HELE Helen of Troy Ltd

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

HELEN OF TROY LIMITED

Clarendon House

2 Church Street

Hamilton, Bermuda

Dear Shareholders:

It is my pleasure to invite you to the 2016 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders of Helen of Troy Limited. The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time, on Wednesday, August 17, 2016, at the Hotel Indigo El Paso, 325 N. Kansas Street, El Paso, Texas 79901. In addition to the business to be transacted at the meeting, members of management will present information about the Company’s operations and will be available to respond to your questions.

We encourage you to help us reduce printing and mailing costs and conserve natural resources by signing up for electronic delivery of our shareholder communications . For more information, see “Electronic Delivery of Shareholder Communications” in the enclosed proxy statement.

At our meeting, we will vote on proposals (1) to set the number of Director positions at eight (or such lower number as shall equal the number of nominees elected as Directors) and elect the eight nominees to our Board of Directors, (2) to provide advisory approval of the Company’s executive compensation, (3) to approve nine proposals relating to the Company’s Amended and Restated Bye-laws, (4) to approve an amendment to the Helen of Troy Limited Amended and Restated 2011 Annual Incentive Plan, (5) to appoint Grant Thornton LLP as the Company’s auditor and independent registered public accounting firm and to authorize the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to set the auditor’s remuneration, and (6) to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting.  The accompanying Notice of Annual General Meeting of Shareholders and proxy statement contains information that you should consider when you vote your shares. Also, for your convenience, you can appoint your proxy via touch-tone telephone or the internet at:

1-800-690-6903 or WWW.PROXYVOTE.COM

It is important that you vote your shares whether or not you plan to attend the meeting. Please complete, sign, date and return the enclosed proxy card in the accompanying envelope as soon as possible, or appoint your proxy by telephone or on the Internet as set forth above. If you plan to attend the meeting and wish to vote in person, you may revoke your proxy and vote in person at that time. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. On behalf of the management and directors of Helen of Troy Limited, I want to thank you for your continued support and confidence.

Table of Contents

HELEN OF TROY LIMITED

Clarendon House

2 Church Street

Hamilton, Bermuda

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

HELEN OF TROY LIMITED

Clarendon House

2 Church Street

Hamilton, Bermuda

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

August 17, 2016

SOLICITATION OF PROXIES

The accompanying proxy is solicited by the Board of Directors of Helen of Troy Limited (the “Company”) for use at its Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held in the Hotel Indigo El Paso, 325 N. Kansas Street, El Paso, Texas 79901 on Wednesday, August 17, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time, and at any adjournment thereof, for the purposes set forth in the accompanying Notice of Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. A proxy may be revoked by filing a written notice of revocation or an executed proxy bearing a later date with the Secretary of our Company any time before exercise of the proxy or by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. The proxy statements and form of proxy cards are to be distributed to shareholders on or about July 15, 2016.

If you complete and submit your proxy, the persons named as proxies will vote the shares represented by your proxy in accordance with your instructions. If you submit a proxy card but do not fill out the voting instructions on the proxy card, the persons named as proxies will vote the shares represented by your proxy as follows:

·                   FOR setting the number of Director positions at eight (or such lower number as shall equal the number of nominees elected as Directors) and electing the eight nominees to the Board of Directors, as set forth in Proposal 1.

·                   FOR the advisory approval of the Company’s executive compensation, as set forth in Proposal 2.

·                   FOR , the approval of nine proposals relating to the Company’s Amended and Restated Bye-laws, as set forth in Proposals 3A through 3I.

·                   FOR , the approval of an amendment to the Helen of Troy Limited Amended and Restated 2011 Annual Incentive Plan, as set forth in Proposal 4.

·                   FOR the appointment of Grant Thornton LLP as the auditor and independent registered public accounting firm of the Company and to authorize the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to set the auditor’s remuneration, as set forth in Proposal 5.

