(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

HASBRO, INC.

 

NOTICE OF 2009 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

 

Time:

 

11:00 a.m. local time

 

Date:

 

Thursday, May 21, 2009

 

Place:

 

Hasbro, Inc. Corporate Offices

1027 Newport Avenue

Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862

 

Purpose:

 

 

Other Important Information:

 

 

By Order of the Board of Directors

 

Barry Nagler

Corporate Secretary

 

Dated: April 7, 2009

HASBRO, INC.

1027 Newport Avenue
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862

 

 

 

 

PROXY STATEMENT
2009 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
To be held on May 21, 2009

 

 

 

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROXY MATERIALS AND THE ANNUAL MEETING

 

 

 

Shareholder of Record

 

If your shares are registered directly in your name with Hasbro’s Transfer Agent, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”), you are considered, with respect to those shares, the shareholder of record. As the shareholder of record, you have the right to grant your voting proxy directly to Hasbro or to vote in person at the Meeting.

 

Beneficial Owner

 

If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of shares held in street name and your broker or nominee is considered, with respect to those shares, the shareholder of record. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker or nominee on how to vote and are also invited to attend the Meeting. However, since you are not the shareholder of record, you may not vote these shares in person at the Meeting unless you receive a proxy from your broker or nominee. Your broker or nominee has provided voting instructions for you to use. If you wish to attend the Meeting and vote in person, please contact your broker or nominee so that you can receive a legal proxy to present at the Meeting.

 

 

 

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

(Proposal No. 1)

 

Fourteen directors are to be elected at the Meeting. All of the directors elected at the Meeting will serve until the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2010 Meeting”), and until their successors are duly elected and qualified, or until their earlier death, resignation or removal.

 

The Board has recommended as nominees for election as directors to serve until the 2010 Meeting the persons named in the table below. All of the nominees are currently directors of the Company. The proxies cannot be voted for more than fourteen directors at the Meeting.

 

Unless otherwise specified in your voting instructions, the shares voted pursuant thereto will be cast for the persons named below as nominees for election as directors. If, for any reason, any of the nominees named below should be unable to serve as a director, it is intended that such proxy will be voted for the election, in his or her place, of a substituted nominee who would be recommended by management. Management, however, has no reason to believe that any nominee named below will be unable to serve as a director.

 

The following tables set forth as to each nominee for election at the Meeting: (i) his or her age; (ii) all positions and offices with the Company; (iii) principal occupation or employment during the past five years; (iv) other directorships of publicly-held companies or investment companies; and (v) period of service as a director of the Company. Except as otherwise indicated, each person has had the same principal occupation or employment during the past five years.

 

 

Mr. Goldner also serves as an officer and/or director of a number of the Company’s subsidiaries at the request and convenience of the Company.

 

Vote Required.  The affirmative vote of a majority of those shares of Common Stock present (in person or by proxy) and entitled to vote at the Meeting on the election of directors is required to elect directors. As such, a withhold vote is effectively a vote against a director.

 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF THE FOURTEEN NOMINEES NAMED ABOVE.

 

GOVERNANCE OF THE COMPANY

 

Code of Conduct

 

Hasbro has a Code of Conduct which is applicable to all of the Company’s employees, officers and directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller. The Code of Conduct addresses such issues as conflicts of interest, protection of confidential Company information, financial integrity, compliance with laws, rules and regulations, insider trading and proper public disclosure. Compliance with the Code of Conduct is mandatory for all Company employees, officers and directors. Any violation of the Code of Conduct can subject the person at issue to a range of sanctions, including dismissal.

 

The Code of Conduct is available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.” Although the Company generally does not intend to provide waivers of, or amendments to, the Code of Conduct for its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or any other officers, directors or employees, information concerning any waiver of, or amendment to, the Code of Conduct for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or any other executive officer or director of the Company, will be promptly disclosed on the Company’s website in the location where the Code of Conduct is posted.

 

Corporate Governance Principles

 

Hasbro has adopted a set of Corporate Governance Principles which address qualifications for members of the Board of Directors, director responsibilities, director access to management and independent advisors, director compensation and many other matters related to the governance of the Company. The Corporate Governance Principles are available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.”

 

Director Independence

 

Hasbro’s Board has adopted Standards for Director Independence (the “Independence Standards”) in accordance with the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards. The Independence Standards specify criteria used by the Board in making determinations with respect to the independence of its members and include strict guidelines for directors and their immediate family members with respect to past employment or affiliation with the Company or its independent auditor. The Independence Standards are available on Hasbro’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.” A copy of the Independence Standards is also attached as Appendix A to this proxy statement.

 

The Independence Standards restrict commercial relationships between directors and the Company and include the consideration of other relationships with the Company, including charitable relationships, in making independence determinations. Using the Independence Standards, the Board has determined that each of the following directors are independent and have no relationships which impact an independence determination under the Company’s Independence Standards: Basil L. Anderson, Alan R. Batkin, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Kenneth A. Bronfin, John M. Connors, Jr., Michael W.O. Garrett, E. Gordon Gee, Jack M. Greenberg, Tracy A. Leinbach, Edward M. Philip and Paula Stern.

 

Of the Company’s directors who were determined to be independent, there were only three directors who had relationships which needed to be considered by the Board. Mr. Bronfin is President of Hearst Interactive Media, the interactive media division of diversified media company Hearst Corporation. The Company’s media placement firm, MediaCom, places some advertising with entities within the Hearst Corporation family, but the aggregate payments associated with any such advertising placement for any fiscal year are well below the threshold set in the Company’s Independence Standards of 2% of Hearst’s consolidated gross revenues. Mr. Garrett serves on the Board of Gottex Funds Management Holdings. Gottex serves as one of Hasbro’s pension fund investment managers. Mr. Garrett is not an officer or an employee of Gottex, and serves only as an outside director. The Company paid Gottex approximately $440,000 for its pension fund investment managerial services in 2008. Mr. Greenberg was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of McDonald’s Corporation through December 31, 2002. To date Mr. Greenberg remains an employee of McDonald’s. The Company and McDonald’s are party to certain

arrangements pursuant to which (i) the Company licenses its intellectual property to McDonald’s for use in promotions, (ii) the Company sells certain products to McDonald’s and (iii) McDonald’s licenses its brand to the Company for the use in certain Company products. The payments from the Company to McDonald’s and from McDonald’s to the Company pursuant to these arrangements do not arise to the levels which would raise an issue under the Company’s independence standards.

 

The only three members of the Company’s Board who were determined not to be independent were Brian Goldner (current President and Chief Executive Officer), Alan G. Hassenfeld (formerly an executive officer of the Company), and Alfred J. Verrecchia (formerly an executive officer of the Company).

 

Board Meetings and Director Attendance at the Annual Meeting

 

During 2008, the Board held seven meetings. All directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (i) the Board meetings held during their tenure as directors during 2008 and (ii) the meetings of any committees held during their tenure as members of such committees during 2008. Although the Company does not have a formal policy requiring attendance of directors at the annual meeting of shareholders, the expectation of the Company and the Board is that all directors will attend the annual meeting of shareholders unless conflicts prevent them from attending. All thirteen members of the Board who were members as of the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Ms. Leinbach joined the Board after the 2008 Annual Meeting) attended the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

 

Presiding Non-Management Director and Communicating with the Board

 

Executive sessions of the independent members of the Company’s Board are presided over by the presiding director (the “Presiding Director”). John M. Connors, Jr. currently serves as the Presiding Director, a position which is typically rotated on an annual basis among the Chairs of the Audit, Compensation, Finance and Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committees. Effective on May 21, 2009, Edward M. Philip is scheduled to become the Presiding Director. Interested parties may contact the Presiding Director confidentially by sending correspondence to c/o Presiding Director, Hasbro, Inc., P.O. Box 495, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860. Persons may also contact the Board as a whole through the Presiding Director in the manner set forth in the preceding sentence.

