directors of our Board, all of whom are independent, meet regularly in executive session without the presence of management. The Lead Director chairs the executive session meetings of our independent directors.
Whistleblower Procedures
The Audit Committee has established procedures for the handling of complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters, including procedures for confidential and anonymous submission by our employees of concerns regarding such matters. The Company’s Code of Business Conduct prohibits retaliation against employees who report violations or suspected violations of the Code of Business Conduct.


16

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 3

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
In accordance with Section 14A of the Exchange Act, we are asking our stockholders to vote to approve the compensation of our Company’s NEOs (the “Say-on-Pay vote”), as disclosed in this Proxy Statement. The Say-on-Pay vote is an advisory vote on the resolution below and is not binding on the Company or the Board. Although the vote is non-binding, the directors value the opinions of the stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions. Our next advisory vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation will take place at our annual meeting of shareholders in 2023.
As described more fully in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement, the Company designed its market competitive NEO compensation program to reward successful execution of its business strategy and achievement of desired business results, with a focus on creating alignment with the interests of our stockholders. The program seeks to achieve these goals on an annual and long-term basis through an appropriate combination of base pay, annual incentives and long-term incentives.
For our NEOs, the majority of compensation is both stock-based and contingent on performance. The annual incentive payout is based on Company financial performance metrics of core net income and free cash flow, and for NEOs that are business segment leaders, a combination of Company and business segment performance. Our long-term incentives currently include: (1) performance shares units, which are designed to link compensation to the Company’s three-year financial performance as measured by return on invested capital and core net income growth; (2) stock appreciation rights, which are designed to incentivize NEOs to grow our business and deliver increased returns to our stockholders and (3) restricted stock units, which are designed to support our retention efforts.
The Company also has several governance policies in place to align executive compensation with stockholder interests and mitigate risk. These policies include: stock ownership guidelines, a prohibition on hedging and pledging of Company stock, a clawback policy and post-employment non-competition and non-solicitation restrictions. These policies are discussed in detail in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement.
In 2017, the Company continued to drive business performance, and create stockholder value through its focus on innovation, productivity and efficient use of cash. Highlights of our 2017 performance include the following:
 
Net sales up 5% from 2016 to approximately $3.8 billion;
Record total segment profit margin of 13.4%, up 50 basis points from 2016;
One-year total stockholder return of 37%, three-year total stockholder return of 127% and five-year total stockholder return of 320%; and
Increased dividend 19%, which resulted in approximately $80 million cash paid to stockholders and used an additional $250 million for stock repurchase programs.
Financial results, including those from prior periods, are described in more detail in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017. For further detail and a comparison of Segment Profit to Operating Income, see Note 18 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. All total stockholder return calculations assume reinvestment of dividends.

We are asking stockholders to approve the following advisory resolution at the Annual Meeting:
RESOLVED, that the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion is hereby APPROVED.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMPENSATION OF THE NEOS AS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT.

17

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Executive Summary
The Company’s executive compensation program is designed to attract, retain and motivate leadership talent, align executive compensation with short- and long-term business goals, maintain market competitiveness and drive increased stockholder value by maintaining a strong alignment between pay and performance. Highlights of our 2017 financial performance and a description of the linkage between executive compensation and financial performance are set forth below.
Financial Highlights
In 2017, the Company continued to drive business performance and create stockholder value through its focus on innovation, productivity and efficient use of cash. Highlights of our 2017 performance include the following:
a2017revenuea01.jpg a2017profitmargin.jpg
 
One-year total stockholder return of 37%, three-year total stockholder return of 127% and five-year total stockholder return of 320%; and
Increased dividend 19%, which resulted in approximately $80 million cash paid to stockholders and paid out an additional $250 million for stock repurchase programs.
Financial results, including those from prior periods, are described in more detail in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017. For further detail and a comparison of Segment Profit to Operating Income, see Note 18 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. All total stockholder return calculations assume reinvestment of dividends.
Pay-for-Performance Linkage
Pay-for-performance is the philosophical foundation for our annual short-term and long-term incentive programs. Highlights of our incentive compensation programs and how they are linked to our pay-for-performance philosophy include:
 
85% of our CEO’s target compensation is variable — tied to annual short-term and long-term incentives;
70% of our NEOs’ long-term incentive compensation is performance-based, with the remainder provided as restricted stock units for retention purposes;
CEO compensation in 2017 (as shown in the Summary Compensation Table) increased 14%, while our one-year total stockholder return increased 37%; and
Payouts under our performance share unit program averaged 186% of target over the last three completed performance cycles (each spanning three years and overlapping with each other), while total stockholder return over that same five-year period was 320%.

18

Table of Contents

Overview
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes the philosophy and objectives of the compensation program for our NEOs. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board (the “Committee”) establishes and administers our executive compensation program, practices and policies. The Committee receives input from management and its executive compensation consultant, and considers competitive practices, our business objectives, stockholder interests, regulatory requirements and other relevant factors to develop our executive compensation program in an effort to most effectively drive the achievement of the Company’s business objectives.
Stockholder Input
The Committee considers input from stockholders, including the result of the annual Say-on-Pay vote, in determining compensation policies and decisions. At our 2017 Annual Meeting, the advisory vote on the compensation of the Company's NEOs received the approval of over 99% of the stockholders voting for and against this item. In an effort to maintain this strong support from stockholders, management has continued to review proxy advisor and investor concerns regarding executive compensation and governance and has selectively communicated with stockholders. The Say-on-Pay vote result was one of many factors the Committee considered in deciding to not implement any major changes to the executive compensation program in 2017.
Positive Governance Practices
The Committee assesses trends and developments in executive compensation practices and implements those that best fit with the Company’s business strategy and our stockholders’ long-term interests. Below are some of the practices we have incorporated into our compensation program, as described elsewhere in this Proxy Statement:      
                            
