In both a recent comment letter to the SEC and an article in the Financial Times’ Agenda, Baker McKenzie partners Jennifer Broder and Peter Chan argue that treating executive security expenses as perquisites is outdated and may create unnecessary safety risks by prompting companies to reveal details about the scope of an executive’s protection at a time of heightened physical and geopolitical threats.
In the article, Jennifer, a Corporate and M&A Partner in Baker McKenzie’s Transactional Practice, emphasizes that executive security should be viewed as a critical safeguard, not a traditional perquisite, particularly given how the line between personal and professional activity has blurred since the rules were introduced in 2006. Peter, a Partner in Baker McKenzie's SEC Enforcement Practice, points to a rapidly evolving threat landscape, reinforcing that security measures are a core component of corporate risk management. Their comments underscore the need for disclosure rules that balance transparency with the safety of executives and the broader interests of companies.
Read the full article in Agenda.
Read more in Jennifer and Peter’s comment letter to the SEC.
Read about their earlier written submission to the SEC on this topic.