In addition, if other matters are properly presented for voting at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment thereof, the persons named as proxies will vote on such matters in accordance with their judgment. We have not received notice of other matters that may properly be presented for voting at the Annual Meeting. Your vote is important. If you do not vote your shares, you will not have a say in the important issues to be voted upon at the Annual Meeting. To pass, each proposal included in this year’s proxy statement requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on such proposal at the Annual Meeting. To ensure that your vote is recorded promptly, please submit your proxy as soon as possible, even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person.

The Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended February 29, 2016 (“fiscal year 2016”), including financial statements, is enclosed. It does not form any part of the material provided for the solicitation of proxies.

The cost of solicitation of proxies will be borne by the Company.  In addition to solicitation by mail, officers and employees of the Company may solicit the return of proxies by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail, personal interview, and other methods of communication.

We will request brokerage houses and other nominees, fiduciaries and custodians to forward soliciting materials to beneficial owners of the Company’s common shares, par value $0.10 per share (the “Common Stock”), for which we will, upon request, reimburse the forwarding expense.

4

Table of Contents

VOTING SECURITIES AND RECORD DATE

The close of business on June 24, 2016, is the record date for determination of shareholders entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting. As of June 24, 2016, there were [                      ] shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding, each entitled to one vote per share.

QUORUM; VOTING

Shareholders may hold their shares either as a “shareholder of record” or as a “street name” holder.  If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, you are considered the shareholder of record with respect to those shares and this proxy statement is being sent directly to you by the Company. If your shares are held in a brokerage account or by another nominee, you are considered to be the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” and these proxy materials, together with a voting instruction card, are being forwarded to you by your broker, trustee or other nominee. As the beneficial owner of the shares, you have the right to direct your broker, trustee or other nominee how to vote.

The presence in person of two or more persons, representing throughout the Annual Meeting, in person or by proxy, at least a majority of the issued shares of Common Stock entitled to vote is necessary to constitute a quorum at the Annual Meeting. Proxies marked as “Withhold Authority” on the election of Directors will be treated as present at the Annual Meeting for purposes of determining the quorum.

Abstentions and broker non-votes are also counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. “Broker non-votes” occur when shares held in street name by a broker or nominee are represented at the Annual Meeting, but such broker or nominee is not empowered to vote those shares on a particular proposal because the broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner.

Under the rules that govern brokers who are voting with respect to shares held by them in a street name, if the broker has not been furnished with voting instructions by its client at least ten days before the meeting, those brokers have the discretion to vote such shares on routine matters, but not on non-routine matters. Routine matters include the appointment of the auditor and related matters, submitted to the shareholders in Proposal 5. Non-routine matters include the election of Directors submitted to shareholders in Proposal 1, the advisory approval of the Company’s executive compensation submitted to shareholders in Proposal 2, the approval of nine proposals relating to the Company’s Amended and Restated Bye-laws submitted to the shareholders in Proposals 3A through 3I, and the approval of an amendment to the Helen of Troy Limited Amended and Restated 2011 Annual Incentive Plan submitted to the shareholders in Proposal 4. As a result, with regard to Proposals 1 through 4, brokers have no discretion to vote shares where no voting instructions are received, and no vote will be cast if you do not vote on that proposal. We therefore urge you to vote on ALL voting items.

If a quorum is present, each nominee for Director receiving a majority of the votes cast (the number of shares voted “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that nominee) at the Annual Meeting in person or by proxy shall be elected.  The affirmative vote of the majority of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting in person or by proxy shall also be the act of the shareholders with respect to Proposals 3 through 5. Abstentions and broker non-votes are not counted in determining the total number of votes cast and will have no effect with respect to any of the proposals because abstentions and broker non-votes are not considered to be votes cast under the applicable laws of Bermuda.