 
What We Do
 
What We Don't Do
þ
Median compensation philosophy
ý
No significant perquisites
þ
Long-term balance in compensation structure
ý
No tax gross-ups on any CIC agreements after 2009
þ
Use of independent compensation consultant
ý
No hedging of Company stock
þ
Annual risk assessment
ý
No pledging of Company stock
þ
Rigorous stock ownership guidelines
ý
No dividends on equity awards in annual grant
þ
Clawback provisions
ý
No repricing of stock appreciation rights or options
þ
Non-Competition / Non-Solicitation restrictions
ý
No cash buyouts of underwater stock appreciation rights or options
þ
Annual reviews of share utilization
 
 
þ
Regular market assessment of our peer group
 
 


19

Table of Contents

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Key Objectives
Pay-for-Performance
We maintain a pay-for-performance philosophy designed to reward successful execution of our business strategy and achievement of desired business results, with a focus on aligning compensation with the interests of our stockholders. When our financial results exceed performance goals, monetary rewards to our NEOs generally pay out at higher levels. When our financial results fall below performance goals, monetary awards to our NEOs generally pay out at lower levels and may not pay out at all.
Recent payouts under our short-term incentive program and our long-term incentive program demonstrate the strong link between Company performance and actual payments made to our NEOs. In 2017, overall Company performance exceeded goals and, as a result, our NEOs received slightly above target levels of payouts under our annual short-term incentive compensation program. Over the last three years, our financial performance resulted in record weighted average return on invested capital of 30.8% and a compound annual growth rate of Company core net income of 16.6%. As a result, our NEOs received an above target performance share unit payout under our long-term incentive plan, consistent with our pay-for-performance approach and results-oriented compensation.
The graph below illustrates the directional alignment of pay and performance by showing changes in CEO annual compensation (using totals from the Summary Compensation Table) versus changes in total stockholder return (“TSR”) over the last several years. The shaded bars represent the Change in Pension Value, which is impacted by interest rate changes, while the solid bars represent all other Summary Compensation Table pay.
picture1.jpg
$ amounts are in thousands. TSR represents the change in a $100 investment from the end of year 2012 assuming reinvestment of dividends.

Key Strategic Objectives
The strategic objectives of our executive compensation program are to:
attract, retain and motivate top executive talent;
align compensation with the achievement of short-term and long-term business goals;
maintain a market-competitive executive compensation program; and
drive increased stockholder value by maintaining a strong alignment between pay and performance.

20

Table of Contents

The following table lists each element of executive compensation and how the Committee believes it correlates to our compensation philosophy and key objectives.
 
Executive Compensation Elements
 
Attract
Top
Talent
 
Retain &
Motivate
Top
Talent
 
Achieve
Short-
Term
Goals
 
Achieve
Long-
Term
Goals
 
Maintain
Market
Competiveness
 
Pay for
Performance
Base Salary
 
ü
 
ü
 
 
 
 
 
ü
 
 
Short-Term Incentive Program
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
 
 
 
ü
 
ü
Long-Term Incentive Program
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Performance Share Units
 
ü
 
ü
 
 
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
Restricted Stock Units
 
ü
 
ü
 
 
 
 
 
ü
 
 
Stock Appreciation Rights
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
 
ü
Perquisites
 
ü
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ü
 
 
Benefit Programs
 
ü
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ü
 
 

Process for Determining Named Executive Officer Compensation
Market Competitive Compensation
To maintain a market-competitive program, the Committee uses benchmarking data when establishing executive compensation. Benchmarking against a representative peer group assists the Committee in assessing the competitiveness of our executive compensation program.
Our Company’s compensation peer group, as reviewed and approved by the Committee, included the following 15 companies (the “Compensation Peer Group”):
•    A. O. Smith Corporation
•    Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.
•    Regal Beloit Corporation
 
 
 
•    Acuity Brands, Inc.
•    Hubbell Inc.
•    Rockwell Automation, Inc.
 
 
 
•    Crane Company
•    Kennametal Inc.
•    Snap-On Incorporated
 
 
 
•    Dover Corporation
•    Owens Corning
•    The Timken Company
 
 
 
•    Flowserve Corporation
•    Pentair, Inc.
•    USG Corporation

The Committee selected the Compensation Peer Group using the following criteria:

industry — building products, electrical components/equipment and industrial machinery;
revenues of approximately 0.5 to 2.0 times our revenues;
business and product mix similar to ours; and
international presence and operations.

In 2017, the Committee analyzed the Compensation Peer Group on the criteria above and adjusted the group by replacing Briggs & Stratton and Armstrong World Industries with Dover Corporation and Hubbell. These changes were made as a result of lower revenues at Briggs & Stratton and Armstrong World Industries and to move Lennox closer to the peer group median, while maintaining a close relationship to other peer criteria.
In addition to comparing our NEO compensation to the compensation provided by our Compensation Peer Group, the Committee also referenced published compensation data and other studies of compensation trends and practices (all such data and practices, including our Compensation Peer Group, is collectively referred to as the “Market”).

21

Table of Contents

Pay Positioning and Compensation Mix
For 2017, the Committee targeted all elements of compensation for the Company’s NEOs at the 50th percentile of the Market and granted a majority of total compensation to our NEOs in the form of incentive compensation. The 2017 target compensation mix for the CEO and the average target compensation mix for the other NEOs are shown in the graphs below.
CEO - Target Compensation Mix
Other NEOs - Target Compensation Mix
ceopie2017.jpg
neopie2017.jpg

