Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )

☑

Filed by the Registrant

☐

Filed by a party other than the Registrant

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX:
☐		Preliminary Proxy Statement
☐		Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
☑		Definitive Proxy Statement
☐		Definitive Additional Materials
☐		Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12

SL Green Realty Corp.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY):
☑		No fee required
☐		Fee paid previously with preliminary materials
☐		Fee computed on table in exhibit required by Item 25(b) per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11

---

Table of Contents

---

Table of Contents

LETTER TO STOCKHOLDERS

Dear Fellow Stockholders,

As New York City emerges stronger than ever, we are incredibly proud to be on the front lines of the city’s resilience. SL Green has been an integral force pushing the City’s advancement in numerous ways, from precipitating the long-awaited revival of East Midtown with the introduction of One Vanderbilt’s sustainable office space and extensive transit improvements, to continuing to address food insecurity through Food1st, in partnership with Chef Daniel Boulud and local New York City restaurants. Despite the lingering impacts of the pandemic, the entire SL Green team has been 100% in the office since June 2020, maintaining their focus on building long-term value, which benefits our stockholders, our tenants, our employees, and our community.

Stockholder feedback is central to the Board’s decision process and has been fundamental in evolving the company’s governance. Following director engagement with many of SL Green’s top stockholders in the fall and winter of 2021, in March 2022 we welcomed Carol N. Brown as an Independent Director to SL Green’s Board of Directors, adding diversity of background, experience and skills. Ms. Brown brings with her decades of talent and experience in the areas of land use planning, real estate transactions and law. Additionally, the Compensation Committee responded to stockholder feedback by reaffirming our commitment to the pre-pandemic, performance-based executive compensation structure, which stockholders have supported given its strong alignment with their interests.

Our focus on sustainability and green initiatives has been leading-edge since we formed the team dedicated to these efforts 15 years ago. Now, One Vanderbilt represents the next generation of development and has been recognized as the most sustainable commercial building in New York City, with Urban Land Institute New York’s “Award for Excellence in Development.” It is also on track to be the first large-scale development project in New York City to achieve WELL Platinum certification for its focus on the wellbeing of the thousands of people who work in the building. We are also excited for SL Green’s next chapter of sustainable development at One Madison, which will incorporate and expand on all the lessons learned from our prior developments.

We continue to meet stakeholder demand for enhanced transparency of our ESG program. This year, we disclosed our approach to climate risk management by publishing our first stand-alone TCFD report, addressing climate resilience. Our status as an industry leader in ESG is validated by our performance on GRESB, where we achieved a 5-Star Rating, marking us as one of the most sustainable real estate companies globally, and have received the ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Sustained Excellence award, achieved by less than one percent of the 16,000 U.S. EPA partners.

The SL Green board has worked tirelessly alongside the entire SL Green executive team to emerge from the tumult of the last two years with a stronger, more resilient portfolio and we remain committed to employing business strategies in a responsible way that deliver the most value to our stockholders.

Sincerely,

John H. Alschuler		Betsy S. Atkins		Carol N. Brown
Lead Independent Director		Independent Director		Independent Director
Edwin T. Burton, III		Lauren B. Dillard		Stephen L. Green
Independent Director		Independent Director		Director
Craig M. Hatkoff		Marc Holliday		John S. Levy
Independent Director		Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer		Independent Director
Andrew W. Mathias
President and Director

---

Table of Contents

1

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS IN 2021

Over the last few years, our Compensation Committee has embarked on a robust stockholder outreach program. That feedback has served as a key input to compensation design and structural upgrades implemented since 2018. The success of the engagement program is evidenced by the significant changes adopted as a direct result of the feedback received, and the significant increase in stockholder support in 2019 and 2020.

The Committee was disappointed by the 2021 advisory vote on executive compensation (“Say on Pay”) but remains committed to understanding stockholder sentiment. In response, the Committee reached out to investors several months earlier than in prior years to ensure that any actionable feedback received could be better incorporated into Compensation Committee discussions and decisions for 2022 and beyond.

In the fall and winter of 2021, we contacted stockholders collectively representing 65% of outstanding shares, and had substantive conversations with stockholders representing 50% of outstanding shares. Directors participated in several stockholder discussions, as well as in conversations with both proxy advisors. The majority of calls were led by the Chairs of the Compensation or Nominating and Corporate Governance committees.

 

The table below summarizes the feedback received during the post-2021 annual meeting outreach and actions taken in response:

 

Feedback Theme	Specific Topics	Stockholder Feedback (“What We Heard”)	Action (“What We Did”)
Executive Compensation	Overall Compensation Philosophy	Stockholders support our pre-pandemic compensation structure that focused on performance-based pay elements	The Compensation Committee has reaffirmed its commitment to our pre-pandemic compensation structure
	2021 Vote Discussion	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 consistently indicated they did so primarily because they disagreed with the isolated decision to grant additional time-based equity	2021 compensation is approximately 90% at-risk for all of our named executive officers, and performance-based incentives are in line with pre-pandemic percentages
	Approach to Future Pandemic-Related Business Disruption	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 wanted to understand the Compensation Committee’s approach to incentive compensation, in light of the unpredictability of the COVID-19 virus	The Committee and Board agree that in a similarly highly disruptive event to the business, feedback from stockholder engagement and discussions with proxy advisors will inform the approach taken with respect to the treatment of incentive compensation
	Design of compensation program	Stockholders confirmed strong support for actions taken since 2018 to simplify the pay elements and strengthen the alignment of pay and performance	Executives’ employment agreements renewed at the end of 2021 were substantially identical to the agreements redesigned in 2018, further confirming the Compensation Committee’s commitment to our pre-pandemic compensation structure
Corporate Governance	Board racial/ ethnic diversity	Stockholders requested the addition of qualified directors who would enhance the racial/ethnic diversity on the Board	Appointed Carol N. Brown, a law professor with expertise in real estate law, to the SLG Board effective March 4, 2022
	Board succession planning	Stockholders requested disclosure of Board succession planning	Terminating retainer for Chairman Emeritus effective December 31, 2023, with interim reductions commencing January 1, 2022; Planned retirement of Director John Levy at 2023 annual meeting of stockholders
	Director-by-director skills matrix	Stockholders encouraged the inclusion of a director-by-director skills matrix instead of aggregate board skills matrix	Enhanced disclosure of board skills by including a director-by-director skills matrix in the 2022 proxy statement
ESG	ESG Disclosure	Stockholders commended our “spot on” disclosure as being “industry-leading”	Published 2021 ESG report in accordance with GRI, CDP, GRESB, SASB, TCFD frameworks, and UN SDG guidelines and first standalone TCFD Report

---

Table of Contents

2	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

2022 PROXY STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

ROADMAP OF VOTING MATTERS

	Election of Directors
	●   The Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, has nominated 10 directors for re-election to serve until the 2023 annual meeting of stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualify.			The Board recommends a vote FOR each Nominee. SEE PAGE 9 ►
	John H. Alschuler	Lauren B. Dillard	Marc Holliday
	Betsy S. Atkins	Stephen L. Green	John S. Levy
	Carol N. Brown	Craig M. Hatkoff	Andrew W. Mathias
	Edwin T. Burton, III
	●   Our nominees represent a Board that has a diversity of knowledge, skills and experience, as well as diversity of age, gender and outlook.
	●   Each nominee has key skills that we believe are valuable to the effective oversight of the Company and the execution of our strategy.
	Advisory Approval of Executive Compensation   ●   At the heart of our executive compensation philosophy is a commitment to variable, incentive-based pay that strives to align stockholder value with the economic interests of our management team.   ●   We believe that our executive compensation programs provide appropriate performance-based incentives to attract and retain leadership talent in the highly competitive New York City real estate market, to align management and stockholder interests and to continue to drive our long-term track record of superior return to stockholders.			The Board recommends a vote FOR this proposal. SEE PAGE 41 ►
	Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   ●   The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed the accounting firm of Ernst & Young LLP to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022.   ●   The Audit Committee and the Board believe that the continued appointment of Ernst & Young LLP is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders.			The Board recommends a vote FOR this proposal. SEE PAGE 78 ►
	Approval of our Fifth Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Option and Incentive Plan   ●   On April 21, 2022, the Board voted to amend and restate our Fourth Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Fourth Amended 2005 Plan”) to increase the number of shares available for issuance.   ●   The number of additional shares requested under our Fifth Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Fifth Amended 2005 Plan”) is reasonable: 5,180,000 fungible units is equal to 2,000,000 full value awards.   ●   We believe that having an equity plan in place with a sufficient number of shares is critical to our ability to attract, retain and motivate employees in a highly competitive marketplace and ensure that our executive compensation is structured in a manner to align our executives’ interests with our stockholders.			The Board recommends a vote FOR this proposal. SEE PAGE 80 ►

---

Table of Contents

2022 PROXY STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

3

 

BUSINESS OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS

---

Table of Contents

4	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

STOCKHOLDER-FRIENDLY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

SL Green has a history of strong corporate governance and stockholder-friendly practices.

 

 

---

Table of Contents

2022 PROXY STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

5

Compensation Program Highlights

Simplified Pay Elements with Continued Emphasis on At-Risk Compensation

 

Updated in recent years and aligned with stockholder feedback, our compensation structure now includes just four pay elements:

 

	Pay Element	Key Characteristics
	Annual Base Salary	Represents the only fixed component
	Annual Cash Bonus	Determined 100% formulaically for both our CEO and President based on weightings that directly correspond to our strategy
	Performance-Based Equity Awards	Awards are 50% based on performance against annual operating goals, subject to a modifier based on absolute TSR over a three-year performance period Awards are 50% based on relative TSR over a three-year performance period
	Time-Based Equity Awards	Multi-year time-based equity awards that vest based on continued service, and are subject to a no-sell restriction for three years after grant date

 

Reaffirmed Commitment to Performance-Based Executive Compensation Philosophy

 

In direct response to stockholder feedback received during our 2021 fall and winter outreach to stockholders, the Compensation Committee has reaffirmed its commitment to our pre-pandemic executive compensation structure. At the heart of our executive compensation philosophy is a commitment to variable, incentive-based pay that aligns stockholder value with the economic interests of our management team. For 2021, approximately 72% of our CEO’s compensation and approximately 64% of the annual compensation paid to our other named executive officers was in the form of multi-year time-based and performance-based equity grants.

 

Majority of 2021 Pay at Risk

 

---

Table of Contents

6	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

 

ESG HIGHLIGHTS

 

 

ESG Oversight & Business Integration   ●   ESG program oversight by the full Board, reflective of the program’s cross-departmental integration and importance to the Company’s long-term strategic plan ●   ESG program’s internal execution team is cross-functional with executive-level participation, including SL Green’s Chief Operating Officer, SVP, Director of Sustainability & Hospitality, and SVP of Human Resources ●   ESG platform is integrated throughout SL Green’s business, which has led to effective risk-management practices that influence corporate strategy and decision-making			Our disclosures are in line with the GRI, CDP, GRESB, SASB, and TCFD reporting frameworks and UN SDG guidelines   ●   SASB Disclosures since 2020, consistent with data reported to GRESB ●   TCFD signatory in 2021 along with issuance of first formal TCFD report ●   Annual ESG Report in accordance with GRI standards framework and CRE supplement ●   Third-party assurance of environmental performance data

 

Key ESG Achievements

 

ESG Risk Rating Top 15% of Most Favorable 2019–2021		Green Star 2019–2021 “A” Rating on Public Disclosure 2017–2021		FTSE4Good Index Constituent 2020–2021
91st Percentile among Global Peers Assessed		Top 25% of all Residential & Commercial REITs		R-Factor™ Score Outperformer 2020–2021
One Vanderbilt - 2021 ULI New York Award for Excellence in Development		One Vanderbilt — Only building worldwide to achieve LEED v3 Platinum and v4 Gold simultaneously		One Vanderbilt – Smart Building of the Year
Partner of the Year 2015–2016, 2018–2021 Sustained Excellence 2018–2021		Gold Level 2020		Changemaker Award 2018–2021

---

Table of Contents

SL GREEN REALTY CORP. One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, New York 10017-3852

 

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

 

		Date & Time			Location			Record Date
		June 1, 2022 10:00 AM, Eastern Time			The auditorium at One Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York			March 31, 2022

 

Dear Stockholder:

 

You are invited to attend the 2022 annual meeting of stockholders of SL Green Realty Corp., a Maryland corporation, which will be held on June 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Time in the auditorium at One Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York. We strongly encourage you to vote your shares by proxy prior to the annual meeting.