 

Board Committees

 

Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Basil L. Anderson (Chair), Michael W.O. Garrett, Tracy A. Leinbach and Edward M. Philip, held eleven meetings in 2008. The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the Company’s independent auditor and assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibility to oversee management’s conduct of the Company’s financial reporting process, the financial reports provided by the Company, the Company’s systems of internal accounting and financial controls, and the quarterly review and annual independent audit of the Company’s financial statements. The current Audit Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.”

 

The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards. The Board has determined that three of the four current Audit Committee members (Basil L. Anderson, Tracy A. Leinbach and Edward M. Philip) qualify as Audit Committee Financial Experts, as such term is defined in the rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

The Board does not have a policy setting rigid limits on the number of audit committees on which a member of the Company’s Audit Committee can serve. Instead, in cases where an Audit Committee member serves on more than three public company audit committees, the Board evaluates whether such simultaneous service would impair the service of such member on the Company’s Audit Committee. No member of the Company’s Audit Committee currently serves on more than three public company audit committees.

 

Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee of the Board, which currently consists of John M. Connors, Jr. (Chair), Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Kenneth A. Bronfin and E. Gordon Gee, held six meetings in 2008. The

Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the compensation and benefits for the Company’s senior management, including all of the Company’s executive officers, is authorized to make grants and awards under the Company’s employee stock equity plans and shares responsibility for evaluation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer with the Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee.

 

The current Compensation Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.” The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards. For a further description and discussion concerning the Compensation Committee, including its composition and its processes and procedures for determining the compensation of the Company’s executive officers, please see the Compensation Committee Report on page 14 of this proxy statement, and the Compensation Discussion and Analysis which begins immediately thereafter also on page 14 of this proxy statement.

 

Executive Committee.  The Executive Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Alan G. Hassenfeld (Chair), Basil L. Anderson, John M. Connors, Jr., Brian Goldner, Jack M. Greenberg, Edward M. Philip and Alfred J. Verrecchia, did not meet in 2008. The Executive Committee acts on such matters as are specifically assigned to it from time to time by the Board and is vested with all of the powers that are held by the Board, except that by law the Executive Committee may not exercise any power of the Board relating to the adoption of amendments to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation or By-laws, adoption of a plan of merger or consolidation, the sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all the property or assets of the Company or the voluntary dissolution of the Company. The current Executive Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.”

 

Finance Committee.  The Finance Committee of the Board, which currently consists of Edward M. Philip (Chair), Kenneth A. Bronfin and Jack M. Greenberg, met three times during 2008. The Finance Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s annual and long-term financial plans, capital structure, use of funds, investments, financial and risk management and proposed significant transactions. The current Finance Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.” The Board has determined that each member of the Finance Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards.

 

Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee.  The Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee of the Board (the “Nominating Committee”), which currently consists of Jack M. Greenberg (Chair), Alan R. Batkin, John M. Connors, Jr. and Paula Stern, met six times in 2008. The Nominating Committee identifies and evaluates individuals qualified to become Board members and makes recommendations to the full Board for possible additions to the Board and on the director nominees for election at the Company’s annual meeting. The Nominating Committee also oversees and makes recommendations regarding the governance of the Board and the committees thereof, including the Company’s governance principles, Board and Board committee evaluations and shares with the Compensation Committee responsibility for evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

In addition, the Nominating Committee periodically reviews, and makes recommendations to the full Board with respect to, the compensation paid to non-employee directors for their service on the Company’s Board, including the structure and elements of non-employee director compensation. In structuring the Company’s director compensation, the Nominating Committee seeks to attract and retain talented directors who will contribute significantly to the Company, fairly compensate directors for their work on behalf of the Company and align the interests of directors with those of stockholders. As part of its review of director compensation, the Nominating Committee reviews external director compensation benchmarking studies to assure that director compensation is set at reasonable levels which are commensurate with those prevailing at other similar companies and that the structure of the Company’s non-employee director compensation programs is effective in attracting and retaining highly qualified directors. Beginning in 2006 the Company eliminated stock options as part of its non-employee director compensation program and the Company is instead granting its non-employee directors annual stock

awards. The Nominating Committee recommended, and the full Board approved, this change to the Company’s non-employee director compensation program because they believed stock awards would be more effective in aligning the interests of the non-employee directors with those of stockholders. Also in 2006, the Company adopted director stock ownership guidelines which require that a director may not sell any shares of the Company’s common stock, including shares acquired as part of the yearly equity grant, until the director holds shares of common stock with a value equal to at least five times the current non-employee directors’ annual retainer (currently requiring holdings with a value of $275,000). The grant date value of the stock awards to directors in May of 2008 was $105,000. The grant date value of the stock awards to be made in May of 2009 is also expected to be $105,000.

 

Further, the Nominating Committee oversees the Company’s codes of business conduct and ethics, and analyzes issues of social responsibility and related corporate conduct, including sustainability, philanthropy and transparency. The current Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committee Charter adopted by the Board is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.” The Board has determined that each member of the Nominating Committee meets both the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements for independence under the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards.

 

In making its nominations for election to the Board the Nominating Committee seeks candidates who meet the current challenges and needs of the Board. As part of this process the Committee considers a number of factors, including, among others, a candidate’s employment and other professional experience, past expertise and involvement in areas which are relevant to the Company’s business, business ethics and professional reputation, independence, other board experience, and the Company’s desire to have a Board that represents a diverse mix of backgrounds, perspectives and expertise. The Nominating Committee will consider nominees recommended by shareholders for election to the Board if such nominations are made in accordance with the process set forth in the following pages under “Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations”.

 

The Nominating Committee uses multiple sources for identifying and evaluating nominees for director, including referrals from current directors, recommendations by shareholders and input from third-party executive search firms. Third-party executive search firms assist the Board by identifying candidates with expertise and experience relevant to the Company’s business who are interested in serving on the Company’s Board. The Nominating Committee will consider and evaluate candidates recommended by shareholders on the same basis as candidates recommended by other sources.

 

Ms. Leinbach is being nominated for election to the Board by the Company’s shareholders for the first time at the Meeting. Ms. Leinbach was appointed to the Board effective July 1, 2008. Ms. Leinbach’s appointment followed a search conducted with the assistance of a third party executive search firm. The third party search firm assisted the Board by identifying candidates with expertise and experience relevant to the Company’s business who were interested in serving on the Company’s Board. Existing members of the Board also recommended potential candidates for evaluation whom they felt possessed relevant expertise and experience. Ms. Leinbach was initially identified as a potential Board candidate by the Company’s executive search firm. The Nominating Committee evaluated Ms. Leinbach, as well as other potential Board candidates, including other candidates identified by the third party search firm. Upon completion of its evaluation, the Nominating Committee recommended Ms. Leinbach to the Board and the Board unanimously voted to appoint Ms. Leinbach as a director.

 

As of December 10, 2008 (the date that is 120 calendar days before the first anniversary of the release date of the proxy statement for the Company’s last Annual Meeting of Shareholders) the Nominating Committee had not received a recommended nominee for election to the Board in 2009 from an individual shareholder, or group of shareholders, who beneficially owned more than 5% of the Company’s Common Stock.

 

Additional Availability of Corporate Governance Materials

 

In addition to being accessible on the Company’s website, copies of the Company’s Code of Conduct, Corporate Governance Principles and the charters of the five Committees of the Board of Directors are all available free of charge to any shareholder upon request to the Company’s Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, c/o Hasbro, Inc., 1011 Newport Avenue, P.O. Box 1059, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862.

Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations

 

General Shareholder Proposals

 

Any proposal which a shareholder of the Company wishes to have considered for inclusion in the proxy statement and proxy relating to the Company’s 2010 annual meeting must be received by the Secretary of the Company at the Company’s executive offices no later than December 8, 2009 (the date that is 120 calendar days before the anniversary of the release date of the proxy statement relating to the 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders). The address of the Company’s executive offices is 1011 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862. Such proposals must also comply with the other requirements of the rules of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to shareholder proposals.

 

With the exception of the submission of director nominations for consideration by the Nominating Committee, which must be submitted to the Company in the manner described below, any new business proposed by any shareholder to be taken up at the 2010 annual meeting, but not included in the proxy statement or proxy relating to that meeting, must be stated in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Company no later than 150 days prior to the date of the 2010 annual meeting. Except for shareholder proposals made pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Company will retain discretion to vote proxies at the 2010 annual meeting with respect to proposals received prior to the date that is 150 days before the date of such meeting, provided (i) the Company includes in its 2010 annual meeting proxy statement advice on the nature of the proposal and how it intends to exercise its voting discretion and (ii) the proponent does not issue a proxy statement.

 

Director Nominations

 

The Company’s By-laws provide that shareholders may themselves nominate directors for consideration at an annual meeting provided they give notice to the Secretary of the Company not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the one-year anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting and provide specified information regarding the proposed nominee and each shareholder proposing such nomination. Nominations made by shareholders in this manner are eligible to be presented by the shareholder to the meeting, but such nominees will not have been considered by the Nominating Committee as a nominee to be potentially supported by the Company.

 

To be considered by the Nominating Committee, director nominations must be submitted to the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company at the Company’s executive offices, 1011 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862 at least 120 days prior to the one-year anniversary of the release to the Company’s shareholders of the proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting. As such, director nominations to be considered for the Company’s 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be submitted no later than December 8, 2009. The Nominating Committee is only required to consider recommendations made by shareholders, or groups of shareholders, that have beneficially owned at least 1% of the Company’s Common Stock for at least one year prior to the date the shareholder(s) submit such candidate to the Nominating Committee and who undertake to continue to hold at least 1% of the Company’s Common Stock through the date of the next annual meeting. In addition, a nominating shareholder(s) may only submit one candidate to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

 

Submissions to the Nominating Committee should include (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election or re-election as a director (i) the name, age, business address and residence address of the person, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of the person, (iii) the class or series and number of shares of capital stock of the Company that are owned beneficially or of record by the person, (iv) any other information relating to the person that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for election of directors pursuant to Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and (v) confirmation that the candidate is independent under the Company’s Independence Standards and the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, or if the candidate is not independent under all such criteria, a description of the reasons why the candidate is not independent; and (b) as to the shareholder(s) giving the notice (i) the name and record address of such shareholder(s) and each participant in any group of which such shareholder is a member, (ii) the class or series and number of shares of capital stock of the Company that are owned beneficially or of record by such shareholder(s) and each participant in any group of which such shareholder is a member, (iii) if

the nominating shareholder is not a record holder of the shares of capital stock of the Company, evidence of ownership as provided in Rule 14a-8(b)(2) under the Exchange Act, (iv) a description of all arrangements or understandings between such shareholder(s) and each proposed nominee and any other person or persons (including their names) pursuant to which the nomination(s) are to be made by such shareholder(s), and (v) any other information relating to such shareholder(s) that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement or other filings required to be made in connection with solicitations of proxies for election of directors pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

 

The Nominating Committee may require that any proposed nominee for election to the Board furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Nominating Committee to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as a director of the Company. The written notice from the nominating shareholder specifying a candidate to be considered as a nominee for election as a director must be accompanied by a written consent of each proposed nominee for director. In this written consent the nominee must consent to (i) being named as a nominee for director, (ii) serve as a director and represent all shareholders of the Company in accordance with applicable laws and the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, By-laws and other policies if such nominee is elected, (iii) comply with all rules, policies or requirements generally applicable to non-employee directors of the Company, and (iv) complete and sign customary information requests upon the request of the Company.

 

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS

 

The Company has a policy that any transaction which would require disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K of the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, with respect to a director or nominee for election as a director, must be reviewed and approved or ratified by the Company’s full Board, excluding any director interested in such transaction. All other related person transactions which would require disclosure under Item 404(a), including, without limitation, those involving executive officers of the Company, must be reviewed and approved or ratified by either the Company’s full Board or a committee of the Board which has been delegated with such duty. Any such related person transactions will only be approved or ratified if the Board, or the applicable committee of the Board, determines that such transaction will not impair the involved person’s service to, and exercise of judgment on behalf of, the Company, or otherwise create a conflict of interest which would be detrimental to the Company. This policy is contained in Section 20, entitled “Code of Conduct; Conflicts of Interest and Related Party Transactions” of the Company’s Corporate Governance Principles. Although the Company adopted this policy in 2007, the transactions disclosed below, even those entered into before this policy was adopted, have been reviewed and approved or ratified by the Company’s Board.

 

The Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hasbro Canada Corporation (“Hasbro Canada”), leases an office and warehouse facility from Central Toy Manufacturing Inc. (“CTM”), a real estate corporation which is 25% owned by the estate of Merrill Hassenfeld, a former Chief Executive Officer and director of the Company. Sylvia K. Hassenfeld, a former director of the Company and mother of the Company’s former Chairman, Alan G. Hassenfeld, is executrix and a beneficiary of the estate of Merrill Hassenfeld. During 2003 a new lease was signed for a six-year term ending on January 31, 2010, with one three-year renewal option that Hasbro Canada can exercise at the end of the term. The new lease also provided Hasbro Canada with a right to terminate the lease on January 31, 2007, or at any time thereafter, upon six months’ written notice. The rent provided for in this six-year lease is $525,000 Canadian per year (approximately $430,000 U.S. at exchange rates in effect at the end of 2008). In accordance with this new lease, total rent paid by Hasbro Canada to CTM for the lease of the office and warehouse facility in 2008 was approximately $430,000 U.S. at exchange rates in effect at the end of 2008. In management’s opinion, this lease is on terms at least as favorable as would otherwise presently be obtainable from unrelated parties.

 

Michael Verrecchia, son of Alfred J. Verrecchia, is employed by the Company as a Director, Entertainment and Content Manager. For fiscal 2008, Michael Verrecchia was paid an aggregate salary and bonus of $149,812. In fiscal 2008, Michael Verrecchia was also a participant in the Company’s equity grant program and pursuant thereto was granted, at the same time and on the same terms as the awards made to the Company’s other participating employees, a non-qualified stock option to purchase 1,543 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $27.095 per share, and a contingent stock performance award with a target number of 289 shares.

 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

 

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board is responsible for reviewing, approving and overseeing the compensation and benefits for the Company’s senior management, including all of the Company’s executive officers, and is authorized to make grants and awards under the Company’s employee stock equity plans. The Committee operates under a written charter which has been established by the Company’s Board. The current Compensation Committee charter is available on the Company’s website at www.hasbro.com, under “Corporate — Investor Relations — Corporate Governance.”

 

The Committee is composed solely of persons who are both “Non-Employee Directors,” as defined in Rule 16b-3 of the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and “outside directors,” as defined in Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Board has determined that each member of the Committee is independent under the Company’s Independence Standards and the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance listing standards.

 

The following section of this proxy statement, entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”, contains disclosure regarding the philosophy, policies and processes utilized by the Compensation Committee in reviewing and approving the compensation and benefits of the Company’s executive officers.