The advisory vote on executive compensation is non-binding. Although the vote is non-binding, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors will review and carefully consider the outcome of the advisory vote to approve the Company’s executive compensation and those opinions when making future decisions regarding executive compensation programs. Notwithstanding the advisory nature of the vote, the resolution in Proposal 2 will be considered passed with the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting in person or by proxy.

If within half an hour from the time appointed for the Annual Meeting a quorum is not present in person or by proxy, the Annual Meeting shall stand adjourned to the same day one week later, at the same time and place or to such other day, time or place the Board of Directors may determine, provided that at least two persons are present at such adjourned meeting, representing throughout the meeting, in person or by proxy, at least a majority of the issued shares of Common Stock entitled to vote. At any such adjourned meeting at which a quorum is present or represented, any business may be transacted that might have been transacted at the Annual Meeting as originally called.

5

Table of Contents

ATTENDING THE ANNUAL MEETING

A person is entitled to attend the Annual Meeting only if that person was a shareholder or joint shareholder as of the close of business on the record date or that person holds a valid proxy for the Annual Meeting. If you hold your shares in street name and desire to vote your shares at the Annual Meeting, you must provide a signed proxy directly from the holder of record giving you the right to vote the shares or a letter from the broker or nominee appointing you as their proxy. The proxy card enclosed with this proxy statement is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. If you hold your shares in street name and desire to attend the Annual Meeting, you must also provide proof of beneficial ownership on the record date, such as your most recent account statement prior to the record date or other similar evidence of ownership. If you are the shareholder of record or hold a valid proxy for the Annual Meeting, your name or the name of the person on whose behalf you are proxy must be verified against the Company’s list of shareholders of record on the record date prior to being admitted to and prior to voting at the Annual Meeting. All shareholders must, if requested by representatives of the Company, present photo identification for admittance. If you do not provide photo identification or comply with the other procedures outlined above upon request, you will not be admitted to the Annual Meeting and/or will not be permitted to vote, as applicable.

Table of Contents

ALEXANDER M. DAVERN, age 49, was elected to our Board of Directors in August 2014 and chairs the Audit Committee. He also serves as a member of the Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Davern joined National Instruments Corp., a producer of automated test equipment and application software, in February 1994. Since 2010, he has served as Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President. From 2002 to 2010, he served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Information Technology and Manufacturing Operations. From 1997 to 2002, he was the Chief Financial Officer of National Instruments. Prior to joining National Instruments, Mr. Davern worked both in Europe and in the United States for the international accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, LLP. From 2003 to 2008, Mr. Davern also served on the Board of Directors and as Audit Committee Chairman of Sigma Tel, Inc., a semiconductor manufacturer. In March 2015, Mr. Davern joined the Board of Directors of Cirrus Logic, Inc., a publically traded semiconductor manufacturer. Mr. Davern received a Bachelor’s of Commerce degree and a postgraduate diploma in professional accounting from University College in Dublin, Ireland.

Mr. Davern brings broad experience in business strategy, operations, global accounting, information technology, auditing, and SEC reporting matters. In addition, his experience as a public company executive and director contributes to his knowledge of corporate governance and public company matters.

TIMOTHY F. MEEKER , age 69, has been a Director of the Company since 2004. In January 2014, Mr. Meeker was appointed as Chairman of the Board. Mr. Meeker is also Chairman of the Nominating Committee and serves as a member of the Compensation Committee. Since 2002, Mr. Meeker has served as President and principal in Meeker and Associates, a privately-held management consulting firm. Mr. Meeker served as Senior Vice President, Sales & Customer Development for Bristol-Myers Squibb, a consumer products and pharmaceutical company, from 1996 through 2002.  From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Meeker served as Vice President of Sales for Bristol-Myers’ Clairol Division.

Mr. Meeker has over thirty-eight years of experience in the consumer products industry resulting in extensive general management experience with responsibilities for sales, distribution, finance, human resources, customer service and facilities.  In addition, he has a valued perspective on operational matters that is an asset to the Board of Directors.  Mr. Meeker has served as a chairman of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores advisory committee, which allows him to bring an extensive understanding of retail mass market sales and marketing to our Board of Directors.