 

Items of Business - the annual meeting will be held for the following purposes:

 

To elect the ten director nominees named in the proxy statement to serve on the Board of Directors for a one-year term and until their successors are duly elected and qualify PAGE 9 ►		To hold an advisory vote on executive compensation PAGE 41 ►		To ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 PAGE 78 ►		To approve the Fifth Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Option and Incentive Plan PAGE 80 ►
	Vote FOR		Vote FOR		Vote FOR		Vote FOR

---

Table of Contents

8

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

---

Table of Contents

9

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

---

Table of Contents

10	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

INFORMATION REGARDING THE DIRECTOR NOMINEES

The following table, matrix and biographical descriptions set forth certain information with respect to the nominees for election as directors at the 2022 annual meeting, based upon information furnished by each director.

Other Current Public Board

Committee Memberships

Name

Directorships

Age

Independent

Director Since

AC

CC

NCGC

EC

John H. Alschuler

●  Xenia Hotels and Resorts ●  The Macerich Company

74

1997

M

M

Betsy S. Atkins

●  Wynn Resorts Ltd.

68

2015

M

M

Carol N. Brown

52

2022

M

Edwin T. Burton, III

79

1997

C

M

Lauren B. Dillard

46

2016

M

C

Stephen L. Green

84

1997

M

Craig M. Hatkoff

●  Jaguar Global Growth Corporation I

68

2011

M

C

Marc Holliday

55

2001

C

John S. Levy

86

1997

M

M

Andrew W. Mathias

48

2014

 

C = Chair	AC = Audit Committee	NCGC = Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
M = Member	CC = Compensation Committee	EC = Executive Committee

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

11

The matrix below represents some of the key skills that our Board has identified as particularly valuable to the effective oversight of the Company and the execution of our strategy. This matrix highlights the depth and breadth of skills of our directors.

Skills, Experiences and Attributes

Alschuler

Atkins

Brown

Burton, III

Dillard

Green

Hatkoff

Holliday

Levy

Mathias

Executive Leadership

Finance/Capital Markets

Risk Management

Public Company Board Service/Corporate Governance

REIT/Real Estate Industry

Experience Over Several Business Cycles

Talent Management

Academia

Accounting

Government/Regulatory Experience

Technology/Cybersecurity

Diversity

Our Board currently includes three female directors, including one racially/ethnically diverse director.

---

Table of Contents

12	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Director Nominees

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	13

---

Table of Contents

14	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	15

---

Table of Contents

16	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	17

---

Table of Contents

18	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	19

---

Table of Contents

20	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	21

---

Table of Contents

22	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Board Refreshment and Diversity

Led by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Board engages in ongoing director succession planning, including a focus on refreshing the membership and leadership of the Board and its Committees and enhancing the level of diversity. In January 2019, the leadership of the Board was transitioned from Stephen L. Green, our founder and Chairman of the Board for over 20 years, to Marc Holliday, who also serves as our Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Green continues to serve as a director and as our Chairman Emeritus.

In March 2022, we added Carol N. Brown to our Board as an independent director. With her addition, three of our directors are women, including one racially/ethnically diverse director. We continue seeking to further enhance the diversity of perspectives on the Board, potentially through additional directors that contribute ethnic/racial diversity. As part of our Board succession planning, contingent upon his election at our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders, Mr. Levy will retire from our Board at our 2023 annual meeting of stockholders.

		Diversity			Experience			Leadership
		Our Board has a diversity of knowledge, skills and experience, as well as diversity of age, gender and outlook			Our Board members have broad experience serving on public boards in industries relevant to the Company			Our Board members have strong corporate leadership backgrounds such as being CEO, CFO or holding other Executive positions
		43%			60%			90%
		of our independent Board members are diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity			of our Board currently serve or have served on the Boards of other publicly traded companies			of our Board currently serve or have served as CEO or in senior leadership positions

Identification of Director Candidates

HOW WE IDENTIFY AND CONSIDER DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS

	Identify Potential Candidates		Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee solicits and considers suggestions from our directors and management regarding possible nominees. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also may procure the services of outside sources or third parties to assist in the identification of director candidates. Candidates may also be identified by stockholders.
	In-Depth Committee Review		The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: ●  Considers experience, qualifications, and diversity, including ethnic/racial diversity ●  Meets with candidates and conducts interviews —   In considering a potential nominee, each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has the opportunity to interview potential nominees in person or by telephone and to submit questions to such potential candidate. ●  Review independence and potential conflicts
	Recommend Candidates to Full Board		The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee presents potential candidates to full Board for open discussion.
	Review by Full Board		The full Board is responsible for approving potential candidates.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

23

NCGC Director Recruitment Process

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee assists the Board in identifying and reviewing director candidates and recommends director nominees to the Board to be considered for election at our annual meeting of stockholders. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee adopted a written policy on the criteria and process of identifying and reviewing director candidates. Each director candidate must have:

1.	education and experience that provides knowledge of business, financial, governmental or legal matters that are relevant to the Company’s business or to its status as a publicly owned company;
2.	an unblemished reputation for integrity;
3.	a reputation for exercising good business judgment; and
4.	sufficient available time to be able to fulfill his or her responsibilities as a member of the Board and of any committees to which he or she may be appointed.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ensures that the potential nominee is not an employee or agent of and does not serve on the board of directors or similar managing body of any of our competitors and determines whether the potential nominee has an interest in any transactions to which we are a party.

In making recommendations to the Board, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also considers such factors as it deems appropriate, in light of the skills, qualifications and background of the Board’s current composition and the opportunities and challenges the Board anticipates in the future. Such factors include diversity of perspectives, including with respect to gender, race and ethnicity. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may also consider the following:

●	the candidate’s industry knowledge and experience;
●	any actual or potential conflicts of interest and whether the candidate meets the NYSE independence criteria;
●	the extent to which the candidate generally would be a desirable addition to the Board and any committees of the Board;
●	qualifications to serve on appropriate Board committees (including financial acumen);
●	technological literacy;
●	strategic insight;
●	ability to introduce the Company to business or other opportunities;
●	reputation in the corporate governance community;
●	risk management skills; and
●	the candidate’s knowledge in the area of cybersecurity.

Most recently, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee engaged Spencer Stuart to help us identify potential nominees to our Board and requested that Spencer Stuart present diverse candidates in their slate of recommendations, including gender and ethnic/racial diversity. We appointed Carol N. Brown to our Board in March 2022.

Role of Third Party Advisors in Director Recruitment Process

FTI Consulting, Inc., or FTI Consulting, and Spencer Stuart have assisted us in the initial search, screening, interviewing and vetting of potential new directors. FTI Consulting worked closely with our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in connection with the additions of Craig Hatkoff in 2011, Betsy S. Atkins in 2015 and Lauren B. Dillard in 2016, and Spencer Stuart worked closely with our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in connection with the addition of Carol N. Brown in 2022 (who was initially recommended for consideration by Mr. Burton).

Stockholder Recommendations of Director Candidates

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may consider director candidates recommended by our stockholders. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will apply the same standards in considering candidates submitted by stockholders as it does in evaluating all other candidates. Any recommendations by stockholders are to follow the procedures outlined under “Other Information—Other Matters—Stockholder Proposals and Nominations” in this proxy statement and should provide the reasons supporting a candidate’s recommendation, the candidate’s qualifications and the candidate’s written consent to being considered as a director nominee.

---

Table of Contents

24	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD STRUCTURE AND INDEPENDENCE

Board Leadership Structure

The Board currently consists of ten members. The current leadership structure of the Board consists of Marc Holliday, who serves as the Chairman of the Board and our Chief Executive Officer, John Alschuler, who serves as our Lead Independent Director, and the independent directors who serve as Chairs for the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board. With over 17 years of experience leading the Company, Mr. Holliday is uniquely qualified to serve as the Chairman of the Board, and the Board believes that Mr. Holliday’s combined role as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, together with the participation of other members of management and independent directors in its leadership structure, helps promote unified leadership and direction for the Company and the Board while also ensuring appropriate independent oversight of management by the Board.

Lead Independent Director

The Board believes that having a Lead Independent Director improves the overall functioning of the Board and strengthens the ability of the independent directors to effectively exercise independent oversight of management during periods when the Chairman of the Board is not an independent director. The Lead Independent Director is appointed by the independent directors on the Board, and has a number of responsibilities that help facilitate communication among our independent directors and between our independent directors and our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, and ensure appropriate independent oversight of management by the Board.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

25

Board and Committee Self-Evaluations

The Board believes that good governance can only be achieved through rigorous self-evaluation. Each year, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee establishes formal self-assessment procedures that are consistent with our Governance Principles, NYSE listing requirements and best practices identified during prior self-evaluations. The Board also engages with stockholders and third party advisers throughout the year to discuss corporate governance practices, and to ensure that the Board and its committees follow practices that are optimal for the Company and its stockholders while also delivering superior total return.

Board Evaluation Process

Initiate Process NCGC establishes Board and committee self-evaluation process, including incorporation of process improvements from previous review cycles		Conduct Evaluation Directors meet to formally discuss the functioning of the Board and any committees on which they serve to identify areas for improvement. Independent directors meet separately with outside counsel.		Implement Conclusions The Board and each committee implement proposed governance improvements with assistance of management and third party advisors, as needed

Director Independence

Our Governance Principles provide that a majority of our directors serving on the Board must be independent as required by the listing standards of the NYSE. In addition, the Board adopted director independence standards that assist the Board in making its determinations with respect to the independence of directors. The Board has reviewed all relevant facts and circumstances and considered all applicable relationships of which the Board had knowledge, between or among the directors and the Company or our management (some of such relationships are described in the section of this proxy statement entitled “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions”). Based upon this review, the Board has determined that each of the following directors and director nominees has no direct or indirect material relationship with us and is independent under the listing standards of the NYSE and our director independence standards: Mses. Betsy S. Atkins, Carol N. Brown and Lauren B. Dillard and Messrs. John H. Alschuler, Edwin T. Burton, III, Craig M. Hatkoff and John S. Levy. The Board has determined that Messrs. Stephen L. Green, Marc Holliday and Andrew W. Mathias, our three other directors, are not independent.

Executive Sessions of Non-Management Directors

Our Governance Principles require the non-management directors serving on the Board to meet in an executive session at least annually without the presence of any directors or other persons who are part of our management. In accordance with such requirement, the independent directors meet in executive sessions from time to time on such a basis. The executive sessions are regularly chaired by our Lead Independent Director.

---

Table of Contents

26	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Communications with the Board

We have a process by which stockholders and/or other parties may communicate with the Board, individual directors (including the independent directors) or independent directors as a group. Any such communications may be sent to the Board or any named individual director (including the independent directors), by U.S. mail or overnight delivery and should be directed to Andrew S. Levine, Secretary, at SL Green Realty Corp., One Vanderbilt Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10017-3852. Mr. Levine forwards all such communications to the intended recipient or recipients. Any such communications may be made anonymously.

Director Attendance

The Board held five meetings during fiscal year 2021, and all directors attended 75% or more of the Board meetings and meetings of the committees on which they served during the periods they served during fiscal year 2021, with the exception of Ms. Atkins who attended 67% of meetings held during 2021. Ms. Atkins’s absences were due primarily to an illness in December 2021, which caused her to be unable to attend both a meeting of the Board and a meeting of the Audit Committee held on the same day, as well as emergency family circumstances arising during the course of 2021 that rendered her unable to attend additional meetings of the Audit Committee. Ms. Atkins has a long history of diligent service on not only our Board but also the boards of numerous other public companies. Notwithstanding her absences, Ms. Atkins was an engaged and valuable member of our Board during 2021, and we believe Ms. Atkins’s reduced attendance during 2021 to be an anomaly resulting from illness and other unforeseeable impediments that Ms. Atkins does not expect will recur in the future. In addition to participating in formal meetings, our Board members regularly communicate with each other, members of management and advisors and take action by written consent.

We encourage each member of the Board to attend each annual meeting of stockholders. Two of our directors attended the annual meeting of stockholders held on June 8, 2021.