 

The Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis which follows this report.

 

Based on its review and discussions with management, the Committee recommended to the Company’s full Board and the Board has approved the inclusion of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis in this proxy statement for the Meeting and, by incorporation by reference, in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2008.

 

Report issued by John M. Connors, Jr. (Chair), Frank J. Biondi, Jr. and E. Gordon Gee as the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board as of the 2008 fiscal year end.

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 

Executive Summary of 2008 Policies and Compensation

 

The Company is a worldwide leader in children’s and family leisure-time and entertainment products and services, including the design, manufacture and marketing of games and toys. As a family entertainment company, the Company looks at a broad range of consumer products, entertainment and general industry companies as business competitors, including in the hiring and retention of employees and executives. In the family entertainment and consumer products markets where the Company competes for talent, base compensation, variable incentive cash compensation, equity compensation and employee benefits are all significant components of a competitive and effective overall executive compensation package.

 

The Company utilizes two overarching principles in structuring its executive compensation program.

 

First, a significant portion of an executive’s overall compensation opportunity should be at risk and based upon the performance of the Company. The Company believes that the primary responsibility of the Company’s executive team is to drive the performance of the Company and create value for the Company’s shareholders and other stakeholders. As a result, if the Company fails to achieve its financial goals, and/or if the Company’s share price does not rise, the value of the total executive compensation packages received by the Company’s executives is significantly reduced. The Company implements this principle by using variable compensation elements, such as management incentive plan awards and equity awards, as a major component of the total executive compensation package.

 

Second, the Company seeks predominately to reward overall performance by the Company, or its major business units, and only to a lesser extent to reward individual executive performance. The Company believes this is appropriate to foster an environment of team work and to maximize the performance of the Company as a whole, as opposed to individuals within the Company. As a result, the two most significant variable components of the

Company’s executive compensation, namely management incentive plan awards and equity awards, are most heavily weighted to achievement of Company goals and Company performance. The incentive plan awards reward achievement of stated Company and business unit financial metrics, with individual performance playing a smaller role. Equity awards also reward achievement of Company goals and Company stock price appreciation.

 

In light of the Company’s strong performance in fiscal 2008, which was achieved against the backdrop of a global consumer-led recession, the executive officers and employees of the Company received above target payouts for 2008 under the management incentive awards. Notwithstanding the difficult economic conditions, which began in early 2008 and worsened as the year went on, including the reduction in consumer demand, particularly during the holiday season, the Company grew net revenues 5% in 2008 as compared to 2007, and the Company delivered its eighth consecutive year of growth in earnings per share. In addition, 2008 ended the performance cycle under the contingent stock performance awards which the Company granted in July of 2006. The Company’s above target performance against its net revenues and EPS targets during the ten-quarter performance period applicable to these awards also resulted in an above-target payout under these awards in February of 2009.

 

The Company’s excellent performance over the last several years has had a significant impact on the realization of value from the variable components of the Company’s executive compensation package. However, given the significant recent decline in the Company’s stock price, which has been driven by the overall decline in the stock market generally, the options granted to executive officers in fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008 are underwater as of March 26, 2009, and the Company’s executive officers will only realize value in those awards to the extent that the Company’s stock price rises above the exercise prices for such options. Notwithstanding the recent decline in the Company’s stock price though, over the ten-quarter contingent stock performance period which ended at the end of 2008, the Company’s stock price rose from $18.13 per share on July 3, 2006 to $29.04 per share on December 26, 2008.

 

The Committee structures the Company’s compensation program in a way it believes appropriately rewards excellent performance and maximizes future performance, without encouraging excessive risk taking or other behavior on the part of executive officers that is not in the Company’s best interests.

 

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

 

In structuring the compensation of the Company’s executive officers, including the named executive officers who appear in the compensation tables following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Company’s fundamental objectives are to:

 

 

Designing the Executive Compensation Program at Hasbro

 

Hasbro’s executive compensation program is structured with input, analysis, review and/or oversight from a number of sources. Those sources include the:

 

 

 

In designing the fiscal 2008 executive compensation program, the Company reviewed benchmarking information to establish reference points for: (i) base salaries, (ii) management incentive awards, and (iii) total target cash compensation (comprised of base salaries and management incentive awards together). For purposes of establishing reference points for base salaries, management incentive awards and total target cash compensation the Company reviewed the Hewitt Executive Total Compensation Measurement Survey, prepared by Hewitt Associates, LLP, and Towers Perrin’s Executive Compensation Databank. The Towers Perrin survey is employed by the Company to compare itself to other companies of similar size, in terms of revenues and other financial metrics. The Hewitt survey is focused on industry type, as opposed to company size, and captures other companies which have a business similar to that of the Company. Within these surveys the Company focused on the following types of companies: (i) companies in the general industry category with total annual revenues ranging from $3 billion to $6 billion within Towers Perrin’s Executive Compensation Databank, and (ii) approximately 36 consumer products and consumer facing companies, with median annual revenues of $7.8 billion, within the Hewitt Executive Total Compensation Measurement Survey.

 

The Company does not benchmark its equity compensation every year, but does so regularly. In structuring its equity compensation program for fiscal 2006 the Company conducted a detailed review of two benchmarking studies to establish reference points, Towers Perrin’s Executive Compensation Databank, mentioned above, as well the Mercer executive compensation database. Within the Mercer database the Company focused on companies in the general industry category with annual revenues ranging between $1 billion and $6 billion. The Company’s equity compensation program for fiscal 2008 was not changed significantly from the program in fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2007. As part of the process for structuring the 2008 equity program, the Committee had Mercer provide recent information and analysis to update the benchmarking information performed in 2006. The Company plans to review additional benchmarking data as necessary to establish reference points for equity compensation in the process of structuring its equity compensation program in future years.

 

The Company selected the sets of benchmarking data discussed above because they are comprised of a broad range of companies which are considered comparable to and competitive with the Company in terms of the challenges faced by such companies and their executive teams, and the skills and experience required by the executive teams in leading such companies. In reviewing compensation reference points, the Company generally seeks to have a total compensation package for its executive officers that falls between the 50th and 75th percentiles of compensation at comparable companies in the benchmarking surveys. The Committee believes that this positions the Company’s compensation program at a level that allows the Company to effectively hire, retain and motivate talented executives. This approach also enables the Company to keep the cost of the Company’s executive compensation at a reasonable level as compared to other similar and/or competitive companies.

 

However, while the Company believes it is important to periodically review benchmarking data to determine how the Company’s executive compensation program compares to the programs used by other comparable companies, such reference points are only one element used in structuring the Company’s executive compensation program. Other key factors impacting the Company’s compensation decisions are the Company’s overriding executive compensation program goals of driving Company performance and fairly rewarding executive contributions to the achievement of the Company’s performance goals.

 

In reviewing the proposed fiscal 2008 compensation program, the Committee worked with Mercer (“Mercer”) who served as an outside compensation consultant for the Committee. Although Mercer has performed work for the Company in the past, in fiscal 2008 Mercer only performed work for the Committee. For its work with respect to the 2008 compensation program, Mercer was retained by, and reported directly to, the members of the Committee. Mercer advised the Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of the Company’s 2008 executive compensation programs and provided additional information as to whether the Company’s anticipated 2008 executive compensation programs were competitive, and were effective in promoting the performance of the Company’s executives and achievement of the Company’s financial goals.