The CEO’s target compensation mix, consistent with Market practice, has more “at-risk” performance-based incentive compensation than the other NEOs due to his broad influence on Company performance.
Compensation Analysis
Beyond traditional market analysis, the Committee utilizes various other compensation analyses to assist with its decision making process. Below are examples of information the Committee reviews and considers, as appropriate, when making compensation decisions:
“all in” compensation summaries and pay histories for the CEO and executive officers
CEO realized pay analysis
CEO pay vs. performance analysis
dilution and share utilization analysis, projections and benchmarking
equity compensation expense analysis
short-term and long-term incentive design, metric and vehicle prevalence
short-term and long-term incentive plan performance results
Role of Management
The Committee obtains input from management and the Committee’s consultant when making NEO compensation decisions. The CEO makes recommendations to the Committee with respect to all of the elements of compensation for each NEO, excluding himself. The CEO’s recommendations on NEO pay are developed in consultation with the Chief Human Resources Officer and the Committee’s compensation consultant, and are considered with Market data. The Committee determines and approves the final compensation elements and amounts to be provided to the Company’s NEOs.
All independent members of the Board (rather than the Committee) have responsibility for approving CEO compensation. The Committee reviewed and recommended proposed changes to CEO compensation to the independent members of the Board for approval.
Role of the Executive Compensation Consultant

22

Table of Contents

In 2017, the Committee engaged FW Cook to provide analysis, advice and recommendations on executive compensation to the Committee. The Committee considered disclosures provided by FW Cook related to its independence from the Company, the Company’s NEOs and the members of the Committee, and reviewed FW Cook’s independence policy. FW Cook does not provide any other services for our Company.
At the Committee’s request, FW Cook performed the following services in 2017:
 
reviewed and opined on our executive compensation philosophy;
reviewed and opined on our Compensation Peer Group;
provided and analyzed data for various elements of executive compensation;
reviewed and opined on our executive and Board compensation programs, including NEO and Board target compensation;
presented executive compensation trends and regulatory updates to the Committee; and
provided input and perspective on various technical matters pertaining to executive compensation.
The Committee analyzed and considered the information provided by management and FW Cook to determine the program design and the level and mix of each compensation element for the NEOs.

23

Table of Contents

Components and Analysis of 2017 Executive Compensation
Base Salary
In establishing each NEO’s annual base salary, the Committee considered Market data, each individual’s experience and responsibilities, our annual merit budget for all employees, achievement of performance objectives, internal equity and recommendations provided by the CEO for his direct reports.

The following table provides detail regarding base salaries for each NEO:
Name
 
Title
 
Base Salary January 1, 2017
 
Increase
Effective
April 1, 2017
 
Base Salary April 1, 2017
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 
$
1,092,000

 
3.0
%
 
$
1,125,000

Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
EVP, Chief Financial Officer
 
475,000

 
5.3

 
500,000

Douglas L. Young
 
EVP, President and Chief Operating Officer, Residential Heating and Cooling
 
540,000

 
3.7

 
560,000

Daniel M. Sessa
 
EVP, Chief Human Resources Officer
 
480,000

 
3.1

 
495,000

John D. Torres
 
EVP, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
 
465,000

 
3.2

 
480,000

David W. Moon
 
Former EVP, President and Chief Operating Officer, Worldwide Refrigeration
 
500,000

 
3.0

 
515,000

In setting NEO base salaries, the Committee used the 50th percentile of the Market as a guideline. The base salary was set within a reasonable range of this guideline for each NEO.
Short-Term Incentive Program
Our short-term incentive program (“STI Program”) as established under the Lennox International Inc. 2010 Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (the “LII 2010 Incentive Plan”), is an annual cash-based program for our NEOs designed to reward the successful performance of our Company, our business units and each individual NEO. In early 2017, the Committee approved the financial metrics and performance goals that must be achieved for any payouts to be made under our STI Program. The 2017 STI Program was funded based on performance against the financial goals set forth below. The 2017 short-term incentive awards were based 75% on financial performance and 25% on each NEO’s individual performance.
Financial Performance. The following table summarizes the performance goals and payout opportunities under our 2017 STI Program, along with Company and business unit performance for each metric.
2017 Short-Term Incentive Program Summary — Financial Performance
($ in thousands) 
Name(1)
 
Metric
 
Weight
 
Threshold
 
Target
 
Maximum
 
Performance
All
 
Company Core Net Income(2)
 
60%
 
$
266,307

 
$
332,884

 
$
382,817

 
$
339,833

 
 
Company Free Cash Flow(3)
 
40%
 
199,500

 
285,000

 
370,500

 
257,485

Payout Opportunity as a % of Target
 
 
 
 
 
50%
 
100%
 
225%
 
 
Mr. Young
 
Segment Profit(4)
 
70%
 
$
315,022

 
$
375,569

 
$
420,978

 
$
376,907

 
 
Segment Controllable Cash Flow(5)
 
30%
 
270,835

 
349,239

 
427,643

 
277,759

Payout Opportunity as a % of Target
 
 
 
 
 
50%
 
100%
 
225%
 
 
Mr. Moon
 
Segment Profit(4)
 
70%
 
$
67,866

 
$
80,909

 
$
90,692

 
$
80,831

 
 
Segment Controllable Cash Flow(5)
 
30%
 
52,610

 
67,840

 
83,070

 
65,413

Payout Opportunity as a % of Target
 
 
 
 
 
50%
 
100%
 
225%
 
 
 
(1)
All NEOs except Mr. Young and Mr. Moon were measured 100% on overall Company financial performance, which resulted in a calculated award of 104% of target. As the President of our Residential Heating and Cooling segment, Mr. Young’s award was measured 50% on Residential Heating and