BOARD COMMITTEES

The Board has four standing committees: an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and an Executive Committee. The current charters for each of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are available on our corporate website at www.slgreen.com under the “Investors—Corporate Governance” section. Further, we will provide a copy of these charters without charge to each stockholder upon written request. Requests for copies should be addressed to Andrew S. Levine, Secretary, at SL Green Realty Corp., One Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York 10017-3852. From time to time, the Board also may create additional committees for such purposes as the Board may determine.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	27

---

Table of Contents

28	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	29

 

---

Table of Contents

30	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance Highlights

Board Independence and Composition ●  Majority independent Board and 100% independent Nominating and Corporate Governance, Audit and Compensation Committees ●  Lead Independent Director role with robust responsibilities	Board and Board Committee Practices ●  Board and committee self-evaluations ●  Risk oversight by full Board and Audit Committee ●  ESG oversight ●  Robust stockholder engagement	Stockholder Rights ●  Annual election of all directors ●  Proxy access bylaw provision ●  Majority voting standard for director elections

Board Oversight of Strategy

One of the most important functions of the Board relates to its role in formulating and overseeing the execution of our business strategy. In order to do this the Board:

●	actively participates with management in the formulation and refinement of our business strategy to help ensure that our strategic goals are thoughtfully constructed and well-articulated;
●	periodically meets with our management and external advisors in full day or multi-day sessions focused on long-term strategic planning;
●	no less than quarterly, receives updates from management regarding internal progress toward strategic goals and changes in market conditions and external strategic opportunities and challenges in order to assist our management in refining its business strategy and reacting to particular opportunities or challenges that arise;
●	monitors and evaluates performance through these regular updates and by actively engaging in dialogues with our senior management team;
●	discusses aspects of our business strategy at every meeting, and includes key elements of our strategy in the work performed by the committees of the Board; and
●	oversees financial and operational performance, non-financial measures, including sustainability, social and governance goals.

The Board believes that, through these ongoing efforts, it is able to focus on our performance over the short, intermediate and long term to secure the continuing health and success of the business for our stockholders.

OVERSIGHT OF STRATEGIC RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board has devoted significant time to overseeing our strategic response to the pandemic, including working with management to assess the impact of the pandemic on all aspects of our business, and guiding the Company as we enhanced and deployed our pandemic response plan.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

31

Risk Oversight

	Board The Board is responsible for overseeing the Company’s risk management process. Both directly and through its committees, the Board focuses on the Company’s general risk management strategy and the most significant risks facing the Company, and ensures that appropriate risk mitigation strategies are implemented by management. The Board is routinely apprised of particular risk management matters in connection with its general oversight and approval of corporate matters. In particular, the Board focuses on overseeing risks relating to the financial health of the Company, including the structure and amount of our debt, broad market conditions, leasing activity and expirations, status of development projects, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, succession planning and other material risks facing the Company.
	Audit Committee ●  Oversees the Company’s risk management process ●  Reviews with management (a) Company policies with respect to risk assessment and management of risks that may be material to the Company, (b) disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and (c) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements ●  Reviews major legislative and regulatory developments that could have a material impact on the Company’s contingent liabilities and risks	Compensation Committee Considers potential risks to the Company in its determinations of the overall structure of our executive compensation program, our ability to attract, retain and motivate our management team, the specific goals it establishes for our executives and the influence of incentive compensation on risk-taking	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Considers potential risks to the Company related to the composition of the board, including succession planning and diversity, environmental, social and governance matters, compliance with corporate governance guidelines and adoption of new policies and governance guidelines
	Management The Company’s management is responsible for day-to-day risk management, including the primary monitoring and testing function for company-wide policies and procedures, and management of the day-to-day oversight of the risk management strategy for the ongoing business of the Company. This oversight includes identifying, evaluating, and addressing potential risks that may exist at the enterprise, strategic, financial, operational, and compliance and reporting levels.

All committees report to the full Board as appropriate, including when a matter rises to the level of a material or enterprise level risk.

We believe the division of risk management responsibilities described above is an effective approach for addressing the risks facing the Company and that the Board leadership structure supports this approach.

---

Table of Contents

32	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Stockholder Outreach

The Board believes that engaging in stockholder outreach is an essential element of strong corporate governance. We strive for a collaborative approach to issues of importance to investors and continually seek to better understand the views of our investors on key topics.

Who We Engage Over the past several years, the chairs of the Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committees and members of our senior management team have reached out to many of our largest institutional investors.	Offered Engagement with Approximately	How We Engage We held meetings, conducted calls and otherwise engaged with investors on topics including our business strategy and executive compensation as well as governance and ESG matters.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

33

The table below summarizes the feedback received during the post-2021 annual meeting outreach and actions taken in response:

Feedback Theme	Specific Topics	Stockholder Feedback (“What We Heard”)	Action (“What We Did”)
Executive Compensation	Overall Compensation Philosophy	Stockholders support our pre-pandemic compensation structure that focused on performance-based pay elements	The Compensation Committee has reaffirmed its commitment to our pre- pandemic compensation structure
	2021 Vote Discussion	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 consistently indicated they did so primarily because they disagreed with the specific decision to grant additional time-based equity	2021 compensation is approximately 90% at-risk for all of our named executive officers, and performance-based incentives are in line with pre-pandemic percentages
	Approach to Future Pandemic-Related Business Disruption	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 wanted to understand the Compensation Committee’s approach to incentive compensation, in light of the unpredictability of the COVID-19 virus	The Committee and Board agree that in a similarly highly disruptive event to the business, feedback from stockholder engagement and discussions with proxy advisors will inform the approach taken with respect to the treatment of incentive compensation
	Design of compensation program	Stockholders confirmed strong support for actions taken since 2018 to simplify the pay elements and strengthen the alignment of pay and performance	Executives’ employment agreements renewed at the end of 2021 were substantially identical to the agreements redesigned in 2018, further confirming the Compensation Committee’s commitment to our pre-pandemic compensation structure
Corporate Governance	Board racial/ethnic diversity	Stockholders requested the addition of qualified directors who would enhance the racial/ethnic diversity on the Board	Appointed Carol N. Brown, a law professor with expertise in real estate law, to the SLG Board effective March 4, 2022
	Board succession planning	Stockholders requested disclosure of Board succession planning	Terminating retainer for Chairman Emeritus effective December 31, 2023, with interim reductions commencing January 1, 2022; Planned retirement of Director John Levy at 2023 annual meeting of stockholders
	Director-by-director skills matrix	Stockholders encouraged the inclusion of a director-by-director skills matrix instead of aggregate board skills matrix	Enhanced disclosure of board skills by including a director-by-director skills matrix in the 2022 proxy statement
ESG	ESG Disclosure	Stockholders commended our “spot on” disclosure as being “industry-leading”	Published 2021 ESG report in accordance with GRI, CDP, GRESB, SASB, TCFD frameworks, and UN SDG guidelines and first standalone TCFD Report

Stockholder Amendments to Bylaws

Our bylaws provide our stockholders the right to amend our bylaws by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. As amended, our bylaws do not place any limitations on stockholder proposals to amend our bylaws beyond the advance notice provisions that apply to all stockholder proposals. Accordingly, all of our stockholders now have the right to propose any amendments to our bylaws that are permitted by applicable law and, if any such amendment is approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, it will become effective.

---

Table of Contents

34	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Declassified Board

Our Board is fully declassified, and our directors are elected for one-year terms as of our 2020 annual meeting, following stockholder approval of our proposal to declassify our Board submitted to stockholders at the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

Proxy Access

We have adopted a proxy access bylaw provision, enabling our stockholders to include their own director nominees in our proxy materials along with candidates nominated by the Board, so long as stockholder-nominees meet certain requirements, as set forth in our bylaws. For more information on our proxy access bylaw, see the section entitled “Other Information—Other Matters—Stockholder Proposals and Nominations.

Majority Voting Standard and Director Resignation Policy

We have a majority voting standard for director elections. In an uncontested election (as is the case for this annual meeting), our bylaws provide that a majority of all the votes cast with respect to a nominee’s election is required for such nominee to be elected to serve on the Board. This means that the number of votes cast “for” a nominee must exceed the number of votes cast “against” such nominee, with abstentions and broker non-votes not counted as a vote cast either “for” or “against” a nominee. With respect to a contested election, a plurality of all of the votes cast is sufficient for the election of directors. For this purpose, a contested election is deemed to occur at any meeting of stockholders for which the Secretary determines that the number of nominees or proposed nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected at such meeting as of the seventh day preceding the date the Company files its definitive proxy statement for such meeting with the SEC (regardless of whether or not thereafter revised or supplemented).

If a nominee who currently is serving as a director receives a greater number of votes “against” his or her election than votes “for” such election in an uncontested election, Maryland law provides that the director would continue to serve on the Board as a “holdover director.” However, under our Governance Principles, any nominee for election as a director in an uncontested election who receives a greater number of votes “against” his or her election than votes “for” such election must, within ten business days following the certification of the stockholder vote, tender his or her written resignation to the Chairman of the Board for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider the resignation and, within 60 days following the date of the stockholders’ meeting at which the election occurred, will make a recommendation to the Board concerning the acceptance or rejection of the resignation.

The Board will then take formal action on the recommendation no later than 90 days following the date of the stockholders’ meeting at which the election occurred. In considering the recommendation, the Board will consider the information, factors and alternatives considered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and such additional factors, information and alternatives as the Board deems relevant. We will publicly disclose, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, the Board’s decision within four business days after the decision is made. The Board also will provide, if applicable, the Board’s reason or reasons for rejecting the tendered resignation.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

35

Environmental Social & Governance (ESG)

Our mission as the largest owner of commercial office space in New York City is to contribute to its brighter future – this includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change risks. We believe continued advancement of the sustainability of our portfolio will serve to build long-term value that benefits all of our stakeholders. Essential to our progress is the ability to attract, develop and retain extraordinary talent by maintaining a healthy and inclusive workplace environment, where we provide our employees with the tools and resources necessary to thrive.

Delivering Value for All Our Stakeholders

Employees	Tenants	Community	Shareholders
We are committed to workplace diversity and to fostering a corporate culture that enables our employees to meet their full potential, while actively contributing to our ESG evolution.	Our long-standing relationships and continued collaboration with our tenants are essential to long-term improvement of our portfolio’s ESG performance, while providing our tenants with unique offerings to track and foster sustainability.	SL Green’s success is linked to a thriving New York City. We support a variety of causes that address the physical, mental, and emotional needs of our community. We also create thousands of jobs and positive community impact.	Our ongoing ESG efforts help attract and retain diverse, high-performing talent, maximize our portfolio and give back to our NYC community, elements which are essential to delivering long-term stockholder value.

	ESG Oversight
	●  ESG program oversight by the full Board, reflective of the program’s cross-departmental integration and importance to the Company’s long-term strategic plan ●  Executive level management of ESG program, with dedicated team responsible for implementation, including the Chief Operating Officer, SVP & Director of Sustainability and VP of Human Resources ●  Annual ESG reporting in accordance with GRI, CDP, GRESB SASB and TCFD frameworks ●  ESG disclosures aligned with UN SDG guidelines ●  Third-party assurance of environmental performance data ●  Environmental legislation risk mitigated by long-term capital investments in energy efficiency and tenant programs focused on sustainability
	Environmental
	Goals: ●  Reduce the intensity of portfolio-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2025 ●  Achieve net zero carbon operations by 2050, in line with Urban Land Institute commitment ●  Achieve 50% recycling rate by 2025, in line with LEED v4 threshold ●  Reduce whole-building energy consumption by 20% by 2030 Achievements: ●  Commit to Science-Based Targets at the highest level of ambition, the 1.5-degree scenario ●  Green building certifications of 93% of Manhattan Operating Properties based on total square footage ●  LEED certified 92% of Manhattan Operating Properties ●  ENERGY STAR labels across 10.6 million square feet, representing 12% of all ENERGY STAR labels achieved in Manhattan by square footage ●  WELL Health-Safety Rating across 23 million square feet, the only NYC owner to have enrolled ●  First WELL Core Certified Platinum project in NYC, and one of the first such projects in the United States (One Vanderbilt)

---

Table of Contents

36	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

	Human Capital Management
	●  Certified as a Great Place to Work ●  Market-leading benefits program spanning healthcare, 401(k) match, employee stock purchase plan, disability and advanced fertility coverage, wellness and life insurance ●  Investments in human capital development through training programs, tuition reimbursement and ongoing education ●  Zero tolerance, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and training ●  Ethnic minorities represent 54% and women represent 39% of all SL Green employees in 2021 ●  Partnership with women’s leadership development organization, Luminary, to cultivate high potential female employees ●  19% of contractors onsite during the construction of One Vanderbilt were Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises ●  90% of employees are proud to work for SL Green, according to a 2022 employee engagement survey
	Corporate Philanthropy
	●  Corporate and employee contributions totaling $6 million across more than 70 partner organizations focused on providing New Yorkers with access to essential resources ●  Co-founded FOOD 1st to address NYC food insecurity; delivered over 700,000 meals since April 2020 ●  Employer-sponsored volunteer days, with civic opportunities chosen and coordinated by employee Community Outreach Ambassadors ●  Participation in Governor’s Committee on Scholastic Achievement, a non-for-profit that connects high school students from underperforming New York communities with corporate mentors ●  7 Dey Street, the first ground-up development in lower Manhattan to be built under the Affordable New York Housing Program

For additional information please see SL Green’s 2021 ESG Report.