JULIEN R. MININBERG , age 51, has served as our Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board since March 2014.  Prior to his appointment as CEO, Mr. Mininberg had served as the Chief Executive Officer of Kaz Inc. (“Kaz”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company since December 2010. Kaz comprises the Health & Home segment of the Company, which is the Company’s largest and most global business segment. Mr. Mininberg joined Kaz in 2006 serving as Chief Marketing Officer and was appointed President in September 2007, where he served until he was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Kaz in September 2010. Before joining Kaz, Mr. Mininberg worked 15 years at Procter & Gamble Co. (“P&G”), where he spent an equal amount of time in the United States and Latin America serving in a variety of marketing and general management capacities. In the U.S., he worked in brand management, serving as Brand Manager in P&G’s Health Care division. He was promoted to Marketing Director in 1997 and transferred to Latin America, where he served in the Fabric & Home Care division before being promoted to Country Manager for P&G’s Home Care business in Latin America. In 2003, he became Country Manager for Central America overseeing all P&G business in that region. Mr. Mininberg earned his Bachelor’s degree and MBA from Yale University. He currently serves on the Board of Advisors for Yale School of Management and serves as Past President of its global Alumni Association Board of Directors.

Mr. Mininberg brings a 27-year track record of building market-leading multinational brands and organizations, a strategic mindset, operational expertise, and seasoned leadership skills. As our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mininberg provides essential oversight of the business and organization, and a link between management and the Board. Mr. Mininberg has extensive experience in global brand building, general management and leading multi-national organizations. He plays a key role in communication with shareholders and leading the Company’s acquisition activities. Additionally, he provides crucial insight to the Board on the Company’s strategic planning and operations.

BERYL B. RAFF, age 65, was elected to our Board of Directors in August 2014 and serves as a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees. Since April 2009, Ms. Raff has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Helzberg Diamond Shops Inc., a jewelry retailer and a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.  From 2005 through April 2009, she served as Executive Vice President-General Merchandise Manager for the fine jewelry division of J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a retailer of apparel and home furnishings.  From 2001 through 2005, Ms. Raff served as Senior Vice President-General Merchandise Manager for the fine jewelry division of J.C. Penney.  Prior to joining J.C. Penney, Beryl served in various leadership roles of Zale Corporation, a national retail jewelry chain, last serving as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Raff served on the Board of Directors of Group 1 Automotive, Inc., an automotive retail operator, as a member of its Compensation Committee and Chairman of the Governance/Nomination Committee from 2007 to 2015. Since September 2014, Ms. Raff has served on the Board of Directors of The Michaels Stores, Inc., a national retail chain of arts and crafts specialty stores, and is a member of its Audit Committee. In 2015, Ms. Raff also joined the board of Larry H. Miller Group, an auto dealership, sports and entertainment company, where she serves on the

7

Table of Contents

Compensation and Nomination & Governance committees.  Ms. Raff serves on the Advisory Board of Jewelers Circular Keystone, a trade publication and industry authority, and on the Board of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, a non-profit organization focused on legal and regulatory issues facing the jewelry industry. Ms. Raff has previously served as a Director of the NACD Heartland Chapter, a non-profit organization dedicated to excellence in board leadership. From 2001 through February 2011, Ms. Raff served on the Board of Directors, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee (which she chaired from 2008 to 2011) of Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., a national specialty retailer of craft, sewing and decorating products.  Ms. Raff graduated from Boston University with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and from Drexel University with a Masters of Business Administration.

Ms. Raff is well known throughout the retail industry and brings to the Board of Directors her experience and perspective as an outstanding merchant and multi-store retail executive. The Board expects to benefit from Ms. Raff’s extensive knowledge of the retail industry and her valuable insight on how we can best serve our retail partners. Ms. Raff’s current and previous service on other boards also provides important perspectives on key corporate governance matters.

