Company: HPP
Filing Date: 2025-04-23
Form Type: DEF 14A
Source: 0001104659-25-038079
Chunk: 70

Company: Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-23
Form: DEF 14A
Chunk 70
---

| ​ | HUDSON PACIFIC PROPERTIES, INC. 
 Proxy Statement  |  2025        | ​ | ​ |     | ​ |

increase from the closing price of our common stock from the date the Compensation Committee approved the design, to earn the maximum payout (among the most challenging goals set in the office REIT industry) • Performance awards are eligible to be earned and may vest between years three and five and are also subject to a two-year post-vest holding period; time-based awards vest over five years and are also subject to a three-year post-vest holding period. This time-based vesting schedule subjects our senior leaders to an additional year of vesting than if we had granted annual awards in 2024 and 2025 under our traditional three-year vesting schedule • The next cycle of awards were granted to our employees in January 2025, with no grants (time-based or performance-based) to be made to Messrs. Coleman, Lammas and Diramerian in 2025 • Retention Equity for other Employees . In January 2024, Messrs. Suazo and Gordon (as well as all other EVPs) received only time-based LTIP Unit awards covering one year of equity grants (equal to the value of their 2023 target LTI awards). Long-term equity incentives granted in time-based LTIP Units were intended to bolster retention and boost morale following several years of declining stock prices and low performance award payouts. While there were no performance conditions associated with these awards, they are subject to both a three-year vesting period, plus a three-year post-vest holding period (meaning no units may be sold until four years after the grant date). The long-term vesting/holding requirements creates significant alignment with our stockholders irrespective of any performance conditions. 2024 LTIP Unit Awards In determining the dollar-denominated value of the LTIP Unit awards for our NEOs, the Compensation Committee analyzed: • The Company’s financial and operational performance; • The role and responsibilities of the individual; • Individual performance history (which for NEOs other than our CEO included Mr. Coleman’s input); and • Prevailing market practices based on market data provided by FPC with respect to our Executive Compensation Peer Group. Annual equity awards were not determined based on the attainment of any particular individual or Company-level performance goal(s) or the application of any benchmarking or formula(e). Instead, the Compensation Committee considered the peer group market data and our operational performance in determining the