Governance Principles

The Board adopted Governance Principles that address significant issues of corporate governance and set forth procedures by which the Board carries out its responsibilities. Among the areas addressed by the Governance Principles are director qualification standards, director responsibilities, director access to management and independent advisors, director compensation, director orientation and continuing education, management succession, annual performance evaluation of the Board and management responsibilities. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for, among other things, assessing and periodically reviewing the adequacy of the Governance Principles and will recommend, as appropriate, proposed changes to the Board. Although there is no one-size-fits all approach to corporate governance, we believe that our Governance Principles are aligned with the expectations of our stockholders, including the Investor Stewardship Group (ISG) and the ISG Corporate Governance Principles.

Code of Ethics

The Board adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to our directors, executive officers and employees. The Code of Ethics is designed to assist our directors, executive officers and employees in complying with legal requirements and in resolving moral and ethical issues that may arise, and in complying with our policies and procedures. Among the areas addressed by the Code of Ethics are legal compliance, conflicts of interest, use and protection of the Company’s assets, confidentiality, communications with the public, accounting matters, records retention, fair dealing, discrimination, harassment and health

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

37

and safety. We intend to disclose on our corporate website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provisions of this Code applicable to our directors and executive officers that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or the NYSE.

Whistleblowing and Whistleblower Protection Policy

We have adopted a Whistleblowing and Whistleblower Protection Policy pursuant to which our employees must report if they observe, suspect or become aware of a violation of applicable laws, regulations, or business ethics standards, and pursuant to which the Audit Committee established procedures for (1) the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the Company regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, and (2) the confidential and anonymous submission by our employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters. If you wish to contact our Audit Committee to report complaints or concerns relating to the financial reporting of the Company, you may do so in writing to the Chair of our Audit Committee, c/o Andrew S. Levine, Secretary, SL Green Realty Corp., One Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York 10017-3852. Any such communications may be made anonymously.

Additional Information

You are encouraged to visit the “Investors—Corporate Governance” section of our corporate website at www.slgreen.com to view or obtain copies of our committee charters, Code of Ethics, Governance Principles and director independence standards. The information found on, or accessible through, our website is not incorporated into, and does not form a part of, this proxy statement or any other report or document we file with, or furnish to, the SEC. You also may obtain, free of charge, a copy of the respective charters of our committees, Code of Ethics, Governance Principles and director independence standards by directing your request in writing to SL Green Realty Corp., One Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York 10017-3852, Attention: Investor Relations.

Lobbying, Political Contributions and Trade Associations

The Company believes that participation in the public policy process is an important and essential means of enhancing stockholder value. Our efforts in this area are directly overseen by our chief executive officer and periodically reviewed by the full Board and by our legal department on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

---

Table of Contents

38	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Director Compensation Process

We review our director compensation annually, including engagement of FTI Consulting to evaluate the structure and competitiveness of our non-employee director compensation and recommend changes as appropriate. Based on these reviews, since 2019, we have reduced the value of the annual stock grant to directors by $65,000, from $300,000 to $235,000, and reduced the cash retainer paid for serving as our Lead Independent Director by $15,000, from $85,000 to $70,000.

Most recently, in December 2021, the Compensation Committee again conducted a full review of our director compensation in consultation with FTI Consulting. No changes were recommended.

Elements of Director Compensation

Only non-employee Directors are compensated for service on the Board. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, the fees for non-employee Directors were:

Annual cash retainers
Cash retainer		$	50,000
Additional cash retainer if serving as the Lead Independent Director		$	70,000
Additional cash retainer if serving as a chair of the Audit Committee		$	25,000
Additional cash retainer if serving as a chair of the Compensation Committee		$	20,000
Additional cash retainer if serving as a chair of the Corporate Governance Committee		$	5,000
Meeting fees
For each meeting of the Board or a committee of the Board		$	1,500
For each special meeting of the Audit Committee held independently of Board meetings		$	4,000
Stock grant
Valued at the grant date with shares fully vested on such grant date.		$	235,000

The annual fees and meeting fees generally are payable quarterly in cash. Each director may elect to receive some or all of these fees in stock and, as noted below, may elect to defer some or all of these fees.

Under our Non-Employee Directors’ Deferral Program, our non-employee directors were entitled to elect to defer up to 100% of their annual fees, meeting fees and annual stock grant. At each director’s election, cash fees deferred under the program could be credited in the form of either phantom stock units, account credits that accrue earnings or losses based on the 30-day LIBOR rate at the beginning of each month plus 2% (or based on such other rate or the performance of such investments as may be determined in advance by the Board) or measurement fund credits that track the performance of one or more open-ended mutual funds selected by the director. Stock grants deferred under the program are credited in the form of phantom stock units. Subject to limitations contained in the program, on a fixed date each quarter, a director may convert phantom stock units into account credits or measurement fund credits or vice versa or change the mutual funds that some or all of the director’s measurement fund credits track. All cash fees credited as, and conversions of or into, phantom stock units or measurement fund credits are based on the fair market value of our common stock or the applicable mutual fund on the date the cash fees otherwise would have been paid or the date of the conversion, as applicable. Unless otherwise elected by a director, a director’s phantom stock units, account credits and measurement fund credits are payable on the earlier of the January 1st coincident with or next following the director’s termination of service from the Board, or a change in control of the Company, as defined by the program. Phantom stock units are payable in an equal number of shares of our common stock; provided that we may elect to instead settle a director’s phantom stock units by paying the director cash in an amount equal to the value of such shares of common stock. Account credits and measurement fund credits are payable in cash. Under the program, each director is entitled to receive dividend equivalents that are paid currently on the director’s phantom stock units, unless the director elected to defer payment of such dividend equivalents and have them concurrently reinvested into additional phantom stock units.

---

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

39

2021 Director Compensation

Directors of the Company who are also employees receive no additional compensation for their services as directors. The following table sets forth information regarding the compensation paid to our non-employee directors for their service during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

Name		Fees Earned or Paid in Cash(1) ($)			Stock Awards(2) ($)			Option Awards(3) ($)		All Other Compensation ($)			Total ($)
John H. Alschuler		$	129,000		$	235,000		—		—			$	364,000
Betsy S. Atkins		$	66,500		$	235,000		—		—			$	301,500
Edwin T. Burton, III		$	102,000		$	235,000		—		—			$	337,000
Lauren B. Dillard		$	125,500		$	235,000		—		—			$	360,500
Stephen L. Green		$	57,500		$	235,000		—		$	650,000(4)		$	942,500
Craig M. Hatkoff		$	82,000		$	235,000		—		—			$	317,000
John S. Levy		$	62,000		$	235,000		—		—			$	297,000

(1)	Mr. Levy and Ms. Dillard deferred all of their 2021 cash compensation and Mr. Alschuler deferred $60,000 of his 2021 cash compensation pursuant to our Non-Employee Directors’ Deferral Program. Mr. Hatkoff elected to receive $25,000 of his 2021 cash compensation in the form of shares of our common stock. Accordingly, our non-employee directors received the following shares of our common stock or phantom stock units with respect to the portion of their 2021 cash compensation that they elected to defer or receive in stock, as applicable: Mr. Alschuler received 851 units, Ms. Dillard received 2,736 units, Mr. Levy received 3,982 units and Mr. Hatkoff received 355 shares.
(2)	Amounts shown reflect the full grant date fair value on the date of grant of shares of our common stock or phantom stock units granted to the directors in 2021, excluding shares of our common stock and phantom stock units credited in lieu of annual fees and meeting fees.
(3)	There were no stock options granted to members of the Board in 2021. At December 31, 2021, the aggregate number of option awards held by our non-employee directors was as follows: Mr. Alschuler—8,500; and Mr. Levy—8,500.
(4)	Represents monthly retainer fees paid pursuant to the chairman emeritus agreement we entered into with Mr. Green in connection with his retirement as Chairman of the Company in January 2019, as amended by a letter agreement in March 2022. Under the letter agreement, Mr. Green will receive reduced monthly retainer fees for 2022 and 2023, and will cease to receive any retainer fee beginning January 1, 2024. Further information on the agreement can be found in the section entitled “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Chairman Emeritus Agreement” on page 92.

 

Since 2019, we have reduced the value of the annual stock grant to directors by $65,000 from $300,000 to $235,000 and reduced the cash retainer paid for serving as our Lead Independent Director by $15,000 from $85,000 to $70,000.

---

Table of Contents

40	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following sets forth biographical information regarding our executive officers who are not also directors.

	MATTHEW J. DILIBERTO   Chief Financial Officer Executive Officer Since: 2015 Age: 47				●  Mr. DiLiberto joined the Company in September 2004 and currently serves as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, overseeing the finance, accounting, tax, investor relations and corporate capital markets functions of the organization. ●  Mr. DiLiberto previously served as the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer & Treasurer from 2007 to 2014. ●  From June 2000 to September 2004, Mr. DiLiberto was with Roseland, New Jersey-based Chelsea Property Group, now a division of Simon Property Group, a REIT focused on the development and ownership of premium outlet centers, where he was a Controller and Director of Information Management. ●  From August 1998 to June 2000, Mr. DiLiberto worked at New York-based Vornado Realty Trust, a diversified REIT with ownership interests in office, retail, and other property types, where he worked as a Senior Financial Analyst focusing on accounting and controls as well as the preparation of high level management reports and SEC filings. ●  Prior to joining Vornado Realty Trust, Mr. DiLiberto worked as a Business Assurance Associate at Coopers and Lybrand, LLP (now PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP). ●  Mr. DiLiberto currently serves on the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust’s Best Financial Practices Council, is a member of the Board of Directors and treasurer of the FDNY Foundation, and has been a firefighter and EMT in New Jersey since 1997. ●  Mr. DiLiberto received a B.S. degree in Accounting from The University of Scranton.
	ANDREW S. LEVINE   General Counsel Executive Officer Since: 2007 Age: 63				●  Mr. Levine has served as our Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel since April 2007 and as our General Counsel, Executive Vice President and Secretary since November 2000. ●  Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Levine was a partner in the REIT and Real Estate Transactions and Business groups at the law firm of Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn, LLP. ●  Prior to joining Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn, LLP, Mr. Levine was a partner at the law firm of Dreyer & Traub. ●  Mr. Levine received a B.A. degree from the University of Vermont and a J.D. degree from Rutgers School of Law, where Mr. Levine was an Editor of the Law Review. ●  He currently serves as a member of the Advisory Committee for Rutgers Center for Corporate Law and Governance.

---

Table of Contents

41

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

---

Table of Contents

42	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This section of our proxy statement discusses the principles underlying our executive compensation policies and decisions and the most important factors relevant to an analysis of these policies and decisions. It provides qualitative and quantitative information regarding the manner and context in which compensation is awarded to, and earned by, our named executive officers and places in perspective the data presented in the tables and narrative that follow.

Throughout this proxy statement, the individuals who served as our Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel during our 2021 fiscal year are referred to as the “named executive officers,” “our NEOs” or our “executives.”