24

Table of Contents

Cooling’s financial performance and 50% on overall Company financial performance. Residential Heating and Cooling’s financial performance resulted in a calculated award of 89% of target, which when blended with the Company’s calculated award of 104% of target, resulted in a calculated award for Mr. Young of 96% of target. As the President of our Worldwide Refrigeration segment, Mr. Moon’s award was measured 50% on Worldwide Refrigeration’s financial performance and 50% on overall Company financial performance. Worldwide Refrigeration’s financial performance resulted in a calculated award of 97% of target, which when blended with the Company’s calculated award of 104% of target, resulted in a calculated award for Mr. Moon of 101% of target.
(2)
Company core net income, a non-GAAP financial measure used for incentive compensation purposes, is income from continuing operations, adjusted for 2017 restructuring charges, certain product quality adjustments, certain legal charges and contingency adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on unsettled futures contracts, pension settlement charges and certain other items.
(3)
Company free cash flow, a non-GAAP financial measure used for incentive compensation purposes, is net cash provided by operating activities less purchases and sales of property, plant and equipment. Cash usage attributable to discontinued operations; working capital timing, which included unusual inventory pre-build due to regulatory changes; unplanned capital expenditures; and restructuring charges were excluded from Company free cash flow.
(4)
Segment profit, a non-GAAP financial measure used for incentive compensation purposes, is earnings from continuing operations for the applicable segment before interest expense, other expenses, and income taxes, adjusted for 2017 restructuring charges, certain product quality adjustments, certain legal charges and contingency adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on unsettled futures contracts, and certain other items.
(5)
Segment controllable cash flow, a non-GAAP financial measure used for incentive compensation purposes, is segment profit, defined above, less purchases and sales of property, plant and equipment, plus or minus changes in accounts receivable, inventory and accounts payable.
Individual Performance. The Committee considered individual performance in addition to financial performance in order to further align pay with performance. The individual performance component comprised 25% of the calculated award and had the same payout range as the STI Program (0% to 225%). The individual performance component was measured against specific financial, operational, strategic, and leadership objectives established for each NEO in advance of the performance measurement period as part of our performance management process. After the end of the year, the CEO reviewed with the Committee the extent of achievement of these established objectives by each NEO (other than the CEO). The Committee then determined and approved the individual performance component for each NEO (other than the CEO). The independent members of the Board determined and approved the individual performance component for the CEO.
Targets and Payouts. Under the STI Program, target payout opportunities are determined as a percentage of base salary. The target payout opportunities are based on Market data using the 50th percentile as a guideline. Each NEO’s target percentage fits within this guideline and was unchanged for 2017.
Based on analysis of the Market data and internal equity considerations, the Committee (or with respect to the CEO, the independent Board members) set the following short-term incentive targets for 2017. Based on actual financial and individual performance, the Committee (or with respect to the CEO, the independent Board members) approved the following 2017 payouts for each NEO:
2017 Short-Term Incentive Targets and Payouts 
Name
 
2017 STI Target as a
% of Base Salary
 
2017 STI Target
 
2017 STI Payout as a
% of Target
 
2017 STI Payout
Mr. Bluedorn
 
125
%
 
$
1,395,938

 
104
%
 
$
1,451,775

Mr. Reitmeier
 
70

 
345,625

 
104

 
359,450

Mr. Young
 
70

 
388,500

 
96

 
374,708

Mr. Sessa
 
70

 
343,875

 
104

 
357,630

Mr. Torres
 
70

 
333,375

 
104

 
346,710

Mr. Moon
 
70

 
357,875

 
101

 
360,380


25

Table of Contents

We include the short-term incentive payments made to the NEOs for 2017, which were approved by the Committee on February 26, 2018 and paid on March 15, 2018, in the Summary Compensation Table under “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”

Long-Term Incentive Program
We have a long-term incentive program designed to incentivize those employees who have principal responsibility for our long-term profitability. We believe participation in our long-term incentive program aligns the interests of our NEOs with the interests of our stockholders.
We use a mix of performance share units (“PSUs”), restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) in our long-term incentive program. PSUs and SARs reward performance, as measured by achievement of specified financial objectives for PSUs and stock price growth for SARs. RSUs help us retain key members of management through time-based vesting. The Committee allocated the mix of elements in our long-term incentive program in a manner designed to drive Company performance, retain key talent, and provide competitive compensation.
For 2017, the long-term incentive award allocations for our NEOs were as follows:
ltipie.jpg
The Committee determines the grant date for all long-term incentive awards, and has a long-standing practice of granting all awards at its regularly scheduled December meeting. Although awards may also be granted in special circumstances or upon hire for certain executives, no out-of-cycle grants were made to any NEO in 2017. The Committee sets the exercise price of our SARs at 100% of fair market value, which is defined as the average of the high and low New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) trading prices of our common stock on the date of grant.
The target award values under our long-term incentive program are based on Market data for similar positions using the 50th percentile as a guideline. The number of shares available for grant under the LII 2010 Incentive Plan is also considered. In December 2017, the Committee established the target award values at or near the 50th percentile of the Market for all NEOs. When determining the actual award sizes for each NEO, the Committee and independent Board members considered the NEO’s time in position, individual performance and potential, the NEO’s impact on the financial performance of the Company, and internal equity.
Once the Committee determined the actual long-term incentive award values for each NEO for the 2017 grants, 50% of the value was provided as PSUs, 30% as RSUs and 20% as SARs.


26

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the award values and number of awards granted for each NEO: 
 
 
December 2017 Award Value
 
Number of Awards Granted
Name
 
PSUs
 
RSUs
 
SARs
 
Total
 
PSUs(1)
 
RSUs(1)
 
SARs(2)
 