In addition to the work performed by Mercer directly for the Committee with respect to the 2008 compensation program, Watson Wyatt Worldwide (“Watson Wyatt”) was retained by the Company’s Human Resources department to perform analysis on the Company’s proposed compensation program, including its competitiveness with comparable companies and effectiveness in promoting and rewarding performance and achievement of the Company’s goals. As part of this work, Watson Wyatt assisted the Company with the preparation of compensation information presented to the Committee at various times, as well as certain of the compensation tables and other information included in the Company’s proxy statement.

 

The Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, and Chief Legal Officer each attend portions of the meetings of the Committee. However, the Committee also regularly considers and discusses issues and the Company’s compensation programs without the presence of any officers of the Company.

 

For Named Executive Officers other than the Chief Executive Officer, as well as for the Company’s other executive officers, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations for each individual’s compensation package to the Compensation Committee. In making these recommendations the Chief Executive Officer considers the individual’s performance, benchmarking information and input from the Company’s Human Resources Department. The Committee then discusses these recommendations with the Chief Executive Officer, both with and without the presence of the Company’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources and outside compensation consultants. The Committee further reviews and discusses these recommendations in executive session without any members of management present. For the Chief Executive Officer, the Committee directly determines the compensation package, receiving input as it deems appropriate from the Company’s Human Resources Department, benchmarking information and the Committee’s outside compensation consultant. The Committee also received input from the Company’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources in structuring the compensation for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. Other than the Company’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources, the Committee does not receive a recommendation as to the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation from any member of Company’s management. In addition to being reviewed and approved by the Committee, the compensation package for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer is reviewed and approved by the full Board. The Committee does not delegate, to management or any other parties, its duties to review the Company’s executive compensation programs.

 

Although the Company considers the requirements of Code Section 162(m), and the accounting treatment of various forms of compensation, in determining the elements of its executive compensation program and, to the extent it is consistent with meeting the objectives of the Company’s executive compensation program, structures such compensation to maximize the ability of the Company to receive a tax deduction for such compensation, the Company feels strongly that maximizing the performance of the Company and its executives is more important than assuring that every element of compensation complies with the requirements for tax deductibility under Section 162(m). The Company selects performance goals under its variable compensation programs that are intended to be objective within the meaning of the Code, such as achieving certain net revenues, operating margin, free cash flow or earnings per share goals. However, in certain situations the Company may feel a particular goal is very important to the Company, even though it is not objective within the meaning of the Code. The Company reserves the right to compensate executives for achievement of such objectives, or to reflect other individual performance measures in an executive’s compensation, even if they do not comply with the requirements of Section 162(m).

 

The Company does not have a formal policy requiring executives to forfeit compensation, either cash or non-cash, to the Company in the event that there is a financial restatement or some other negative occurrence after such compensation is paid. However, there are legal provisions under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which require forfeiture of some elements of compensation in certain situations. The full Board, the Committee and the Company’s senior management are committed to an environment in which all of the Company’s officers and employees act in accordance with the highest ethical standards and in accordance with all legal and accounting requirements. Any failure to do so will be dealt with on a case by case basis by management, the Committee and the Board, in the manner they deem appropriate.

Primary Elements of 2008 Executive Compensation

 

Executive compensation for fiscal year 2008 was composed of four primary elements:

 

 

The Company uses these four elements in the combination it believes appropriately divides the compensation of its executives among fixed and variable components. Some variable compensation is tied to achievement of yearly financial objectives. Other compensation, such as option grants vesting over multiple years and performance share awards with multi-year performance periods, are tied to the achievement of longer-term financial goals and the creation of longer-term shareholder value. The Company seeks to have its overall compensation package significantly comprised of variable performance-based elements. As an illustration of this approach, of Mr. Goldner’s total compensation for fiscal 2008, as reported in the Summary Compensation table appearing on page 26 of this proxy statement, over 79% of the value of the total compensation was comprised of equity awards and performance based non-equity incentive plan compensation. The Company believes this fosters a performance-driven mentality and best serves the interests of the Company and its stakeholders, since the compensation of the Company’s executives is significantly dependent upon achievement of the Company’s financial goals and the creation of shareholder value. Each of these compensation elements is described in detail below. In structuring these elements the Company and the Committee review each element on an individual basis, as well as review them in totality as part of an overall target compensation package. This process includes reviewing tally sheets for each of the executive officers which set forth total target compensation for the officer, and within that total summarize the target level for each element and the portion of total target compensation comprised of the various compensation elements.

 

Base Salary

 

Normally the Company would have five Named Executive Officers appearing in its compensation tables in the proxy statement. However, because both Mr. Verrecchia and Mr. Goldner served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company for a portion of fiscal 2008, the Company is reporting compensation for fiscal 2008 for a total of six officers. The salaries for all six of the Company’s Named Executive Officers in fiscal 2008 are included in the Summary Compensation Table that follows this report. The Company’s philosophy is to only increase executive base salaries in the event of changes in responsibility, particular achievements or lack of competitiveness with market compensation offered to executives with similar responsibilities, expertise and experience in other general industry and consumer products companies the Company considers to be comparable and/or competitive with the Company. Consistent with this philosophy, Mr. Verrecchia, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti did not receive increases in base salary during 2008.

 

Mr. Goldner, Mr. Hargreaves and Mr. Nagler did receive increases in base salary in 2008. In connection with his promotion to President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Goldner’s annual base salary was increased from $800,000 to $1,000,000 effective in May of 2008. In connection with Mr. Hargreaves’ promotion to Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Hargreaves annual base salary was increased from $600,000 to $700,000 in May of 2008. As a result of its review of compensation for comparable positions at companies in the benchmark surveys the Company increased Mr. Nagler’s base salary to $495,000 in March of 2008. Although Mr. Billing was not a named executive officer of the Company in 2007, Mr. Billing’s base salary was increased from $375,000 to $412,500 in December 2007 in connection with his promotion to Global Chief Development Officer.

 

According to the last set of data which the Company reviewed at the end of fiscal 2008, the base salaries for the Named Executive Officers (excluding Mr. Verrecchia, who was in his last year of employment with the Company and who ceased to be an employee of the Company on December 31, 2008), in fiscal 2008 ranged between the 49^th and the 66^th percentiles of base salaries for comparable positions at companies contained in the benchmark surveys reviewed by the Company.

Base salaries for new executive officers are initially set at a level the Company determines represents a competitive fixed reward to the executive. By “competitive”, the Company means the reward is sufficient to (i) hire the executive in question, rather than losing that person to a competitive employment opportunity, (ii) retain the executive, and (iii) fairly compensate the executive for their responsibilities, skills and work. This is done by evaluating the responsibilities of the position being filled, the experience of the individual being hired and the competitive marketplace for comparable executive talent.

 

As part of its effort to control expenses and maintain profit levels in the current difficult economic times, the Company has taken a number of steps for 2009. These include a worldwide salary freeze, excepting only situations where people are promoted, take on significant additional responsibilities, or increases in salary are required for legal or other reasons. Consistent with the Company’s policy to freeze the salaries for its employees in 2009, the base salaries for Mr. Goldner, Mr. Hargreaves, Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti have not been increased for fiscal 2009. Mr. Verrecchia retired as an officer and employee of the Company effective December 31, 2008.

 

Management Incentive Awards

 

Summary of 2008 Management Incentive Awards

 

Approximately 24% of the Company’s employees, including all of the Named Executive Officers, received management incentive awards with respect to fiscal 2008. The management incentive award is performance based, with payout of these awards tied to the achievement of specific yearly performance objectives by the Company. This is in contrast to equity awards, which although also performance based, are designed to reward achievement of specific performance objectives and/or stock price appreciation over periods longer than one year.