Executive Summary

Named Executive Officers

Marc Holliday			Andrew Mathias			Matthew J. DiLiberto			Andrew S. Levine
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board			President			Chief Financial Officer			Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel

Compensation Objectives and Philosophy

We adopted a pay-for-performance executive compensation philosophy that rewards the achievement of annual and long-term goals of both the Company and individual executives, while achieving the following objectives:

ALIGNMENT

TALENT

MOTIVATION

BALANCE

EFFICIENCY

Provide performance-based incentives that create a strong alignment of management and stockholder interests

Attract and retain top talent in a market that is highly competitive for New York City commercial real estate management

Motivate our executives to achieve, and reward them for achieving, superior performance

Achieve an appropriate balance between risk and reward in our compensation programs that does not create incentives for unnecessary or excessive risk taking

Foster the dedication required to succeed against our competitors, while maintaining low overall general and administrative expense

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

43

2021 Performance Highlights

ALL 2021 GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Goal for 2021					How We Did
Sign 1.3M Square Feet of Manhattan Office Leases					Signed 1.9M Square Feet of Manhattan Office Leases
Manhattan Same Store Occupancy 93.0%					Achieved 93.0% Occupancy at Year End
Manhattan Office Mark-To-Market (-5%) – (-10%)					(-2.5%) Mark-to-Market on Signed Leases
Share Repurchases >$400M					$514M at Year End (since goal established)
Acquisitions >$100M					$158 Million of Strategic Acquisitions
Dispositions >$1.0B					$1.9 Billion of Strategic Dispositions
Debt and Preferred Equity Originations >$100M					$133 Million Originated
Debt and Preferred Equity Originations at >10%					Originated at 8%
One Vanderbilt: Obtain Permanent Financing					Obtained in June 2021
One Vanderbilt: Secure Additional Joint Venture Partner					Deferred
One Vanderbilt: Achieve >85% Leased by Year End					95.2% Leased at Year End
One Vanderbilt: Open Summit by October 2021					Opened to Public on October 21, 2021
One Madison: Secure Additional Joint Venture Partner					Additional Partner Secured
One Madison: Commence Core Foundation by October 2021					Demolition Completed and Core Foundation Commenced
7 Dey Street: 30% Leased by December 2021					39% Leased at Year End
Same Store Cash NOI(1) Growth >(0.75%)					Achieved Growth of +0.70%
Unencumber >$350M of Assets					Unencumbered $386 Million of Assets
One-Year TSR Performance >10%					Achieved 27.2% One-Year TSR
Exceed SNL Office Index by 2.5%					Exceeded Index Constituents by 8.54%
100% of SLG Employees Work from Office in 2021					100% Worked from Office Five Days a Week
Support COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts					Established Testing and Vaccination Sites; 94% of Corporate Employees Vaccinated at Year End

(1)	Refer to Appendix A to this proxy statement for reconciliations of FFO Per Share, Funds Available for Distribution and Same Store Cash NOI. Same Store Cash NOI is presented excluding lease termination income.

---

Table of Contents

44	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Compensation Program Overview

At the heart of our executive compensation philosophy is a commitment to variable, incentive-based pay that aligns stockholder value with the economic interests of our management team. The percentages below reflect the total direct compensation awarded to our named executive officers for 2021, which we believe best reflects the actual compensation decisions made by the Committee.

Majority of 2021 Pay at Risk

Majority of 2021 Compensation Paid in Equity
		CEO		Other NEOs
Equity Compensation ●   Performance-Based Equity Awards ●   Time-Based Equity Awards		72%		64%
Cash Compensation ●   Base Salary ●   Cash Bonus		28%		36%

Consideration of Say-on-Pay Vote

Over the last few years, our Compensation Committee has embarked on a robust stockholder outreach program. That feedback has served as a key input to compensation design and structural upgrades implemented since 2018. The success of the engagement program is evidenced by the significant changes adopted as a direct result of the feedback received and the significant increase in stockholder support in 2019 and 2020.

The Committee was disappointed by the 2021 advisory vote on executive compensation (“Say on Pay”) but remains committed to understanding stockholder sentiment. In response, the Committee reached out to investors several months earlier than in prior years to ensure that any actionable feedback received could be better incorporated into Compensation Committee discussions and decisions for 2022 and beyond.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

45

Board Responsiveness

During the fall and winter of 2021, we contacted stockholders collectively representing 65% of outstanding shares, and had substantive conversations with stockholders representing 50% of outstanding shares. Directors participated in several stockholder discussions, as well as in the conversations with both proxy advisors. The majority of calls were led by the Chairs of Compensation or Nominating and Corporate Governance committees.

	Offered Engagement with approximately			Direct one-on-one discussions with approximately			Directors participated in calls representing approximately
	65% of Outstanding Shares			50% of Outstanding Shares			36% of Outstanding Shares

The table below summarizes the feedback received on executive compensation and the resulting decisions and taken in response:

Specific Topics	Stockholder Feedback  (“What We Heard”)			Action (“What We Did”)
Overall Compensation Philosophy	Stockholders support our pre-pandemic compensation structure that focused on performance-based pay elements			The Compensation Committee reaffirmed its commitment to our pre-pandemic compensation structure
2021 Vote Discussion	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 consistently indicated they did so primarily because they disagreed with the isolated decision to grant additional time-based equity			2021 compensation is approximately 90% at-risk for all of our named executive officers, and performance-based incentives are in line with pre-pandemic percentages
Approach to Future Pandemic-Related Business Disruption	Stockholders who voted against Say on Pay in 2021 wanted to understand the Compensation Committee’s approach to incentive compensation, in light of the unpredictability of the COVID-19 virus			The Committee and Board agree that in a similarly highly disruptive event to the business, feedback from stockholder engagement and discussions with proxy advisors will inform the approach taken with respect to the treatment of incentive compensation
Design of Compensation Program	Stockholders confirmed strong support for actions taken since 2018 to simplify the pay elements and strengthen the alignment of pay and performance			Executives’ employment agreements renewed at the end of 2021 were substantially identical to the agreements redesigned in 2018, further confirming the Compensation Committee’s commitment to our pre-pandemic compensation structure

Return to 2019 Pre-Pandemic Compensation Structure

The Committee considered the results of our 2021 advisory vote on 2020 executive compensation and the feedback received through our extensive stockholder engagement program in its decisions for 2021 compensation. Based on this outreach, as set forth below, the Committee recommitted to the compensation structure we had in place for 2019, which received strong support from stockholders at our 2020 annual meeting.

Evolution of Compensation Program (2019-2021)

2019 Program Highlights			2020 Program Changes			2021 Program Changes
●  Simplified, transparent program ●  Formulaic cash bonuses for CEO and President ●  Annual equity awards emphasizing multi-year performance and vesting periods			●  One-time discretionary bonus and equity awards to our CEO and President in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic intended to deliver actual 2020 compensation at a reduced level compared to 2019 actual compensation			●  Eliminated discretionary bonus and equity awards to our CEO and President ●  Reinstated target amounts for annual equity award grants and 100% formulaic calculations of annual cash bonus awards

---

Table of Contents

46	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

HISTORICAL STOCKHOLDER FEEDBACK AND OUR RESPONSES (2016-2019)

We have benefited from many years of stockholder engagement. In addition to the changes we made for 2021 to align our executive compensation program with our 2019 pre-pandemic compensation structure, the Committee previously implemented the following changes to our executive compensation programs based on discussions with stockholders prior to 2019:

Stockholder Feedback (“What We Heard”)			Action (“What We Did”)
●  Base salary and deferred compensation provide overlapping fixed pay elements			●  Eliminated deferred compensation ●  Reduced CEO base salary in 2018
●  Annual incentive should focus on metrics within executives’ control			●  Eliminated TSR as a metric, added G&A expense and increased weighting of dividend growth
●  Discretionary annual equity bonus process not clear			●  Eliminated discretionary annual equity bonuses; replaced with 100% formulaic bonus program for our CEO and President
●  Retesting features allows for multiple vesting opportunities			●  Eliminated retesting
●  Performance period for performance units should be longer than one year			●  All performance-based equity awards are subject to three-year TSR performance
●  Contracts guarantee equity grants on multi-year basis			●  Contracts entered into in 2018 and 2021 replaced contractual guarantees with target equity grants for our CEO, President and General Counsel
●  Compensation Program is complicated			●  Reduced elements of compensation from 7 to 4

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

47

Our 2021 Executive Compensation Program

Elements of Compensation

Since 2019, our executive compensation program has been updated in line with stockholder feedback to comprise only the following four pay elements:

	Percentage (all NEOs)	Pay Element	Purpose and Key Characteristics
		Annual Base Salary	Competitive annual base salaries encourage the retention and attraction of talented leadership Reflects the scope of each executive officer’s duties and responsibilities, taking into account the competitive market compensation paid by other companies for similar positions
		Annual Cash Bonus	Bonus awards incentivize our named executive officers to achieve annual financial and strategic goals Entirely formulaic and performance-based for both our CEO and President, providing an opportunity to earn up to 300% and 250%, respectively, of annual base salary Discretionary for our CFO and General Counsel Our executives may receive all or a portion of annual bonuses in the form of equity, further increasing alignment with stockholders
		Performance-Based Equity Awards	Annual performance-based equity awards provide short-term and long-term incentives to drive stockholder value Awards are 50% based on performance against annual operating goals subject to a modifier measured on absolute TSR over a three-year performance period Awards are 50% based on relative TSR over a three-year performance period
		Time-Based Equity Awards	Time-based equity awards ensure the alignment of the interests of our executives with those of long-term stockholders, with actual amounts granted based on an assessment of each executive’s performance during the most recent fiscal year and other factors Realized value of equity awards is based on the market value of our common stock

This simplified, performance-focused structure is the result of a multi-year stockholder engagement effort. These elements of compensation are built into the employment agreements with our named executive officers, which were in effect during 2021, as well as the new employment agreements we entered into with our CEO, President and General Counsel in December 2021 that were effective beginning in January 2022.

Anchoring our compensation program to variable pay is the cornerstone of our pay-for-performance philosophy and allows the Committee to reward superior performance, while the substantial long-term equity incentive portions of our compensation programs serve to align the interests of our named executive officers with those of our stockholders.

---

Table of Contents

48	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Summary of 2021 Compensation

The Committee makes compensation decisions intended to recognize our executives for their contributions to our financial and operating performance, ensure retention and motivation of key leaders in a highly competitive environment and align the economic interests of our management team with our stockholders. In each case, the Committee allocates the various elements of compensation described above based on our pay-for-performance compensation philosophy and by reference to the terms of the employment agreements we have entered into with each of our named executive officers.

TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION FOR 2021

We present the “total direct compensation” for each of our named executive officers, which reflects the actual amounts awarded by the Committee for a given year. We believe this presentation provides investors with the most accurate understanding of the compensation decisions made by the Committee.

		2021 Direct Compensation
Name		Base Salary			Cash Bonus(1)			Performance- Based Equity Awards(2)			Time-Based Equity Awards(2)			Total(3)
Marc Holliday		$	1,250,000		$	3,362,500		$	7,500,000		$	4,500,000		$	16,669,630
Andrew Mathias		$	950,000		$	2,151,750		$	6,000,000		$	3,500,000		$	12,652,272
Matthew J. DiLiberto		$	575,000		$	1,850,000		$	555,556		$	978,681		$	3,970,837
Andrew S. Levine		$	580,000		$	1,175,000		$	555,556		$	1,300,000		$	3,622,156

(1)	Determined formulaically for Messrs. Holliday and Mathias and on a discretionary basis for Messrs. DiLiberto and Levine.
(2)	Represents target values of equity awards. For Mr. DiLiberto, the amount set forth in the “Time-Based Equity Awards” column reflects 50% of the value of the time-based equity award granted to Mr. DiLiberto in connection with entering into his new employment agreement in February 2021, which award vested 50% on January 1, 2022 and will vest 50% on January 1, 2023.
(3)	Includes the following compensation categorized as “Other Compensation” as reflected in the Summary Compensation Table: Mr. Holliday—$57,130; Mr. Mathias—$50,522; Mr. DiLiberto—$11,600; and Mr. Levine—$11,600, respectively.

The methodology used to make compensation decisions and the amounts of compensation awarded for 2021 were generally consistent with the methodology and amounts used for 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using our CEO’s 2021 compensation, the table below illustrates the differences between total direct compensation and the Summary Compensation Table that appears later in this proxy statement.