Total
Mr. Bluedorn
 
$
2,500,000

 
$
1,500,000

 
$
1,000,000

 
$
5,000,000

 
12,929

 
7,758

 
31,299

 
51,986

Mr. Reitmeier
 
525,000

 
315,000

 
210,000

 
1,050,000

 
2,715

 
1,629

 
6,573

 
10,917

Mr. Young
 
625,000

 
375,000

 
250,000

 
1,250,000

 
3,232

 
1,939

 
7,825

 
12,996

Mr. Sessa
 
525,000

 
315,000

 
210,000

 
1,050,000

 
2,715

 
1,629

 
6,573

 
10,917

Mr. Torres
 
525,000

 
315,000

 
210,000

 
1,050,000

 
2,715

 
1,629

 
6,573

 
10,917

Mr. Moon
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
(1)
The number of PSUs and RSUs was determined by dividing the corresponding target award value by the fair market value of our common stock on the NYSE averaged over the 30 calendar days ending on November 29, 2017 ($193.36).
(2)
The number of SARs granted was determined by dividing the corresponding target award value by the Black-Scholes value of our common stock based on the 30 calendar day average of our common stock as of November 29, 2017 ($31.95).
PSUs. To maintain our strong focus on long-term Company performance, we granted 50% of the December 2017 long-term incentive award in the form of PSUs. PSUs generally vest at the end of a three-year performance period. If at least the threshold performance level has been achieved at the end of the performance period, the PSUs are distributed in the form of Company common stock based on the actual performance achieved. Dividends are not earned or paid on PSU awards during the three-year performance period. The Committee determines the measurement criteria annually, selecting financial metrics and setting performance goals that will enhance stockholder value. The Committee certifies the financial performance levels following the end of the performance period and the Company distributes any earned shares.
The key attributes of the PSUs granted in December 2014, which vested on December 31, 2017, are summarized in the following table along with the financial performance goals and payout opportunities versus actual performance. In 2017, NEOs earned a payout of 173.1% of target for the PSUs granted in December 2014. The payout value is reflected in the 2017 Option/SAR Exercises and Stock Vested Table in the “Stock Awards — Value Realized on Vesting” column.
December 2014 PSU Grant
(for the January 1, 2015 — December 31, 2017 Performance Period) 
Metric
 
Weight
 
Measurement Period
 
Threshold
 
Target
 
Maximum
 
Actual  
Return on Invested Capital (“ROIC”)(1)
 
50%
 
3-year weighted average (20% lowest year, 40% other two years)
 
14%
 
20%
 
26%
 
30.8%
Company Core Net Income
 
50%
 
3-year compound annual growth rate
 
6%
 
12%
 
22%
 
16.6%
Payout as a % of Target Award
 
 
 
 
 
50%
 
100%
 
200%
 
173.1%
 
(1)
Net operating profit after tax (NOPAT), a component of ROIC and a non-GAAP financial measure used for incentive compensation purposes, is income from continuing operations, adjusted for 2017 restructuring charges, certain product quality adjustments, certain legal charges and contingency adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on unsettled futures contracts, pension settlement charges and certain other items.
The key attributes of the PSUs granted in December 2017 are summarized in the following table. The Committee established the ROIC performance goals based on its assessment of desired return relative to the cost of capital as well as historical and projected ROIC outcomes. Similarly, the Committee set Company core net income growth performance goals based on historical results, projected outcomes of that measure, and expected market conditions. While specific forward-looking performance goals are not included in the table below in light of competitive sensitivities, the degrees of difficulty required to achieve a payout are included.

27

Table of Contents

December 2017 PSU Grant
(for the January 1, 2018 — December 31, 2020 Performance Period) 
Metric
 
Weight
 
Rationale for
Selection
 
Measurement Period
 
Threshold
 
Target
 
Maximum
ROIC
 
50%
 
Measures efficient use of capital; higher ROIC correlates to greater cash flow
 
3-year weighted average (20% lowest year, 40% other two years)
 
No payout occurs unless ROIC exceeds the Company’s estimated cost of capital; Target payout occurs at roughly three times the Company’s estimated cost of capital
Company Core Net Income Growth
 
50%
 
Measures profitability; higher Company core net income correlates with higher earnings per share
 
3-year compound annual growth rate
 
Target payout requires low double digit core net income compound annual growth rate
Payout as a % of Target Award
 
50%
 
100%
 
200%
The PSUs granted to our NEOs in 2017 are included in the 2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in the “Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards” column.
RSUs. To support our retention efforts, the Committee granted the NEOs 30% of the December 2017 long-term incentive award in the form of RSUs. RSUs generally vest and are distributed in shares of our common stock three years following the date of grant if the recipient remains an employee of the Company and all other conditions of the award are met. Dividends are not earned or paid on RSUs during the three-year vesting period. The number of shares underlying RSUs granted to our NEOs in 2017 is included in the 2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in the “All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units” column.
SARs. To incentivize NEOs to grow our business and deliver increased returns to our stockholders, the Committee granted the NEOs 20% of the December 2017 award in the form of SARs. SARs vest in one-third increments on each anniversary of the date of grant. Upon the exercise of vested SARs, the increase between the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant and the fair market value on the date of the SAR exercise is paid in Company common stock. The grant date fair value and the SAR exercise price are determined on the date of grant. SARs granted in 2017 expire seven years from the date of grant. The number of SARs granted to our NEOs in 2017 is included in the 2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in the “All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options” column.
Perquisites
We believe providing reasonable perquisites is a market-competitive practice to attract and retain top executive talent. Rather than offering individual perquisites, however, we provide a monthly cash stipend to each of our NEOs to allow more flexibility and choice. Our NEOs have full discretion on how the cash stipend is spent and it is not tracked by the Company after the money is paid. In addition, we offer the installation of Company products and equipment at each NEO’s home to promote our brand to business and personal guests. The value of the Company products and equipment is included as taxable income to the NEO.
Benefit Programs
To attract top executive talent and as a market-competitive practice, we provide certain benefit programs to our NEOs that are in addition to those provided to our employees generally. The following table summarizes the additional benefit programs in place during 2017 and the purpose of each program.

Additional Benefit Programs Offered to NEOs in 2017
Plan
 
Type
 
Purpose
Supplemental Retirement Plan
 
Non-Qualified Defined Benefit
 
Provide market-competitive retirement benefit by providing higher accruals and by permitting accruals that otherwise could not occur because of limitations on compensation under the Code.
Life Insurance Plan
 
Company-Sponsored Life Insurance
 
Provide market-competitive life insurance benefits; $3 million in coverage for our CEO and minimum of $1 million for other NEOs.

