DTZ’s former chief executive will still take a £700,000 bonus despite leaving ahead of the expected sale of the business.
The UK Listing Authority has intervened because of a lack of clarity in DTZ’s reporting of Idzik’s remuneration package, it emerged in a statement from the firm today.
The firm said this morning that based on a £400,000 annual salary in his original 2008 contract, Paul Idzik will receive this amount times 1.75, following his resignation, announced on 9 August.
Idzik quit following protracted takeover talks with the agent’s major shareholder Saint George Participations.
However, there had been confusion over how much he would receive because the bonus was originally said to be conditional on a change of control of the business. The issue was further clouded becuase Idzik took a pay cut in 2009 to £300,000.
It has now emerged that the terms of Idzik’s contract were changed to allow him to take the bonus without a change of control.
The agent said today that it was possible it would face further action from the UKLA over its reporting of the remuneration.
The firm said in a statement that Idkik’s original contract, dated 25 October 2008 (as amended on 11 December 2008), provided for a payment of 1.75 times the amount of 12 months’ base salary in the event of cessation of his employment following a change of control of the company.
‘However at the time of publishing the directors’ remuneration report, Idzik’s contract had been amended, such that the circumstances in which he would be eligible for a payment of 1.75 times the amount of 12 months’ base salary were widened, to include a cessation of his employment for any reason, other than a situation in which he was deemed to be a bad leaver or was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct,’ DTZ said.
The report did not take account of the amendment and so did not describe these additional circumstances in which the payment could be made.
DTZ added: “The company takes its disclosure obligations very seriously and regrets this oversight. The board has investigated the reasons for this oversight and taken steps intended to ensure it is not repeated.”