2021 CEO Direct Compensation vs. Summary Compensation Table
Element of Compensation			Total Direct Compensation			Summary Compensation Table
Base Salary		$	1,250,000		$	1,250,000
Annual Cash Bonus(1)		$	3,362,500		$	2,999,265
Annual Performance-Based Award(2)		$	7,500,000		$	9,026,551
Annual Time-Based Award(3)		$	4,500,000		$	7,755,111
Other Compensation		$	57,130		$	57,130
Total		$	16,669,630		$	21,088,057

(1)	The “Total Direct Compensation” column represents the full value of the amount earned formulaically based on objective bonus criteria. Because Mr. Holliday’s 2021 annual cash bonus was paid 50% in cash and 50% in equity, the “Summary Compensation Table” column reflects the actual value of the cash portion of the bonus and, for the remaining 50% granted in equity, the grant date value of LTIP units granted in December 2021.
(2)	The “Total Direct Compensation” column reflects the target notional value awarded consistent with Mr. Holliday’s employment agreement. The “Summary Compensation Table” column reflects the grant date value of the award.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	49

(3)

The “Total Direct Compensation” column reflects the value of the time-based award granted in January 2022 based on the Company’s 2021 performance consistent with Mr. Holliday’s employment agreement. The “Summary Compensation Table” column reflects the value of awards granted in 2021 for 2020 performance.

 

The Total Direct Compensation approved by the Committee for Mr. Holliday for 2021 was approximately 21% lower than the total compensation amount set forth in the Summary Compensation Table.

ANNUAL BASE SALARY

Following a review of his current responsibilities and competitive market data, we increased Mr. DiLiberto’s base salary for 2021 from $550,000 to $575,000, a 4.5% increase, in connection with entering into his new employment agreement. The increase better aligns Mr. DiLiberto’s base salary with his role at the company and our compensation peers. We otherwise made no changes to the base salaries of our named executive officers for 2021 and the amounts reflect the minimum amounts set forth in each executive’s employment agreement.

With the exception of Mr. DiLiberto’s 2021 base salary, we have not increased any of our NEO’s base salaries since 2019. In 2018, we reduced our CEO’s base salary by $100,000 to its current level.

ANNUAL CASH BONUS ELIGIBILITY

Formulaic Annual Cash Bonus – CEO and President. Our annual cash bonus program for our CEO and President is 100% formulaic and the percentages of base salary that can be earned under the program are set forth in each executive’s employment agreement. For 2021, each of our CEO and President were eligible to earn the following percentages of their respective base salary (with linear interpolation used to determine the percentage earned for performance that falls between threshold, target and/or maximum):

Executive		Threshold		Target		Maximum
Marc Holliday		50%		200%		300%
Andrew Mathias		50%		175%		250%

 

Based on our performance relative to the objective bonus criteria established in January 2021, Mr. Holliday earned 269% of his 2021 base salary and Mr. Mathias earned 227% of his 2021 base salary.

The specific performance criteria for our formulaic annual cash bonus program are determined in January of each year by the Committee and are set forth below under “2021 Performance Summary.”

Discretionary Annual Cash Bonus – CFO and General Counsel. Our employment agreements with our CFO and General Counsel do not provide for formulaic percentages of base salary that can be earned. For 2021, our CFO and General Counsel instead received discretionary bonuses based on the same performance criteria as were used for our formulaic annual cash bonus program, as well as specific company goals and objectives for 2021 that were presented at our annual investor conference in December 2020.

These additional objectives, listed above, included financial goals, achievement of leasing and occupancy targets, investing activities such as strategic acquisitions and dispositions and share repurchases, execution of our debt and preferred equity platform, asset and corporate level leverage, joint venture and development milestones and furtherance of our other corporate goals and initiatives, many of which are key drivers of stockholder value.

In addition to the financial and operational achievements that exceeded our formulaic targets, we also achieved almost all of the other business goals we set out to achieve for 2021, including hitting key milestones relating to our One Vanderbilt and One Madison projects, unencumbering $386M of assets, executing over $500M of share repurchases and completing approximately $2B of strategic dispositions (nearly doubling our target).

---

Table of Contents

50	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

ANNUAL EQUITY AWARDS

We grant our named executive officers performance-based LTIP units and time-based LTIP units annually in connection with their employment agreements and, in some cases, at the discretion of the Committee. For 2021, our annual long-term incentive equity award program consisted solely of grants of performance-based equity awards with multi-year performance criteria and time-based equity awards that vest based on continued service.

Target Amounts – CEO, President and General Counsel. The target amounts of performance-based equity awards and time-based equity awards for Messrs. Holliday, Mathias and Levine are set forth below:

		Target Equity Award Amounts
Executive		Performance-Based			Time-Based			Total
Marc Holliday		$	7,500,000		$	4,500,000		$	12,000,000
Andrew Mathias		$	6,000,000		$	3,500,000		$	9,500,000
Andrew S. Levine			—		$	1,300,000		$	1,300,000

Earned performance-based LTIP units granted based on the target amounts set forth above will vest 100% for Messrs. Holliday and Mathias on December 31, 2023. The time-based LTIP Units granted to Messrs. Holliday, Mathias and Levine pursuant to each executive’s employment agreement are subject to vesting over three years, with each award vesting ratably on January 1st of each year following the grant date.

For 2021, we granted equity awards in line with the target amounts set forth above. We grant performance-based awards prospectively for each compensation year when we establish performance goals to incentivize our executives to deliver accretive value to stockholders. We grant time-based awards retrospectively based on each executive’s contributions to our achievements during the prior year.

Discretionary Awards – CFO and General Counsel. Our employment agreements with Messrs. DiLiberto and Levine do not provide for target annual performance-based equity grants, but both participate, at the Committee’s discretion, in our annual long-term performance-based equity program. Earned performance-based LTIP units granted for 2021 will vest 50% on each of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2024, for Messrs. DiLiberto and Levine.

Mr. DiLiberto also received a time-based long-term equity award of 31,020 LTIP units in connection with the signing of his employment agreement in February 2021, of which 50% vested on January 1, 2022 and the remaining 50% will vest on January 1, 2023.

For detailed 2021 pay outcomes for each of our named executive officers, see the NEO scorecards below.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

51

How We Select Performance Criteria – Formulaic Cash Bonus and Equity Awards

Emphasis on At-Risk Pay Elements		In line with stockholder feedback, we have reaffirmed our commitment to performance-based incentives. For 2021:   92.5% of CEO compensation was performance-based and at-risk   89.6% of other NEO compensation was performance-based and at-risk This design allows the Committee to reward superior performance, while the substantial long-term equity incentive portions of our compensation programs serve to align the interests of our named executive officers with those of our stockholders.
Performance Metrics Reflect Complexities of Our Business		The Committee has carefully selected performance criteria across not just a range of financial and corporate goals but also a range of performance periods. In aggregate, these criteria aim to account for the complexities of operating our business over both the short-term and the long-term.
No One-Size-Fits-All Solution		While establishing performance goals, the Committee has designed incentives that incentivize our executive officers to strive for excellence no matter the time horizon. This is accomplished by rationally linking the sum of the component parts of our compensation structure not just to the way our executive officers think about our business but also to the way that our stockholders think about value.

		Annual Cash Bonus		Annual Equity Awards (Operational Component)		Annual Equity Award (Relative Component)
Period		One year		One year with three-year modifier		Three years
Objectives		●  Normalized FFO per share ●  Annual same-store cash NOI growth ●  Dividend growth ●  G&A expense		●  Funds available for distribution ●  Debt/EBITDA ratio ●  Manhattan office same store leased occupancy ●  Manhattan office leasing volume ●  Absolute TSR (three-year modifier)		●  TSR Relative to the constituents of an office REIT index ●  TSR Relative to a group of NYC peers

2021 Performance Summary

The performance goals established at the beginning of each year by the Committee motivate financial and operational outperformance in line with Company guidance and internal projections. The criteria used for annual cash bonuses and performance-based equity remained the same across 2019, 2020 and 2021 because they were, and continue to be, key drivers to stockholder value creation. Threshold, target and maximum levels were set on the basis of a rigorous and consistent pay-for-performance compensation philosophy.

RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING PERFORMANCE GOALS

The methodology used to establish goals is fundamentally tied to the then current economic and business conditions. Over the last three years we have witnessed widespread, uncontrollable disruption to business due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as changes to the office environment generally. We have responded with intentional, transformative changes to our business, all of which are designed to streamline our operations and allow us to excel in the evolving environment in which we operate. This thesis was validated in 2021 by our exceptional one-year TSR of 27.2% compared to our office REIT and NYC peer groups.

As an example of the process, the following table relates the components of our annual formulaic cash bonus program for each of 2019, 2020 and 2021 to our guidance for the relevant year across threshold, target and maximum pay opportunities. The same methodology was applied to the establishment of operational goals under our annual performance-based equity awards for each year.

---

Table of Contents

52	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Annual Targets Relative to Guidance

Annual Formulaic Cash Bonus Targets Relative to Guidance (2019-2021)

Threshold

Target

Maximum

Formulaic Cash Bonus Goal(1)

2019

2020

2021

2019

2020

2021

2019

2020

2021

FFO Per Share

$(0.15)

$(0.20)

$(0.30)

$(0.05)

$(0.05)

$(0.10)

+$0.05

+$0.05

+$0.10

Same Store Cash NOI Growth

(50) bps

(110) bps

(225) bps

+30 bps

0 bps

(75) bps

+100 bps

+80 bps

+75 bps

G&A Expense

+$2.5M

+$5.0M

+$4.0M

+$1.0M

+$2.0M

+$2.0M

$(0.5M)

$0.0M

$0.0M

(1)	Each performance level is presented as the variance from our guidance, with FFO Per Share based on the midpoint of such guidance and Same Store Cash NOI Growth based on the target percentage presented at our annual investor conference for the applicable year.

The consistency with which the Committee has gone about establishing performance goals is strong evidence of our focus on building a culture of alignment and accountability for our management team. This is achieved year after year in the context of a rigorous process that connects internal budgeting, external guidance and compensation opportunities. The Committee does not look to comparisons of forward-looking performance goals versus prior year goals or results as part of this process, particularly during a unique period in our business like the past three years that would render comparisons between periods irrelevant. For example, the 2021 goals established by the Committee reflect a full-year impact from the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a 9-month impact reflected in our 2020 results and no impact when the 2020 goals were established prior to the onset of the pandemic. Therefore, year-over-year comparisons are neither a meaningful way to evaluate the rigor of our pay-for-performance compensation philosophy nor the way the Committee seeks to drive value creation for stockholders. It is also important to note that throughout our stockholder engagement, none of our stockholders expressed a desire for or focus on year-over-year comparisons of our performance metrics.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique challenge for the Company and the Committee due to an uncertain business environment. We therefore expanded our guidance range in the face of unprecedented volatility, with corresponding adjustments to threshold, target and maximum hurdles. Nevertheless, as is always the case, the 2021 goals were difficult to achieve and required the Company to deliver strong financial and operating performance and accretive value to stockholders to achieve payouts above target levels. As illustrated by the table above, performance under our formulaic cash bonus program and annual performance-based equity awards must always equal or exceed our guidance to achieve maximum performance levels.

The Committee is proud of our track record in administering a rigorous pay-for-performance compensation philosophy in a consistent manner. We feel that the elements of our compensation program and the Committee’s compensation decisions have appropriately motivated our executives and recognized their contributions to our financial and operating performance broadly. Long term achievements like the significant creation of stockholder value from the One Vanderbilt and One Madison development projects, while not directly factored into compensation decisions, are evidence of how the foresight of our executive team and our performance goal setting have combined to build full alignment of economic interests between management and stockholders. Accomplishments like One Vanderbilt and One Madison along with the many goals achieved just in 2021, including, but not limited to, unencumbering $386M of assets, executing over $500M of share repurchases and completing approximately $2B of strategic dispositions, validate the strength of that alignment.

For all of our formulaic annual cash bonus awards and performance-based equity awards, linear interpolation is used to determine the percentage earned for performance that falls between threshold, target and/or maximum. The tables below set forth our 2021 performance relative to 2021 performance criteria.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

53

2021 Formulaic Annual Cash Bonus Goals

Based on our performance relative to these formulaic goals, our CEO and President earned the following amounts of annual cash bonus:

Executive		Target 2021 Cash Bonus ($)		Actual 2021 Cash Bonus (% of Target)		Actual 2021 Cash Bonus ($)
Marc Holliday		$ 2,500,000		134.50%		$3,362,500
Andrew Mathias		$ 1,662,500		129.43%		$2,151,750

---

Table of Contents

54	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

2021 Operational Component Performance Goals (50% of Annual Equity Award)

The operational component of our annual performance-based equity awards measures our performance against four objective criteria over a one-year performance period, which remain subject to an absolute TSR modifier (either up or down 12.5%) based on our absolute TSR performance over a three-year performance period. As of December 31, 2021, our one-year absolute TSR performance would have resulted in the maximum upward modifier of the initially earned operational awards.