28

Table of Contents

Additional Information Regarding Executive Compensation
Other agreements and policies important to a stockholder’s understanding of the Company’s overall executive compensation program structure are described below.
Employment Agreements and Change in Control Agreements
We have employment agreements and change in control (“CIC”) agreements with each NEO as reviewed and approved by the Committee. We believe employment agreements are helpful in attracting and retaining top executive talent and for financial and business planning purposes. We believe CIC agreements are necessary to (1) retain key executives during periods of uncertainty; (2) enable executives to objectively evaluate, negotiate and execute a CIC transaction; (3) encourage executives to remain focused on running the business rather than seeking other employment in the event of a possible CIC; (4) preserve stockholder value by providing continuity of management during a transition period; and (5) provide benefit to the Company in the form of restrictive covenants, such as non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. We do not provide tax gross-ups for any CIC agreements entered into after 2009.
Our employment agreements and CIC agreements, and the potential costs associated with each, are discussed in detail under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control.”
Stock Ownership Guidelines
The Company has stock ownership guidelines for the CEO and other NEOs. We believe stock ownership by executives aligns the interests of executives with the interests of our stockholders and motivates executives to build long-term stockholder value.
The following chart sets forth, as of December 31, 2017, for each NEO, the stock ownership requirements as a multiple of base salary, the total number of shares and unvested RSUs counted toward the stock ownership requirements, and the value of the shares and unvested RSUs as a multiple of base salary. All of our NEOs met our stock ownership guidelines as of December 31, 2017. NEOs are given five years from the date of appointment as an NEO to meet the guidelines. 
Name
 
Ownership
Requirement as a Multiple of
Base Salary
 
Total Number of
Shares and
Unvested RSUs
 
Stock Ownership as Multiple
of Base Salary(1)
Mr. Bluedorn
 
5X
 
173,660
 
27.1X
Mr. Reitmeier
 
3X
 
15,418
 
5.4X
Mr. Young
 
3X
 
55,935
 
17.6X
Mr. Sessa
 
3X
 
45,655
 
16.2X
Mr. Torres
 
3X
 
10,660
 
3.9X
Mr. Moon
 
3X
 
113,908
 
38.9X
 
(1)
Based on the average daily closing price for 2017 of $175.84.

The Committee oversees and administers the stock ownership guidelines. If an NEO fails to comply with the guidelines, the Committee will determine any appropriate corrective measures to be taken.
Clawback Policy
Our Company has an incentive compensation clawback policy for the CEO and the other NEOs. Under this policy, in the event of any fraud or misconduct that results in a restatement of our Company’s financial results within three years of the filing of the original financial results, the Committee can recoup and cancel cash and equity-based incentive compensation of each person involved in such fraud or misconduct.

29

Table of Contents

Prohibition on Hedging / Pledging Policy
The Company’s Insider Trading Policy prohibits directors, NEOs and all other employees from trading in any interest, security or position relating to the future price of Company securities, such as a put, call, swap, short sale, hedge or any other type of derivative security. It also prohibits directors, NEOs and all other employees from pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan, which would include purchases of Company securities on margin.
Tax and Accounting Implications
Section 162(m) Compliance

Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed certain aspects of federal income taxation of executive compensation, including elimination of the "performance-based" compensation exemption to Section 162(m) which, if certain requirements were satisfied, allowed a company to deduct “performance-based” compensation in excess of $1 million to NEOs.  The Committee will continue to consider the income tax consequences to our Company when analyzing our executive compensation program.  If granting awards or providing other executive compensation is consistent with Market data, our compensation philosophy or our strategic business goals, the Committee may provide executive compensation that is not fully deductible.
Non-qualified Deferred Compensation
In addition to the non-qualified Supplemental Retirement Plan discussed previously, our Company also maintains a frozen non-qualified Profit Sharing Restoration Plan. Both of these deferred compensation plans are administered in compliance with Section 409A of the Code.
Accounting for Stock-Based Awards
When developing NEO compensation, the Committee considered the accounting consequences (in accordance with the requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation (“FASB ASC Topic 718”)) of the program design and award levels, and structured the Company’s executive compensation program accordingly.

Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation and Human Resources Committee has reviewed and discussed the foregoing CD&A with management. Based on this review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board that the CD&A be included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, which was filed with the SEC on February 16, 2018.
Submitted by the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board:
 
John E. Major (Chairperson)
  
John W. Norris, III
Kim K.W. Rucker
  
Karen H. Quintos
Todd J. Teske
  
 

30

Table of Contents

Summary Compensation Table
The following table provides information regarding the total compensation of each of the Company’s NEOs for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. 
Name and Principal Position
 
Year
 
Salary
($)
 
Stock
Awards
($)(1)
 
Option
Awards
($)(2)
 
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)
 
Change
in Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings ($)(3)
 
All
Other
Compensation
($)(4)
 
Total
($)
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
2017
 
1,116,750

 
4,086,407

 
1,011,678

 
1,451,775

 
3,740,864

 
47,086

 
11,454,560

Chairman and Chief Executive
 
2016
 
1,084,000

 
3,876,723

 
954,887

 
2,620,028

 
1,423,602

 
46,743

 
10,005,983

Officer
2015
 
1,052,500

 
3,427,115

 
832,878

 
1,203,534

 
900,737

 
45,900

 
7,462,664

Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
2017
 
493,750

 
858,092

 
212,459

 
359,450

 
508,667

 
107,975

 
2,540,393

Executive Vice President and

 
2016
 
468,750

 
807,550

 
198,938

 
634,463

 
262,074

 
46,235

 
2,418,010

   Chief Financial Officer
 
2015
 
443,750

 
745,091

 
181,067

 
266,400

 
180,834

 
46,028

 
1,863,170

Douglas L. Young
 
2017
 
555,000

 
1,021,453

 
252,927

 
374,708

 
1,303,828

 
47,702

 
3,555,618

Executive Vice President and
 
2016
 
535,000

 
969,031

 
238,716

 
645,900

 
314,360

 
45,900

 
2,748,907

Chief Operating Officer, Residential H&C
 
2015
 
515,000

 
894,008

 
217,263

 
377,768

 
94,417

 
46,400

 
2,144,856

Daniel M. Sessa
 
2017
 
491,250

 
858,092

 
212,459

 
357,630

 
985,670

 
46,476

 
2,951,577

Executive Vice President and Chief
 
2016
 
476,250

 
807,550

 
198,938

 
644,614

 
400,106

 
46,186

 
2,573,644

   Human Resources Officer
 
2015
 
461,250

 
745,091

 
181,067

 
295,366

 
224,827

 
97,379

 
2,004,980

John D. Torres
 
2017
 
476,250

 
858,092

 
212,459

 
346,710

 
911,590

 
46,509

 
2,851,610

Executive Vice President, Chief

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David W. Moon (5)
 