 

Management incentive awards for the Company’s executive officers for fiscal 2008 were determined under two programs, the 2004 Senior Management Annual Performance Plan (the “Annual Performance Plan”) and the 2008 Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”). Additional detail concerning these two plans, the manner in which awards are structured and administered under the plans, and the differences between the plans, is set forth below. Despite certain differences in the two plans, however, both the Annual Performance Plan and the MIP use the same corporate performance criteria and targets.

 

The Committee established the fiscal 2008 corporate and business unit performance goals for the Company under these two plans in the first quarter of fiscal 2008. These performance goals were based on the 2008 operating plan and budget approved by the Company’s Board. Setting performance goals involves both selecting the performance metrics that will be used to evaluate bonus eligibility and establishing the performance targets for each of those metrics. The Committee used three performance metrics to measure corporate performance in 2008. The three corporate performance criteria, and their respective weights, were as follows: (i) total net revenues (40%), (ii) operating margin (40%) and (iii) free cash flow (20%). The Committee selected these three performance metrics to capture the most important aspects of the top and bottom line performance of the Company, in the form of sales, profitability and cash generation. Business unit performance objectives were based on the first two of these criteria, namely total net revenues (50%) and operating margin (50%). Free cash flow is not used as a business unit performance objective because its computation can only occur for the Company at the corporate level. The Committee sets the relative weighting among the performance metrics in accordance with the relative importance of those metrics, in the Committee’s view, to the Company’s performance and the strength of the Company’s business. All of the Named Executive Officers had their management incentive award opportunities determined exclusively by corporate performance in 2008.

 

The table set forth below provides the 2008 corporate total net revenues, operating margin and free cash flow performance targets, as well as the Company’s actual performance against those targets. The Company’s actual weighted performance in fiscal 2008 corresponded to a 117% weighted payout against achievement of the target corporate performance goals. The total weighted payout percentage of 117% against target (based on performance against the three corporate performance metrics ranging from 95% to 130%) reflects that performance under the plans is leveraged, both in a positive and negative direction. As a result, when performance against a target is surpassed, the plan recognizes incremental gains over target performance to an increasingly greater extent the more the target is exceeded. Similarly, leverage is applied to reduce awards to an increasingly disproportionate extent as performance falls further below target.

 

 

 

The Committee sets the corporate and business unit performance goals under the management incentive plan awards at levels it believes require strong performance for a target payout and superior performance for a greater than target payout. The corporate performance goals for fiscal 2008 represented the following increases over the Company’s actual or targeted performance in fiscal 2007 in order to achieve 100% of target performance, (i) total net revenues, a 3.5% increase over 2007 actual net revenues, (ii) operating margin, an increase from the target operating margin of 11.98% in 2007 to a target of 13.00% in 2008, and (iii) free cash flow, an increase from the target of $316 million in 2007 to a target of $366 million in 2008.

 

For Mr. Verrecchia, Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves, who all participated in the Annual Performance Plan in 2008, fiscal 2008 management incentive award opportunities were structured in terms of maximum permissible payouts corresponding with various levels of Company performance. In every case these awards could then be reduced, but not increased, at the sole discretion of the Committee. To assist in making decisions as to when, and to what extent, to exercise this negative discretion to reduce the bonuses which are otherwise payable, the Committee set personal objectives for each of Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves for fiscal 2008 as well. The executive’s achievement of these personal objectives are then used as one of the factors to be considered by the Committee in its determination whether to apply any negative discretion to the amount of the bonus which may otherwise be paid to Mr. Goldner or Mr. Hargreaves based upon the Company’s achievement of its corporate performance metrics. In no event may performance against these individual objectives increase in any way the bonus which may be paid to Mr. Goldner or Mr. Hargreaves. Among the personal objectives set by the Committee for Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves for fiscal 2008 were that the Company’s revenue growth in 2008 (i) include growth across the pre-school, games and girls categories, and (ii) also include growth across the North American, European and International businesses. Based upon the Company’s 117% weighted payout against achievement of its corporate performance objectives in 2008, the Annual Performance Plan allowed for payment of the maximum management incentive award to each of these three officers for 2008. In each case, the maximum incentive award for 2008 for the executives participating in the Annual Performance Plan was set at three times the executive’s base salary.

 

Considering the Company’s 5% growth in net revenues in 2008, eighth consecutive year of earnings per share growth, and strong overall performance, while in the midst of a global consumer-led recession, as well as each of the three executive’s contribution to that performance, and the performance of Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves against their personal objectives, the Committee determined to exercise partial negative discretion with respect to the awards payable to Mr. Verrecchia, Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves. In each case the executive was paid a management incentive bonus the Committee believed appropriately reflected the executive’s respective significant contributions to achieving the Company’s performance in 2008. The bonuses paid to Mr. Verrecchia, Mr. Goldner and Mr. Hargreaves reflected 69%, 91% and 73% respectively of the maximum bonus each such executive could have received under the 2004 Plan for the Company’s fiscal 2008 performance.

 

For Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti, who participated in the MIP in 2008, their fiscal 2008 management incentive award opportunities, rather than being structured as a range of maximum awards corresponding to various levels of performance against target, were instead set to provide for a payout of 60% of base salary for target performance. A range of payouts as a percentage of target then corresponded to a range of performances against target both above and below 100%. Threshold performance for each given financial metric under the MIP is set at 80% of target performance for purposes of the achievement of that goal contributing to payout of the management incentive award. An 80% achievement of a performance goal under the MIP equates to a 60% payout against that goal. In addition to taking into account Company performance, the MIP, unlike the Annual

Performance Plan, also allows for a multiplier of up to an additional 25% in recognition of superior performance against individual performance objectives. The maximum management incentive award which could have been paid to each of Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti for fiscal 2008 was 180% of their respective base salaries.

 

The 117% weighted payout against the corporate performance goals in 2008 corresponded with approximately 117% of the target payout for each of Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti under their management incentive awards for 2008.

 

According to the benchmarking data reviewed by the Company the target management incentive award opportunities for Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti, for whom target awards are set, ranged between the 48^th and the 59^th percentiles of target cash management incentive awards at companies in the benchmarking surveys.

 

Additional Detail on 2008 Management Incentive Awards

 

The Annual Performance Plan has been approved by the Company’s shareholders and is intended to allow for the deduction by the Company of the bonuses paid to “covered employees” as defined in Code Section 162(m). The Committee is not able to increase the award payouts under the Annual Performance Plan to reflect discretionary factors or individual performance. The Committee may only exercise negative discretion to reduce awards, to as low as 0%, that would otherwise be payable to participants under the terms of the Annual Performance Plan. To the extent that the Committee determined it was appropriate to reward Mr. Goldner, Mr. Verrecchia or Mr. Hargreaves for achievement of subjective goals or individual performance, the Committee would need to award discretionary bonuses outside of the Annual Performance Plan. Neither Mr. Goldner, Mr. Verrecchia nor Mr. Hargreaves received a discretionary bonus award for fiscal 2008.

 

The MIP is not a shareholder approved plan. The primary difference in administering the MIP, as compared to the Annual Performance Plan, is that under the MIP the Company is able to adjust actual award payouts, either up or down, based upon individual performance. Bonuses earned under the MIP are subject to adjustment downward to as low as 0% and upward by a factor of up to an additional 50% (25% in the case of officers at the level of Mr. Nagler, Mr. Billing and Mr. Frascotti), based on individual performance against specified individual management objectives under the MIP.

 

In all cases, the bonuses for performance under the Annual Performance Plan and the MIP for executive officers were reviewed and approved by the Committee. The bonuses for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer were also reviewed and approved by the full Board.