2021 Relative Component Performance Goals (50% of Annual Equity Award)

The relative component of our annual performance-based equity awards measures our performance against two peer sets over a three-year performance period. For 2021, the Committee rebalanced the relative component to provide an equal weighting to our performance relative to Office REIT Peers and NYC REIT Peers, as opposed to 2020 when this component was weighted two-thirds to our Office REIT Peers and one-third to our NYC REIT Peers. The Committee implemented this change as part of its annual review of the effectiveness of our compensation program and it is intended to more closely tie the earning of this portion of the performance-based award to companies that are most directly comparable to us. As of December 31, 2021, based on our one-year TSR relative to the Office REIT Peers and the NYC REIT Peers, our performance would have placed us in the 78th percentile and 58th percentile respectively.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	55

FINAL RESULTS – 2019-2021 PERFORMANCE-BASED AWARDS

The performance period for the 2019 annual performance-based equity awards concluded on December 31, 2021. Under the program, 150.10% of the target operational component was initially earned, which amount was reduced by 12.5% following application of the absolute TSR modifier at the end of the performance period. We also earned 57.98% of the target relative component for these awards. Although we substantially outperformed on the operational aspects of the award that were most under the control of our management team, because our TSR performance was disappointing the aggregate payout for the award was reduced to 94.66%, below target levels.

The table below summarizes the final value of these awards as of the conclusion of the performance period:

Executive		Target Value of Grant			Number of Units Earned at Target			Earned Units as of December 31, 2021			Realized Value as of December 31, 2021(1)
Marc Holliday		$	7,500,000			92,174			87,253		$	6,447,124
Andrew Mathias		$	6,000,000			73,740			69,801		$	5,157,596
Matthew J. DiLiberto		$	1,250,000			6,828			6,463		$	477,551
Andrew S. Levine		$	1,250,000			6,828			6,463		$	477,551

(1)	Based on a per share price of $73.89, which was the closing stock price on the NYSE of one share of our common stock on December 31, 2021.

The final payout for our 2019 annual performance-based equity award highlights the rigor of the program, our pay-for-performance philosophy and the alignment between our executives and our stockholders.

2021 NEO Scorecards

The following scorecards summarize each element of compensation received by our NEOs for 2021. For purposes of framing the compensation decisions and pay outcomes, we present the “total direct compensation,” or TDC, amounts awarded for 2021 and contrast such amounts to SEC-mandated disclosure rules for the Summary Compensation Table, or SCT, for 2021. We believe this presentation provides investors with a clearer understanding of the compensation decisions made by the Committee.

---

Table of Contents

56	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

 

 

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

57

 

 

---

Table of Contents

58	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

 

 

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

59

 

 

---

Table of Contents

60	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Other Compensation Policies and Information

How We Determine Executive Compensation

The Committee determines compensation for our named executive officers and is comprised of three of our independent directors, Lauren B. Dillard (Chair), Edwin T. Burton, III and John S. Levy. John H. Alschuler served a member of the Committee until April 1, 2021.

The Committee receives input from a number of sources each year to inform its final compensation determinations for our named executive officers. These final determinations are made solely by the Committee.

Results	The Committee synthesizes and analyzes the data and information provided by its independent compensation advisor, our CEO and FTI Consulting, as well as any input from the full Board of directors and stockholders, and then makes final compensation decisions for our named executive officers in its sole discretion
Stockholder Engagement	●  The Committee engages with a significant number of stockholders holding a substantial percentage of outstanding shares and considers all feedback it receives on current and prior compensation practices
Full Board	●  The Committee makes regular reports to the full Board to ensure management accountability with business objectives and alignment with stockholders
Chief Executive Officer	●  At the request of the Committee, our CEO also provides recommendations regarding total compensation and the allocation of this compensation among pay elements for our other named executive officers ●  Our CEO reviews market data provided by FTI Consulting in formulating compensation recommendations, which the Committee also receives and reviews ●  The other named executive officers discuss their performance with our CEO, but otherwise play no role in determining their compensation ●  FTI Consulting, which had relationships with certain officers of the Company during 2021, is retained by management as a general business advisor, including for compensation matters
Gressle & McGinley LLC	●  Retained as Committee’s independent outside compensation adviser and regularly participates in compensation committee meetings ●  Provides updates and relevant data throughout the year on market conditions in light of our goals and objectives, including current market and peer group pay practices and then-existing policies of certain of our institutional investors, ISS, Glass Lewis and other governance groups ●  Offers the Committee independent analysis and recommendations concerning executive compensation ●  Does not provide any additional services to the Company

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

61

Compensation Practices

We believe that our executive compensation programs provide appropriate performance-based incentives to attract and retain leadership talent in the highly competitive New York City real estate market, to align management and stockholder interests and to continue to drive our long-term track record of superior return to stockholders. The following are key features of our executive compensation programs, reflecting changes we have adopted following our extensive stockholder outreach:

WHAT WE DO			WHAT WE DON’T DO
Pay for performance and create alignment with stockholders    Include robust hurdles in our incentive plans    Pay a majority of total compensation for our CEO and other named executive officers in equity    Follow robust equity ownership guidelines for our directors and named executive officers    Impose a clawback policy with respect to incentive payments    Require a double trigger for cash severance and accelerated vesting in connection with a change in control			No dividends or distributions paid on unearned equity awards subject to performance-based vesting    No excise tax gross-up provisions    No repricing of stock options    No single trigger cash severance or accelerated vesting in connection with a change in control    Don’t allow directors or officers to hedge our securities

Peer Group Benchmarking

In 2021, as in prior years, the Committee reviewed various peer compensation information in connection with its compensation decisions, primarily focused on the chief executive officer’s compensation. This peer information was not used to target a particular percentile for our Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation for 2021, but rather to confirm that our Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation for 2021 was within an appropriate range of the total compensation, considering relative size and performance.

The Committee reviewed total compensation information for the chief executive officers of a peer group, with an emphasis on the REIT industry. The peer group included a number of New York City-based peer companies. That decision is based on the unique characteristics of the New York City real estate marketplace, which is where we conduct substantially all of our business, and which is one of the most competitive in the world, from both a business and compensation perspective. However, among the top 15 New York City real estate companies – in terms of Manhattan office-space ownership – only a handful of those companies, including SL Green, are public.

With respect to size, we ranked at or above the median of our selected peers with respect to total enterprise value and total revenue as of December 31, 2021. The following companies were included in the peer group that the Committee reviewed:

Peer Group

ENTERPRISE VALUE (in billions)		REVENUE (in billions)

Source: S&P Capital IQ. Data as of December 31, 2021.

---

Table of Contents

62	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

In the market for talent and compensation, the Committee views SLG as most comparable to real estate companies and companies in complex financial services-related industries such as top performing hedge funds, international investors, large private firms and others that may have equal or greater financial resources, including access to cost-efficient capital. Many of these most direct competitors are private companies, however, and are not required to publicly disclose their compensation arrangements, though the Committee believes that the top real estate principals of these non-REIT companies typically receive substantially higher compensation than their counterparts at public REITs. Nonetheless, to ensure the rigor of our compensation program benchmarking, we have limited our peer group to companies for which there is sufficient publicly available information to thoroughly and completely evaluate the comparability of any given peer company.

Given limited publicly available information on the private companies with which we most directly compete for real estate talent, we have elected to include only public REITs in our compensation peer group.

Analysis of Risk Associated with Our Executive Compensation Plans

In setting compensation, we consider the risks to our stockholders and to achievement of our goals that may be inherent in the executive compensation program. We concluded that it is not reasonably likely that our compensation policies and practices will have a material adverse effect on us.

In reaching our conclusion, we considered the following aspects of our executive compensation plans and policies among others:

●	We evaluate performance based upon the achievement of a variety of business objectives and goals.
●	We use a balanced equity compensation mix comprised of performance-based and time-based full value equity awards. This approach lessens the likelihood that executives will take unreasonable risks to keep their equity awards “in-the-money,” as may be the case with equity compensation programs that rely solely on leveraged market-based equity compensation vehicles such as stock options.
●	We provide a significant portion of incentive compensation in the form of long-term incentive awards. The amounts that ultimately may be earned are tied to how we perform over a multi-year period, which focuses management on sustaining our long-term performance.
●	We structure payouts under our performance-based awards based on achieving a minimum level of performance, so that some compensation is awarded at levels below full target achievement rather than an “all-or-nothing” approach.
●	We provide a significant portion of each executive’s annual compensation in the form of equity-based compensation. In addition, executives are required to maintain sizable holdings of equity in the Company under the terms of our equity ownership guidelines. This practice aligns an appropriate portion of our executives’ personal wealth to our long-term performance.
●	We adopted a policy for recoupment of incentive payments made to our executives, including our named executive officers, if payment was based on having met or exceeded performance expectations during a period of fraudulent activity for which the executive is responsible.

Accordingly, although a significant portion of our executives’ compensation is performance-based and “at-risk,” we believe our executive compensation programs are appropriately structured and do not pose a material risk to the Company.

Executive and Director Equity Ownership Guidelines

In furtherance of the Committee’s ongoing efforts to foster an ownership culture among our senior leadership team, we adopted equity ownership guidelines for our named executive officers and non-employee directors, as set forth below:

Named Executive Officers and Non-Employee Directors		Multiple of Base Salary or Annual Cash Retainer
Chief Executive Officer		8x
Other Named Executive Officers		6x
Non-Employee Directors		5x

All of our named executive officers hold a significant amount of equity in our Company and are highly incentivized to create sustainable, long-term stockholder value.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

63

 

Named Executive Officers		Actual Equity Ownership - Multiple of Base Salary(1)
Marc Holliday		71x
Andrew Mathias		88x
Matthew J. DiLiberto		14x
Andrew S. Levine		28x

 

(1)	As of March 25, 2022.

Outstanding Annual Equity Award Performance Summary (2019-2021)

Operational Awards		Actual Percentage Earned as of 12/31/2021		Actual / Projected Absolute TSR Modifier as of 12/31/202
2021 Operational Component		200.00% (Actual)		+12.5% (Projected)
2020 Operational Component		115.44% (Actual)		-12.5% (Projected)
2019 Operational Component		150.10% (Actual)		-12.5% (Actual)
Relative Awards		Actual / Projected Percentile Rank as of 12/31/2021		Actual / Projected Percentage Earned as of 12/31/2021
2021 Relative TSR vs. Office REIT Peers		78th Percentile (Projected)		225.00% (Projected)
2021 Relative TSR vs. NYC REIT Peers		58th Percentile (Projected)		152.82% (Projected)
2020 Relative TSR vs. Office REIT Peers		51st Percentile (Projected)		105.88% (Projected)
2020 Relative TSR vs. NYC REIT Peers		100th Percentile (Projected)		225.00% (Projected)
2019 Relative TSR vs. Office REIT Peers		36th Percentile (Actual)		57.98% (Actual)

Our 2020 and 2019 annual performance-based equity awards generally have the same structure as the 2021 performance-based equity awards described above in “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Our 2021 Executive Compensation Program.” However, for 2020 the relative component was weighted 66.67% to the Office REIT Peers and 33.33% to the NYC REIT Peers (rather than 50% each for 2021). For 2019, the relative TSR component was weighted 100% to the Office REIT Peers. These prior awards are described in full in our proxy statements relating to our 2020 and 2019 fiscal years.

For additional information regarding the number of LTIP units relating to each of our outstanding annual performance-based equity awards held by each of our named executive officers, see “—Executive Compensation Tables—Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End 2021.”

Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits

We do not provide significant perquisites or personal benefits to our named executive officers, except that we provided leased automobiles for our Chief Executive Officer for all of 2021 and our President for a portion of 2021. In October 2021, our President’s car lease terminated and we instead provided a company-owned car for his use. We also provide automobile insurance premiums for these vehicles. Additionally, our Chief Executive Officer receives certain life insurance benefits. The costs of these benefits constituted less than one percent of the applicable executive’s compensation.