2017
 
511,250

 

 

 
360,380

 
353,328

 
2,107,385

 
3,332,343

Former Executive Vice President

 
2016
 
496,250

 
888,366

 
218,815

 
582,444

 
364,364

 
46,361

 
2,596,600

and Chief Operating Officer, Worldwide Refrigeration
 
2015
 
481,250

 
819,486

 
199,154

 
267,782

 
249,295

 
46,165

 
2,063,132

 
(1)
The amounts shown represent the grant date fair value of the aggregate amount of all stock awards (prior to any assumed forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions, where applicable) for each year, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, in connection with RSUs and PSUs granted under the LII 2010 Incentive Plan. Assumptions used in calculating these amounts are described in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, included in our Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 16, 2018. Amounts for 2017 PSUs reflect the most probable outcome for the awards on December 31, 2017 valued at the date of grant in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. If the PSUs were valued at maximum performance levels, the total PSU value at grant date would equal:

31

Table of Contents

Name
 
Year
 
PSU Value at Maximum
Performance Levels ($)
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
2017
 
5,107,860

 
 
2016
 
4,845,904

 
 
2015
 
4,283,862

Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
2017
 
1,072,615

 
 
2016
 
1,009,438

 
 
2015
 
931,395

Douglas L. Young
 
2017
 
1,276,866

 
 
2016
 
1,211,326

 
 
2015
 
1,117,573

Daniel M. Sessa
 
2017
 
1,072,615

 
 
2016
 
1,009,438

 
 
2015
 
931,395

John D. Torres
 
2017
 
1,072,615

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David W. Moon
 
2017
 

 
 
2016
 
1,110,382

 
 
2015
 
1,024,358

 
(2)
The amounts shown represent the grant date fair value of the aggregate amount of all SAR awards (prior to any assumed forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions, where applicable) for each year, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, in connection with SARs granted under the LII 2010 Incentive Plan. Assumptions used in calculating these amounts are included in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, included in our Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 16, 2018.
(3)
The amounts shown represent the aggregate change in the actuarial present value of accumulated pension benefits that accrued during the applicable year under our Supplemental Retirement Plan and frozen Consolidated Pension Plan, each as discussed under “Retirement Plans,” as a result of changes in the valuation discount rate, changes in compensation, and an additional one year of service. No above-market interest on nonqualified deferred compensation was earned.
(4)
The amounts shown include perquisites and other compensation. The following table identifies the amounts attributable to each category of perquisites and other compensation in 2017 for each NEO.

 
 
Perquisites
 
Other Compensation
Name
 
Cash
Stipend
 
Company
Equipment
and Installation
 
Term Life
Insurance
Premiums
 
Retirement
Contributions
 
Other
 
Total
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
$
30,000

 
$

 
$
886

 
$
16,200

 
 
 
$
47,086

Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
30,000

 
61,467

 
308

 
16,200

 
 
 
107,975

Douglas L. Young
 
30,000

 
1,403

 
99

 
16,200

 
 
 
47,702

Daniel M. Sessa
 
30,000

 

 
276

 
16,200

 
 
 
46,476

John D. Torres
 
30,000

 

 
309

 
16,200

 
 
 
46,509

David W. Moon
 
30,000

 
38,165

 
286

 
16,200

 
2,022,734

 
2,107,385

The values attributable to each item listed above are calculated as follows:
 
Cash Stipend — actual cash paid to each NEO in lieu of individual perquisites.
Company Equipment and Installation — Company equipment is based on the purchase price of the equipment, adjusted in accordance with our employee rebate program. Installation of this equipment is based on the cost for installation paid by the Company in 2017.

32

Table of Contents

Term Life Insurance Premiums — The amounts shown are based on the incremental cost paid in 2017 on behalf of each NEO for Basic Life and Basic Accidental Death and Dismemberment over and above the premiums we would otherwise pay under our life insurance program for other employees.
Retirement Contributions — based on Company contributions made under our qualified 401(k) Plan in 2017.
(5) During 2017, named executive officer, Mr. Moon, was removed from his position as Executive Vice President, President and Chief Operating Officer, Worldwide Refrigeration.  In connection with his removal, and pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement with the Company, he entered into a Separation and General Release Agreement containing a release of claims and certain restrictive covenants regarding confidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disparagement obligations, and which provided for him to be paid $2,022,734 in cash and certain medical benefits. The Separation and General Release Agreement was filed on the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. The amount reported in the "All Other Compensation" column includes severance related payments, perquisites, and other compensation further explained in Note 4 above.


2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table provides information regarding short-term incentive awards and long-term incentive awards (PSUs, RSUs and SARs) granted under the LII 2010 Incentive Plan to our NEOs in 2017.
 
