Photo of William Woolston

William Woolston

Will Woolston helps employers solve tough employee benefits and executive compensation problems. Will is a partner in the firm’s Washington office whose practice focuses on all aspects of global employee benefits and executive compensation for companies of all sizes in a variety of industries, including specialty chemicals and performance materials, disruptive technology, defense and aerospace, gaming and entertainment, and sports.

Will offers a practical approach to employers facing challenging decisions and transactions that impact their officers, executives, employees, and retirees. His approach and perspective developed over many years of close, day-to-day relationships with counsel and staff at major multinationals. In addition, Will provides an insider's view and appreciation of the challenges facing in-house counsel, having once served as seconded corporate counsel to one of the largest U.S. defense contractors.

Although best described as a generalist in the employee benefits and executive compensation space, Will’s practice focuses significantly on the following areas:

  • Tax-qualified retirement plans, with a particular emphasis on cash balance and pension equity plans
  • Domestic U.S. and global equity incentive programs.
  • Corporate transactions and post-closing workforce integration
  • Executive employment agreements, retention and bonus agreements, and other similar incentives

Will was named a 2020 Law360 Rising Star in Employee Benefits.

Contact:Read more about William WoolstonEmail

Mandatory gender pay gap reporting is new to Ireland and is likely to attract media attention and potential comparisons, particularly for multinational and higher profile companies.  Deciding how best to communicate the gender pay gap – if it exists – will be important in averting any particular anxieties which may…

Continue Reading New Gender Pay Gap Reporting – Deadlines Loom in Ireland

On August 25, 2022, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a final rule requiring new disclosures for public companies regarding the relationship between executive compensation and company performance. Among other things, companies are now required to develop a new table that discloses multi-year compensation data side-by-side with prescribed…

Continue Reading SEC Adopts “Pay Versus Performance” Disclosure Rule

Earlier this week, the IRS issued long-awaited proposed regulations under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Our colleagues at Covington’s Tax Reporting & Withholding Blog published a comprehensive summary and analysis of the proposed regulations.  As you will see, the proposed regulations fell short of proposing workable solutions for…
Continue Reading IRS Proposes Sweeping § 162(m) Regulations

In October, the U.S. Department of Labor released a proposed rule that would increase plan administrators’ ability to make certain required ERISA pension disclosures through electronic, rather than paper, delivery.  Below is a summary of the proposed rule with some highlights on aspects of the proposal that have been questioned by interested parties and might be changed.
Continue Reading DOL Proposal for Electronic Disclosure of ERISA Pension Documents

On August 20, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp. that a 401(k) plan’s mandatory arbitration clause was enforceable in relation to a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought under ERISA § 502(a)(2).  No. 18-15281 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019).  This is the first case in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that such fiduciary breach claims could be arbitrated.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Opens the Door to Arbitration in ERISA Fiduciary Breach Claims

This article originally appeared in Law360.

Companies have had a lot to digest since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TJCA”) late last year.  But for executive compensation attorneys and professionals who work with or advise public companies, the elimination of the tax deduction for performance-based compensation under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code was perhaps the most significant change brought about by tax reform.  Since then, the changes to section 162(m) have been top of mind for everyone involved with structuring executive compensation arrangements and strategies at public companies.

Among the many questions companies face following the changes to section 162(m) is whether to continue seeking periodic shareholder approval for the performance criteria under their incentive plans.  Before tax reform, companies were generally able to deduct performance-based compensation if, among other things, the performance criteria used in the arrangement were approved by shareholder vote at least once every five years.  The repeal of the performance-based compensation exception eliminated this requirement.  However, there may be other reasons why companies might opt to continue seeking shareholder approval, even if it will no longer allow the compensation to be deductible.

We researched what large public companies decided to do this year with regard to shareholder approval of their performance criteria by reviewing the most recent proxy statements filed by S&P 100 companies.  We discovered that most companies that under pre-TJCA law would have been scheduled to seek shareholder approval for their performance criteria (because they had previously done so five years ago) elected not to do so this year.  Although a limited data set, these findings may be instructive for other public companies who are considering how to approach this matter in future years.Continue Reading Incentive Plans and Shareholder Approval After Tax Reform

[This article was originally published in Law360.]

As U.S. companies expand internationally, they often wish to compensate their non-U.S. employees with stock options, restricted stock, phantom stock and other forms of equity compensation. But offering equity compensation to non-U.S. employees is not as straightforward as it may sound, and is often more complicated than it is at home. U.S. companies venturing into the world of global equity compensation confront a complex, cross-border web of rules and regulations, which can vary markedly from country to country.

In this article, we highlight five critical questions that can help U.S. companies navigate common legal pitfalls in the global equity space. These questions focus on some of the most rapidly evolving areas of law, including securities, exchange controls, data privacy, tax and foreign account reporting, and labor and employment.Continue Reading 5 Questions You Should Ask About Your Global Equity Awards

A new post on Covington’s eHealth blog discusses HIPAA-related provisions in the Twenty-First Century Cures Act, signed by President Obama on December 13.   These provisions direct HHS to consider HIPAA’s effects on mental health treatment and the availability of health data for research purposes.  Read the full post here.
Continue Reading Twenty-First Century Cures Act Includes HIPAA Provisions

The federal government has been encouraging employers to adopt best practices to address both external and internal threats to critical business information and infrastructure. These best practices have included an important human resources element, including policies and programs covering current and former employees.

For example, the Obama Administration opened its initiative to combat trade secret theft with a report that listed human resources policies as one of four areas in which employers need to adopt best practices. Similarly, the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the recently published Best Practices for Victim Response and Reporting of Cyber Incidents developed by the U.S. Department of Justice include multiple recommendations regarding human resources policies needed to manage cybersecurity risks. As we have noted before, employees can be among the best protectors of employers’ critical information, or its worst threat.Continue Reading Will Cybersecurity Best Practices Morph into Cyber Mandates?