Employment Agreements

As noted above, we have employment agreements with all of our named executive officers. All of the employment agreements with our named executive officers provide for, among other things, severance payments and benefits and acceleration of equity awards in connection with certain qualified terminations. In return, each of our named executive officers has agreed to non-compete, non-solicitation, non-interference and confidentiality provisions. For each of our executives, we believe that, because the severance level is negotiated up front, it makes it easier for us to terminate these executives without the need for protracted negotiations over severance. We also believe that providing pre-negotiated severance benefits for all of our executives in the event they are terminated without cause or terminate their employment for good reason following a change in control helps to further align the interests of our executives and our stockholders in the event

---

Table of Contents

64	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

of a potentially attractive proposed change in control transaction following which one or more of our executives may be expected to be terminated. See “—Executive Compensation Tables—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” for a summary of the employment agreements with our named executive officers.

Clawback Policy

The Board adopted a clawback policy under which any incentive payments made to a named executive officer on the basis of having met or exceeded performance targets during a period of fraudulent activity for which such executive is found personally responsible may be recouped by the Company.

Anti-hedging Policy

The Board has adopted a policy prohibiting all of our executive officers and directors from engaging in hedging transactions with respect to our securities. Pursuant to this policy, our executive officers and directors may not engage in hedging transactions with respect to our securities (including, without limitation, partnership interests in our operating partnership) through puts, calls, covered calls, synthetic purchases, collars, other derivative securities of the Company or otherwise at any time. Prior to the adoption of this policy, none of our executive officers or directors were engaging in any hedging transactions with respect to our securities, and this policy was adopted to formally reflect the practices that our executive officers and directors had already been observing. The Company does not have any practices or policies regarding the ability of any other employees to purchase financial instruments or otherwise engage in transactions that hedge or offset, or are designed to hedge or offset, any decrease in the market value of the Company’s equity securities.

Other Matters – LTIP units and Class O LTIP units

We issued a separate class of units of limited partnership interest in our operating partnership, which we refer to as LTIP units, for the equity bonuses that we granted to our named executive officers for 2021 and as equity awards granted in connection with new or extended employment agreements or the provisions of such agreements. LTIP units are similar to common units in our operating partnership, which generally are economically equivalent to shares of our common stock, except that the LTIP units are structured as “profits interests” for U.S. federal income tax purposes under current federal income tax law. As profits interests, LTIP units generally only have value, other than with respect to the right to receive distributions, if the value of the assets of our operating partnership increases between the issuance of LTIP units and the date of a book-up event for partnership tax purposes. If the value of the assets of our operating partnership increases sufficiently, the LTIP units can achieve full parity with common units in our operating partnership. If such parity is achieved, LTIP units may be converted, subject to the satisfaction of applicable vesting conditions, on a one-for-one basis into common units, which in turn are redeemable by the holder for cash or, at our election, on a one-for-one basis into shares of our common stock. LTIP units are not entitled to distributions prior to being earned based on achievement against the performance-based hurdles contained in these plans. Once earned, these LTIP units, whether vested or unvested, entitle the holder to receive distributions per unit from our operating partnership that are equivalent to the dividends paid per share on our common stock.

In addition to the LTIP units described above that we issued in lieu of shares of restricted stock, we also have issued another class of units of limited partnership interest in our operating partnership that are intended to be similar to stock options from an economic perspective, which we refer to as Class O LTIP units. Class O LTIP units are also intended to qualify as “profits interests” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. During 2021, we did not grant any Class O LTIP units.

Like stock options, Class O LTIP units operate in a manner that generally permits holders to realize the benefit of any increase in the per share value of our common stock above the value at the time the Class O LTIP units are granted. At the time of the grant of Class O LTIP units, the operating partnership establishes a conversion threshold, the vesting terms and the mandatory conversion date, if any, for the Class O LTIP units. The conversion threshold corresponds to the exercise price of a stock option while the mandatory conversion date corresponds to the expiration date of a stock option. Similar to the exercise price for stock options, the conversion threshold will equal the per unit value of the common units of our operating partnership on the grant date. Class O LTIP units will receive 10% distributions relating to periods between grant and vesting upon vesting, and will receive 10% distributions from vesting to their conversion as opposed to holders of non-qualified stock options who will not receive any distributions relating to periods between grant and exercise.

Once Class O LTIP units have vested, they may be converted into common units of our operating partnership by the holder at any time prior to their mandatory conversion date in a manner that is similar to a net exercise of stock options. Upon exercise of this conversion right, the Class O LTIP units will convert into a number of common units of the operating partnership that have an aggregate value equal to the aggregate spread of the Class O LTIP units that are converted. The “spread” for each

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

65

Class O LTIP unit will equal the excess, if any, of the value of our operating partnership’s assets per common unit on the conversion date above the per unit value at the time the Class O LTIP unit was granted (i.e., the conversion threshold). Any Class O LTIP units that have not been voluntarily converted prior to the mandatory conversion date established at the time the Class O LTIP units were granted will automatically convert into common units on such mandatory conversion date, or be forfeited if the value of our operating partnership’s assets per common unit is less than the conversion threshold for the Class O LTIP units.

LTIP units and Class O LTIP units are intended to offer executives substantially the same long-term incentive as shares of restricted stock and stock options, respectively, with more favorable U.S. federal income tax treatment available for “profits interests” under current federal income tax law. More specifically, one key disadvantage of restricted stock is that executives are generally taxed on the full market value of a grant at the time of vesting, even if they choose to hold the stock. Similarly, holders of non-qualified stock options are taxed upon exercise. Conversely, under current federal income tax law, an executive would generally not be subject to tax at the time of issuance or vesting of an LTIP unit or Class O LTIP unit or conversion into common units but only when he or she chooses to liquidate the common units into which his or her LTIP units or Class O LTIP units convert. Therefore, an executive who wishes to hold his or her equity awards for the long term can generally do so in a more tax-efficient manner with LTIP units or Class O LTIP units. In light of the increased tax efficiency, we have chosen to use LTIP units and Class O LTIP units for grants to our executives. We believe that the use of LTIP units and Class O LTIP units has (i) enhanced our equity-based compensation package overall, (ii) advanced the goal of promoting long-term equity ownership by executives, (iii) not adversely impacted dilution as compared to restricted stock, and (iv) further aligned the interests of our executives with the interests of our stockholders.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of SL Green Realty Corp. has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, our Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this annual proxy statement and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

Submitted by our Compensation Committee

Lauren B. Dillard (Chair)

Edwin T. Burton, III

John S. Levy

---

Table of Contents

66	SL GREEN REALTY CORP. 2022 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth information regarding the compensation paid to the individuals who served as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer during our 2021 fiscal year and two of our most highly compensated executive officers, other than our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, whose total compensation exceeded $100,000 during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, or collectively, the “named executive officers.”

Name and Principal Position		Year			Salary ($)				Bonus ($)				Stock Awards(1) ($)				Option Awards(1) ($)				Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)				All Other Compensation(2) ($)				Total ($)
Marc Holliday Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board		2021		$	1,250,000				—			$	18,099,677				—			$	1,681,250			$	57,130			$	21,088,057
		2020		$	1,250,000			$	387,501			$	12,643,310				—			$	862,500			$	51,415			$	15,194,726
		2019		$	1,250,000				—			$	16,397,131				—			$	3,293,070			$	49,815			$	20,990,016
Andrew Mathias President		2021		$	950,000				—			$	14,929,026				—				—			$	50,522			$	15,929,548
		2020		$	950,000				—			$	10,580,622				—				—			$	43,136			$	11,573,758
		2019		$	950,000				—			$	11,191,600				—				—			$	42,088			$	12,183,688
Matthew J. DiLiberto Chief Financial Officer		2021		$	575,000			$	925,000			$	2,318,872				—				—			$	11,600			$	3,830,472
		2020		$	550,000			$	2,460,000	(3)		$	1,336,498				—				—			$	11,400			$	4,357,898
		2019		$	550,000			$	1,650,000			$	1,011,997				—				—			$	11,200			$	3,223,197
Andrew S. Levine Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel		2021		$	580,000				—			$	2,783,700				—				—			$	11,600			$	3,375,300
		2020		$	580,000			$	1,000,000	(3)		$	2,701,565				—				—			$	11,400			$	4,292,965
		2019		$	580,000			$	1,000,000			$	3,104,650				—				—			$	11,200			$	4,695,850

 

(1)	Amounts shown do not reflect compensation actually received by the named executive officer. Instead, the amounts shown are the full grant date fair value of stock awards and option awards issued to the executives in 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. In accordance with SEC disclosure requirements, the amounts for 2021 include the full grant date fair value of our 2021 annual performance-based equity awards, which were as follows: Mr. Holliday—$9,026,551; Mr. Mathias—$7,221,245; Mr. DiLiberto—$708,003; and Mr. Levine—$708,003, respectively. The grant date fair value of such awards is computed in accordance with ASC 718, “Compensation-Stock Compensation,” or “ASC 718,” by the use of Monte Carlo simulation models that consider the probable outcomes of the market-based performance conditions governing such awards. The Monte Carlo simulation model for the awards granted during 2021 used an assumed stock price volatility level of 49% on our common stock and a risk-free interest rate of 0.18%.
	Assuming that maximum performance is achieved under our 2021 annual performance-based equity awards, the value at the grant date of the awards would each have been as follows: Mr. Holliday—$18,476,584; Mr. Mathias—$14,781,319; Mr. DiLiberto—$1,368,686; and Mr. Levine—$1,368,686, respectively. See “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Our 2021 Executive Compensation Program” for a description of the terms of these performance-based awards.
(2)	The table and footnotes below show the components of this column for 2021, which include certain perquisites such as Company 401(k) matching contributions.

 

Name		All Other Compensation ($)
Marc Holliday		$	57,130(a)
Andrew Mathias		$	50,522(b)
Matthew J. DiLiberto		$	11,600(c)
Andrew S. Levine		$	11,600(c)

 

(a)	Represents (i) the Company’s matching contributions with respect to amounts earned by the named executive officer under our 401(k) plan ($11,600), (ii) leased car payments, plus insurance premiums ($26,613) and (iii) life insurance premiums ($18,917). The Company’s 401(k) matching contributions are credited in the year subsequent to which employees make their contributions.
(b)	Represents (i) the Company’s matching contributions with respect to amounts earned by the named executive officer under our 401(k) plan ($11,600), (ii) car benefits, representing lease payments for a portion of the year for a leased car and, for the remainder of the year, the depreciation expense recognized on a company-owned car, plus insurance premiums ($38,922). The Company’s 401(k) matching contributions are credited in the year subsequent to which employees make their contributions.
(c)	Represents the Company’s matching contributions with respect to amounts earned by the named executive officer under our 401(k) plan ($11,600). The Company’s 401(k) matching contributions are credited in the year subsequent to which employees make their contributions.

---

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

67

2021 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to each grant of an award made to a named executive officer in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

						Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards												Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards												All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)				Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($)
Name		Grant Date		Approval Date		Threshold ($)				Target ($)				Maximum ($)				Threshold (#)				Target (#)				Maximum (#)
Marc Holliday		01/22/2021		01/22/2021			—				—				—				—				—				—				141,983	(1)		$	7,755,111
		02/04/2021		02/04/2021			—				—				—				59,193	(2)			126,277	(2)			284,124	(2)			—			$	9,026,551
		12/13/2021		12/13/2021			—				—				—				—				—				—				23,002	(3)		$	1,318,015
		N/A		N/A		$	625,000	(4)		$	2,500,000	(4)		$	3,750,000	(4)			—				—				—				—				—
Andrew Mathias		01/22/2021		01/22/2021			—				—				—				—				—				—				110,233	(5)		$	6,020,926
		02/04/2021		02/04/2021			—				—				—				47,355	(2)			101,023	(2)			227,300	(2)			—			$	7,221,245
		12/13/2021		12/13/2021			—				—				—				—				—				—				29,439	(3)		$	1,686,855
		N/A		N/A		$	475,000	(4)		$	1,662,500	(4)		$	2,375,000	(4)			—				—				—				—				—
Matthew J. DiLiberto		02/04/2021		02/04/2021			—				—				—				—				—				—				31,020	(6)		$	1,610,869
		02/04/2021		02/04/2021			—				—				—				4,386	(2)			9,355	(2)