 

In addition to establishing the performance criteria and target performance objectives for each such criteria, in the first quarter of 2008 the Committee also established (i) maximum awards for the executives participating in the Annual Performance Plan and (ii) target bonus awards and threshold and maximum awards for each executive officer participant in the MIP corresponding with various levels of performance against the designated corporate and, to the extent applicable, business unit objectives. Management incentive bonus targets and/or maximums were set at levels the Committee believed appropriately rewarded the executive in question for their responsibility and the contribution which would be required from such executive for the Company to achieve its stated objectives. The maximum awards for each of the Named Executive Officers for 2008, as well as the threshold and target awards for Named Executive Officers participating in the MIP Plan, are included in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table that follows this discussion.

 

Long-Term Equity Awards

 

Prior to fiscal 2006, the Company had granted almost all of the equity awards to the Company’s employees in the form of non-qualified stock options, generally vesting in annual installments over three years. These options were designed to motivate and retain those individuals, over a period of multiple years, who are most important to the Company’s future success. Stock options are also designed to align the interests of employees with those of shareholders by providing employees with a benefit from price appreciation in the Common Stock after the date of grant and to hold employees accountable for delivering stock price appreciation to the shareholders of the Company.

 

In structuring the 2008 (and prior to that the 2007 and 2006) equity compensation program the Committee believed it was important to retain stock options as a significant element of the program to continue to achieve the motivational benefits of rewarding key employees for appreciation in the Company’s stock price over the course of multiple years. However, in light of the many market factors that can impact an individual company’s stock performance, other than the performance of the company itself, and the consequent imperfect connection between a

company’s stock price performance and the performance of the underlying business, as well as the accounting changes effective in fiscal 2006 which eliminated favorable accounting treatment for stock options and enhanced the attractiveness of other stock compensation vehicles, the Committee felt it was important beginning in 2006 to have a significant portion of the value of the Company’s equity compensation program tied to achievement of specific internal financial goals for the Company, rather than just stock price appreciation.

 

For fiscal 2008, the Committee approved target total equity award values for each of the Company’s eligible employees. These targets were expressed as a percentage of each individual’s base salary. For the Named Executive Officers the total target equity award values in 2008, as a percentage of their base salaries, were as follows: Brian Goldner, 200%, Alfred Verrecchia, 400%, David D.R. Hargreaves, 175%, Barry Nagler, 150%, Duncan Billing, 150% and John Frascotti 150%. Since these levels were set at the beginning of 2008, the target level for Mr. Goldner does not reflect his subsequent promotion to President and Chief Executive Officer in May of 2008.

 

In all cases the final target equity award values were set at levels the Committee believed would compensate the individual for future achievement of the Company’s long-term financial goals and stock price appreciation in a manner commensurate with their duties and contributions to the performance of the Company and its stock. As is the case with management incentive plan awards, the performance metrics are designed to reward Company performance, as opposed to individual performance.

 

The target equity award value for each eligible employee was then divided evenly between two award types, non-qualified stock options and performance share awards, such that 50% of the total equity award value would be represented by each type of award. This even division of the award value reflected the Committee’s belief that over the performance period the realization of equity award values should be equally divided between achievement of the Company’s longer-term internal financial targets and the Company’s stock price appreciation.

 

For the 50% of the equity award value in 2008 which was made in the form of stock performance awards, these awards provide the recipient with the potential to earn shares of the Company’s common stock based on the Company’s achievement of stated cumulative diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) and cumulative net revenue (“Revenue”) targets over a three-year period beginning January 2008 and ending December 2010 (the “Performance Period”). The cumulative net revenue and diluted earnings per share targets were taken from the Company’s long-term strategic plan and, as is the case with the performance levels under the Annual Performance Plan and the MIP, were set at levels which the Committee determined would require strong performance from the Company, and in turn its executives, in order to achieve a threshold payout, and superior performance to achieve a higher than target payout.

 

The Company considers the specific target EPS and Revenue levels for ongoing performance periods to be confidential information which would harm the Company if it were disclosed, as they are based on confidential internal plans and forward-looking expectations concerning the Company’s performance over a multi-year period. However, the targets are based on the same Board approved operating plan which is used in setting performance targets under the Annual Performance Plan and MIP, as well as on the longer-term strategic operating plan approved by the Board. The following table shows the share payouts, as a percentage of the target number of shares covered by a stock performance award, corresponding with various combined levels of achievement against the EPS and Revenue targets.

 

Revenues Measure

 

90% achievement of each target under the contingent stock performance awards was established as a threshold to that metric contributing to the ultimate award payout. Each stock performance award has a target number of shares of common stock, a portion of which may be earned by the recipient if the Company achieves at least 90% of the stated EPS and/or Revenue targets over the Performance Period. For example, 90% achievement of both of the performance metrics corresponds with a planned payout of 85% of the target number of shares. The actual number of shares to be received at the end of the Performance Period can be below or above the target number based on the actual levels of the target performance achieved against the two metrics. In all cases the Committee retains the right to reduce the number of actual shares received pursuant to any award to any level, including 0%, to the extent it believes the actual payout should be below the number called for by the award agreements.

 

For the first grant of contingent stock performance awards, which were made in July of 2006, the performance period ended in December 2008. The table set forth below shows how the Company performed against the net revenues and EPS performance metrics set forth in the 2006 contingent stock performance awards. The revenue performance of 109% of target, and the EPS performance of 116% of target, together resulted in a payout under these contingent stock performance awards of 115% of target.

 

Actual Performance Under the 2006 Contingent Stock Performance Awards

 

 

Shares earned under the July 2006 contingent stock performance awards were earned and paid to recipients in February of 2009.

 

In determining the 2008 equity award target values the Committee did not feel that past equity awards should have a significant impact. However, in conjunction with the Company’s stock ownership guidelines, which are described below, the Committee is reviewing each executive officer’s progress in achieving their targeted stock ownership level as a criterion in establishing future target equity grant levels. To the extent that an officer is not making sufficient progress toward achieving and maintaining the targeted stock ownership level, equity grants to that officer in the future may be reduced.

 

The Company does not manage the timing of equity grants to attempt to give participants the benefit of material non-public information. Grants are made at times when the Company believes it is not in possession of material non-public information and when major subsequent announcements are not currently anticipated. Further, all option grants are made with an exercise price at or above the average of the high and low sales prices of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.

 

The Committee believes the equity compensation awards to the Company’s executive officers are appropriate to properly incent these officers to achieve maximum performance, and to align their interests with those of the Company’s shareholders, while not incenting the executive officers to take undue risks or otherwise take actions which are contrary to the best interests of the Company.

 

The stock option and performance share award grants to the Company’s named executive officers in 2008 are reflected in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table that follows this report. The grant date for the Company’s yearly stock performance awards and options in fiscal 2008 to officers and other eligible employees was February 13, 2008.

 

The Company has only infrequently used restricted stock and restricted stock units as a reward and retention mechanism. Mr. Goldner was granted 57,787 restricted stock units in connection with his promotion to President and Chief Executive Officer in May 2008. In 2008, no other executive officers received grants of restricted stock or restricted stock units.

 

The Company has share ownership guidelines which apply to all employees at or above the Senior Vice President level. The share ownership guidelines establish target share ownership levels which executives are expected to achieve over a five-year period and then maintain, absent extenuating circumstances which are

approved by the Company’s Human Resources Department, for as long as they remain with the Company. The target ownership levels are expressed as a percentage of the executives’ base salary and range from 50% of yearly base salary for certain Senior Vice Presidents to 500% of base salary for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

 

In making the yearly equity grants the Committee specifically approves the grants for every member of the Company’s senior management team, which includes every executive officer. The Committee also approves the total equity grant pool for all other eligible employees of the Company, with the individual grants from that pool being made from a list prepared by the Company’s senior management which is available for the Committee’s review. Other than the annual equity grants, off-cycle equity grants are made during the year generally only in the case of new hires or in connection with significant promotions. All of these off-cycle grants are also reviewed and approved by the Committee.