WILLIAM F. SUSETKA , age 63, has been a Director of the Company since 2009. In August 2014, Mr. Susetka was appointed as Chairman of the Compensation Committee. He also serves as a member of the Nominating Committee.  Mr. Susetka spent thirty years in marketing and senior management for Clairol, Inc. and Avon Products, Inc. From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Susetka was President of the Clairol U.S. Retail Division, with additional responsibility for worldwide research and development and manufacturing. From 2002 through 2005, Mr. Susetka was President of Global Marketing at Avon Products, Inc. where he led worldwide marketing, advertising and research and development and served on Avon’s Executive Committee. Prior to 1999, he held positions as President of the Clairol International Division and Vice President/General Manager for the Clairol Professional Products Division.  He served as a Board Member of the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association from 1999 to 2005 and as a member of the Avon Foundation Board from 2004 to 2005. From October 2005 to January 2006, Mr. Susetka was Chief Operating Officer of Nice Pak Products, Inc., a manufacturer of private labeled pre-moistened wipes and other antiseptic wipes. From 2007 through May 2009, he served as Chief Marketing Officer for the LPGA (Ladies Professional Golf Association). In September 2015, Mr. Susetka completed a six-year term on the LPGA Board of Directors.

Mr. Susetka provides a wealth of global consumer products industry experience and valuable insight to the Board of Directors.  Mr. Susetka is also instrumental in helping to monitor and adjust the strategic direction of the Company’s Grooming, Skin Care, and Hair Care products category, provides general guidance regarding consumer brand strategy to the Company’s other product categories, and consulting on related matters to senior management.

DARREN G. WOODY , age 56, has been a Director of the Company since 2004. Mr. Woody chairs the Corporate Governance Committee and also serves as a member of the Compensation and Nominating Committees. Mr. Woody is President and Chief Executive Officer of Jordan Foster Construction, LLC, a construction firm with offices in Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas and field operations throughout the United States. The firm specializes in military, commercial, multi-family, and highway construction. He has served in this capacity since August of 2000. Previously, Mr. Woody was a partner in the law firm of Krafsur, Gordon, Mott, Davis and Woody P.C., where he specialized in real estate, business acquisitions and complex financing arrangements.

Mr. Woody brings a multi-disciplined perspective to our Board of Directors given his executive leadership and legal experience. This background enables him to provide oversight with regard to many of the Company’s legal matters, significant transactional negotiations and the management of challenging complex projects.

Vote Required for Approval and Recommendation

The receipt of a majority of the votes cast (the number of shares voted “for” a director nominee exceeding the number of votes cast “against” that nominee) at the Annual Meeting is required to set the number of Director positions at eight (or such lower number as shall equal the number of nominees elected as Directors) and to elect each of the eight nominees for Director.  In the event that any of the Company’s nominees are unable to serve, proxies will be voted for the substitute nominee or nominees designated by our Board of Directors, or will be voted to fix the number of Directors at fewer than eight and for fewer than eight nominees, as the Board may deem advisable in its discretion.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE EIGHT NOMINEES NAMED ABOVE.

8

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance. Corporate governance is typically defined as the system that allocates duties and authority among a company’s shareholders, Board of Directors and management. The shareholders elect the Board and vote on extraordinary matters.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as our Code of Ethics, and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee, and Corporate Governance Committee are available under the “Corporate Governance” heading of the investor relations page of our website at the following address: WWW.HOTUS.COM .

Our Company believes that it is in compliance with the corporate governance requirements of the NASDAQ listing standards.  The principal elements of these governance requirements as implemented by our Company are:

·                   affirmative determination by the Board of Directors that a majority of the Directors are independent;

·                   regularly scheduled executive sessions of independent Directors;

·                   Audit Committee, Nominating Committee and Compensation Committee comprised of independent Directors and having the purposes and charters described below under the separate committee headings; and

·                   specific Audit Committee responsibility, authority and procedures outlined in the charter of the Audit Committee.