 
 
 
Estimated Possible Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive
Plan Awards(1)
 
Estimated Future
Payouts Under Equity
Incentive Plan
Awards(2)
 
All Other Stock
Awards: Number
of Shares of
Stock or Units
(#)(3)
 
All Other Option
Awards: Number
of Securities
Underlying
Options
(#)(4)
 
Exercise or
Base Price of
Option
Awards
($/Sh)(5)
 
Closing
Market
Price on
Date of
Grant
($/Sh)
 
Grant Date Fair
Value of Stock
and Option
Awards
($)(6)
Name
 
Grant
Date
 
Threshold
($)
 
Target
($)
 
Max.
($)
 
Threshold
(#)
 
Target
(#)
 
Max.
(#)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
 
697,969
 
1,395,938
 
3,140,859
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6,465
 
12,929
 
25,858
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2,553,930
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,758
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,532,477
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31,299
 
205.53
 
206.66
 
1,011,678
Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
 
172,813
 
345,625
 
777,656
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,358
 
2,715
 
5,430
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
536,308
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,629
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
321,785
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6,573
 
205.53
 
206.66
 
212,459
Douglas L. Young
 
 
194,250
 
388,500
 
874,125
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,616
 
3,232
 
6,464
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
638,433
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,939
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
383,020
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7,825
 
205.53
 
206.66
 
252,927
Daniel M. Sessa
 
 
171,938
 
343,875
 
773,719
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,358
 
2,715
 
5,430
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
536,308
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,629
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
321,785
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6,573
 
205.53
 
206.66
 
212,459
John D. Torres
 
 
166,688
 
333,375
 
750,094
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,358
 
2,715
 
5,430
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
536,308
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,629
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
321,785
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6,573
 
205.53
 
206.66
 
212,459
David W. Moon
 
 
178,938
 
357,875
 
805,219
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
12/8/2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
(1)
The amounts shown represent award opportunities under our short-term incentive program for 2017. The actual awards were paid March 15, 2018 in the amounts included in the Summary Compensation Table.
(2)
The amounts shown represent the number of PSUs granted, which to the extent earned, will vest and be distributed in shares of our common stock at the end of the three-year performance period ending December 31, 2020.

33

Table of Contents

(3)
The amounts shown represent the number of RSUs granted, which vest and will be distributed in shares of our common stock on the third anniversary of the date of grant.
(4)
The amounts shown represent the number of SARs granted, which vest in one-third increments on each anniversary of the date of grant and expire seven years from the date of grant.
(5)
The amounts shown reflect the exercise price of SARs granted, based on the average of the high and low NYSE trading prices of our common stock on the date of grant.
(6)
The amounts shown represent the grant date fair values of PSUs, RSUs and SARs, calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The grant date fair value for SARs was determined using the Black-Scholes valuation model. The grant date fair value for the PSU and RSU awards equals the dividend-discounted value of our common stock on the date of grant. The assumptions used to calculate the grant date fair values of such awards are set forth below.
 
 
 
 
Assumptions
 
 
 
 
Grant Date
 
Award
 
Volatility
(%)
 
Expected Life
(Years)
 
Dividend Yield
(%)
 
Risk Free
Interest Rate
(%)
 
FMV Based on
Average High/
Low NYSE Trading
Prices on Date of
Grant ($)
 
Grant Date
Fair Value
Per Share
($)
12/8/2017
 
PSU
 

 

 
1.32

 

 
205.53

 
197.535

12/8/2017
 
RSU
 

 

 
1.32

 

 
205.53

 
197.535

12/8/2017
 
SAR
 
19.97

 
3.95

 
1.47

 
2.02

 
205.53

 
32.323



34

Table of Contents

Outstanding Equity Awards at 2017 Year-End
The following table provides information regarding all outstanding equity awards held by our NEOs as of December 31, 2017. 
 
 
Options/SAR Awards(1)
 
Stock Awards
Name
 
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options/
SARs (#)
Exercisable(1)
 
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options/
SARs (#)
Unexercisable(1)
 
Option/
SAR
Exercise
Price
($/Sh)(2)
 
Option/
SAR
Expiration
Date
 
Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock
That Have
Not
Vested
(#)(3)
 
Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock
That Have
Not
Vested
($)(4)
 
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That Have
Not
Vested
(#)(5)
 
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Market
or Payout
Value of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other Rights
That Have
Not
Vested
($)(4)
Todd M. Bluedorn
 
28,007

 
0

 
51.395

 
12/7/2019
 
27,611

 
5,750,267

 
79,105

 
16,474,407

 
 
45,093

 
0

 
81.140

 
12/13/2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43,053

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24,406

 
12,204

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13,883

 
27,766

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0

 
31,299

 
205.530

 
12/8/2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joseph W. Reitmeier
 
3,371

 
0

 
34.060

 
12/8/2018
 
5,857

 
1,219,779

 
16,809

 
3,500,642

 
 
9,621

 
0

 
51.110

 
12/6/2019
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9,549

 
0

 
81.105

 
12/12/2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9,785

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5,306

 
2,653

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2,892

 
5,785

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0

 
6,573

 
205.530

 
12/8/2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Douglas L. Young
 
15,120

 
0

 
51.110

 
12/6/2019
 
7,012

 
1,460,319

 
20,144

 
4,195,189

 
 
11,671

 
0

 
81.105

 
12/12/2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11,252

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6,366

 
3,184

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3,470

 
6,942

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0

 
7,825

 
205.530

 
12/8/2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Daniel M. Sessa
 
9,545

 
0

 
51.110

 
12/6/2019
 
5,857

 
1,219,779

 
16,809

 
3,500,642

 
 
10,610

 
0

 
81.105

 
12/12/2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9,785

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5,306

 
2,653

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2,892

 
5,785

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0

 
6,573

 
205.530

 
12/8/2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
John D. Torres
 
3,262

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
5,857

 
1,219,779

 
16,809

 
3,500,642

 
 
2,653

 
2,653

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2,892

 
5,785

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0

 
6,573

 
205.530

 
12/8/2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David W. Moon
 
19,101

 
0

 
34.060

 
12/8/2018
 
4,651

 
968,617

 
15,502

 
3,228,447

 
 
15,120

 
0

 
51.110

 
12/6/2019
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11,671

 
0

 
81.105

 
12/12/2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10,763

 
0

 
92.640

 
12/12/2021
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5,836

 
2,918

 
131.940

 
12/11/2022
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3,181

 
6,363

 
156.940

 
12/9/2023
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1)
Outstanding SARs vest in one-third increments on each anniversary of the date of grant, with the first anniversary date occurring one year after the date of grant.
(2)