 

Executive Benefits

 

In addition to receipt of salary, management incentive awards and equity compensation, the Company’s U.S. based officers also participate in certain employee benefit programs provided by the Company.

 

Beginning in 2008, the Company provides retirement benefits to it employees primarily through the 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) and the Supplemental Benefit Retirement Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”). The Company’s Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan”) was frozen effective December 31, 2007. The enhanced 401(k) Plan and Supplemental Plan, which are described starting on page 33 of this proxy statement, provide company matching contributions, an annual company contribution of 3% of aggregate salary and bonus and a transition contribution ranging from 1% to 9% for the years 2008 through 2012 for participants meeting certain age and service requirements. In lieu of the annual company and transition contributions, Mr. Verrecchia and Mr. Hargreaves receive certain retirement benefits discussed below. Other executive officers are eligible to participate in the 401(k) Plan and the Supplemental Plan on the same basis as all other U.S. Hasbro employees.

 

Executive officers hired prior to December 31, 2007, continue to participate in the Pension Plan and the pension portion of the Supplemental Plan, which is described starting on page 33 of this proxy statement, but, except for Mr. Hargreaves who is discussed below, will not accrue additional benefits after December 31, 2007, since these plans are frozen.

 

The Supplemental Plan is intended to provide a competitive benefit for executive officers whose employer-provided pension benefits and retirement contributions would otherwise be limited. However, the Supplemental Plan is designed only to provide the benefit which the executive would have accrued under the Company’s Pension Plan and 401(k) Plan if the Code limits had not applied. It does not further enhance those benefits.

 

The amount of the Company’s contributions to the named executive officers under both the 401(k) Plan and the Supplemental Plan (401(k)), are included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table that follows this report.

 

Mr. Verrecchia is party to a Post-Employment Agreement with the Company which provides certain enhanced retirement benefits. The Post-Employment Agreement is described starting on page 35 of this proxy statement. In light of the significant reduction in projected retirement income resulting from the retirement program redesign, the Company elected to provide Mr. Hargreaves, who has been with the Company for 26 years, with a retirement agreement which effectively grandfathered for Mr. Hargreaves the Company’s retirement program as it was in effect prior to January 1, 2008. Mr. Hargreaves retirement agreement is also described starting on page 35 of this proxy statement.

 

The executive officers of the Company are eligible for life insurance benefits on the terms applicable to the Company’s other employees. In addition, prior to his retirement from the Company on December 31, 2008, Mr. Verrecchia was provided with executive life insurance. The cost of the Company’s premiums for executive life insurance programs for Mr. Verrecchia is included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

 

The Company’s executive officers participate in the same medical and dental benefit plans as are provided to the Company’s other employees.

Executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which is available to all of the Company’s employees who are in band 40 (director level) or above whose compensation is equal to or greater than $105,000 for 2008 ($110,000 for 2009). The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan allows participants to defer compensation into various hypothetical investment vehicles, the performance of which determines the return on compensation deferred under the plan. Potential investment choices include the Company’s Common Stock, as well as other equity indices. Earnings on compensation deferred by the executive officers do not exceed the market returns on the relevant investments and are the same as the returns earned by other non-executive officer employees deferring compensation into the applicable investment vehicles.

 

The Company reimburses designated executive officers for the cost of certain tax, legal and financial planning services they obtain from third parties provided that such costs are within the limits established by the Company. The annual limit on these costs for the Chief Executive Officer is $10,000, and for the other designated executive officers is $5,000. The cost to the Company for this reimbursement to certain of the named executive officers is included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

 

Change of Control and Employment Agreements

 

Mr. Goldner, Mr. Hargreaves and Mr. Nagler, are party to Change in Control Agreements with the Company. In addition, Mr. Goldner is party to an additional agreement with the Company governing his employment and providing certain post-termination benefits and payments. Mr. Verrecchia is also party to a post-employment agreement with the Company providing certain enhanced benefits. Mr. Hargreaves is party to an agreement grandfathering certain aspects of the Company’s pension plans for him. All of these agreements, and the payments which the executive can receive in certain situations, are described in detail under the caption “Agreements and Arrangements Providing Post-Employment and Change in Control Benefits” that follows this report. The Committee authorizes the Company to enter into Change of Control or other employment related agreements with executives only in those situations where the Committee feels doing so is necessary to recruit and/or retain the most talented executives and to provide optimal incentive to the executive in question to work to maximize the performance of the Company and the creation of long-term value for the Company’s shareholders. The change in control provisions in these agreements are generally double-trigger provisions in that the executive officer receives benefits under the agreements only if, following a change in control, the individual executive officer is either terminated by the Company without cause, or leaves on account of events which qualify under the definition of good reason in the agreement. The Company believes that double-trigger change in control agreements are generally most appropriate in that an executive would only be compensated in the event that the executive was no longer employed with the Company following the change in control.

 

However, the Company’s equity compensation plans generally provide that equity awards (including performance share awards) for all participants, including the Company’s named executive officers, fully vest in the event of a change in control of the Company. The participant is entitled to receive the value of such awards either in cash or shares of the Company’s stock, determined in the Committee’s discretion, following such change in control.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

 

The following table summarizes compensation paid by the Company for services rendered during fiscal 2008, fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006 by any person serving as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer during any part of fiscal 2008, by the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and by the three other most highly compensated executive officers of the Company in fiscal 2008 (to the extent that they were executive officers during the year in question).

 

Summary Compensation Table

 

 

 

 

		2008
Brian Goldner		$	7,751
Alfred J. Verrecchia		$	19,563
David D.R. Hargreaves		$	5,255
Barry Nagler		$	3,994
Duncan Billing		$	2,102

 

 

		2008				2007				2006
Brian Goldner		$	(81,061	)		$	22,381			$	74,680
Alfred J. Verrecchia		$	(1,012,797	)		$	313,361			$	281,302
David D.R. Hargreaves		$	(1,041,047	)		$	170,191			$	325,666
Barry Nagler		$	5,029			$	10,699			$	8,568
Duncan Billing		$	(106,294	)			N/A				N/A
John Frascotti		$	0				N/A				N/A

 

 

		2008				2007				2006
Brian Goldner		$	0			$	0			$	0
Alfred J. Verrecchia		$	7,850			$	10,000			$	9,500
David D.R. Hargreaves		$	3,000			$	5,000			$	5,000
Barry Nagler		$	5,000			$	5,000			$	0
Duncan Billing		$	0				N/A				N/A
John Frascotti		$	0				N/A				N/A

 

 

		2008				2007				2006
Brian Goldner		$	332,077			$	173,913			$	101,590
Alfred J. Verrecchia,		$	288,000			$	252,000			$	150,000
David D.R. Hargreaves		$	129,623			$	78,000			$	50,654
Barry Nagler		$	106,039			$	58,500			$	46,500
Duncan Billing		$	87,461				N/A				N/A
John Frascotti		$	24,764				N/A				N/A

 

* * *

 

The following table sets forth certain information regarding grants of plan-based awards for fiscal 2008 to the named executive officers.

 

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

 

 

 

 

* * *

The following table sets forth information for equity awards held by the named individuals as of the end of the Company’s 2008 fiscal year.

 

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

 

 

 

* * *

The following table sets forth information concerning aggregate option exercises and vesting of restricted stock during the 2008 fiscal year for the named executive officers.

 

Option Exercises and Stock Vested