Independence. The Board of Directors has determined that the following directors and nominees for election at the Annual Meeting are independent Directors as defined in the NASDAQ listing standards: Gary B. Abromovitz, John B. Butterworth, Alexander M. Davern, Timothy F. Meeker, Beryl B. Raff, William F. Susetka and Darren G. Woody. Other than Julien R. Mininberg, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, each member of the Board, including all the persons nominated to serve on our Company’s Board of Directors, are independent as so defined. The foregoing independence determination of our Board of Directors included the determination that each of these seven nominated Board members, if elected and appointed to the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating Committee, or as discussed above, respectively, is:

·                   independent for purposes of membership on the Audit Committee under Rule 5605(c)(2) of the NASDAQ listing standards, that includes the independence requirements of Rule 5605(a)(2) and additional independence requirements under SEC Rule 10A-3(b);

·                   independent under the NASDAQ listing standards for purposes of membership on the Nominating Committee; and

·                   independent under the NASDAQ listing standards for purposes of membership on the Compensation Committee, as a “non-employee director” under SEC Rule 16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and an “outside director” as defined in regulations under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

BOARD LEADERSHIP AND THE BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

Separation of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Roles.

In January 2014, the Board separated the roles of the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer in order to further diversify and strengthen its leadership structure. We separated these roles in recognition of the differences between the two roles and the value to our Company of having the distinct and different perspectives and experiences of a separate Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Our Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day-to-day management and supervision of the business and affairs of our Company (such as reviewing performance and allocating resources as the Company’s chief operating decision maker) and for ensuring that the directives of the Board are carried into effect. Our Chairman, on the other hand, is charged with presiding over all meetings of the Board and our shareholders, and providing advice and counsel to the Chief Executive Officer and our Company’s other officers regarding our business and operations, as well as focusing on oversight and governance matters.

By separating the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, our Chief Executive Officer is able to focus his time and energy on managing the Company’s complex daily operations, while our Chairman can devote his time and attention to addressing matters relating to the responsibilities of our Board. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman have an excellent working relationship, and, with more than thirty-eight years of experience in the consumer products industry, our Chairman is well positioned to provide our Chief Executive Officer with guidance, advice, and counsel regarding our Company’s business, operations and strategy.

9

Table of Contents

Moreover, we believe that having a separate Chairman focused on oversight and governance matters allows the Board to more effectively perform its risk oversight role as described below. In connection with the Board’s self-evaluation process, as required by our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board evaluates its organization and processes to ensure that the Board is functioning effectively.  For the foregoing reasons, we believe that our separate Chief Executive Officer/Chairman structure is the most appropriate and effective leadership structure for our Company and our shareholders.

Deputy Chairman

The Deputy Chairman’s authority and responsibilities include presiding at all meetings of the Board when the Chairman is not present, presiding over all executive sessions of the independent Directors and interacting with committee Chairs to efficiently address Board issues for presentation at Board meetings. The Deputy Chairman also consults with the Chairman regarding Board agendas and outreach to shareholders.

Executive Sessions

Independent Directors regularly meet without management present. In regard to executive sessions, any independent Director has the authority to call meetings of independent Directors.

The Board’s Role on Risk Oversight

The Company’s management is responsible for the ongoing assessment and management of the risks the Company faces, including risks relating to capital structure, strategy, liquidity and credit, financial reporting and public disclosure, operations, and governance. The Board oversees management’s policies and procedures in addressing these and other risks.  Additionally, each of the Board’s four committees (the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee, and Corporate Governance Committee) monitor and report to the Board those risks that fall within the scope of such committee’s area of oversight responsibility. For example, the full Board directly oversees strategic risks. The Nominating Committee directly oversees risk management relating to Director nomination and independence. The Corporate Governance Committee directly oversees risk management regarding corporate governance. The Compensation Committee directly oversees risk management relating to employee compensation, including any risks of compensation programs encouraging excessive risk-taking. Finally, the Audit Committee directly oversees risk management relating to financial reporting, public disclosure and legal and regulatory compliance.  The Audit Committee is also responsible for assessing the steps management has taken to monitor and control these risks and exposures and discussing guidelines and policies with respect to the Company’s risk assessment and risk management.

Management has identified risks, designated associated “risk owners” within the organization and receives appropriate reports from the various risk owners as conditions change. Management works with the Board to communicate risk factors to the Board and to enable the Board to understand the Company’s risk identification, risk management and risk mitigation measures relating to strategic matters. Additional review or reporting of risks is conducted by management as needed or when requested by the Board or a committee. Additionally, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, working with the Audit Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee, assess corporate governance practices and risks. The Corporate Governance Committee periodically assesses the effectiveness of the Company’s corporate governance policies in light of the applicable listing standards and laws and reports their findings to the Board.

10

Table of Contents

BOARD COMMITTEES AND MEETINGS

Our Board of Directors has four committees: the Audit Committee, the Nominating Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee, and the Compensation Committee. The Independent Directors listed in the table below also meet in executive sessions without management present. The following table shows the composition of these committees as of February 29, 2016 and the number of meetings held during fiscal year 2016:

M = Member as of February 29, 2016

Audit Committee. Our Audit Committee is established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act.  The Audit Committee operates under a written charter that has been adopted by the Board of Directors. The primary purposes of this committee are to oversee, on behalf of the Company’s Board of Directors: (1) the accounting and financial reporting processes and integrity of our Company’s financial statements, (2) the audits of our Company’s financial statements and the appointment, compensation, qualifications, independence, and performance of our independent registered public accounting firm, (3) our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, and (4) the staffing and ongoing operation of our internal audit function. The Audit Committee meets periodically with our Chief Financial Officer and other appropriate officers in the discharge of its duties. The Audit Committee also reviews the content and enforcement of the Company’s Code of Ethics, consults with legal counsel on various legal compliance matters and on other legal matters if those matters could materially affect our financial statements.

The Board of Directors has determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee is independent as previously described. In addition, the Board of Directors determined that Alexander M. Davern qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the SEC in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC. Additionally, the Board of Directors determined that all of the members of the Audit Committee meet the requirement of the NASDAQ listing standards that each member be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company’s balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement.

Compensation Committee . The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter that has been adopted by the Board of Directors. The primary purposes of the committee are to (1) evaluate and approve the corporate goals and objectives set by the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”), (2) evaluate the CEO’s performance in light of those goals and objectives, (3) make recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to non-CEO compensation, incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans, (4) oversee the administration of our incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans, and (5) produce an annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement. The Board of Directors has determined that the members of this committee are independent as previously described. In addition to formal meetings, the committee also conducted numerous informal telephonic discussions and consulted its legal advisors throughout the year. The Compensation Committee has the independent authority to hire compensation, accounting, legal, or other advisors. The Compensation Committee retained Pearl Meyer & Partners (“Pearl Meyer”) as its independent compensation consultant to assist in the evaluation of the compensation packages of our Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers for fiscal year 2015. Pearl Meyer worked directly with the Compensation Committee (and not on behalf of management) to analyze the compensation received by our named executive officers, and assisted in establishing a peer group on which a benchmarking study was conducted. In April 2015, the Compensation Committee engaged Frederic W. Cook & Company (“FW Cook”) as its independent compensation consultant to assist the

11

Table of Contents

Compensation Committee with its compensation decisions for our named executive officers for fiscal year 2017. The Compensation Committee has determined that neither Pearl Meyer nor FW Cook had any conflicts of interest relating to its engagement by the Compensation Committee.

Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee operates under a written charter that has been adopted by the Board of Directors. The primary purposes of the Nominating committee are to (1) recommend to our Board of Directors individuals qualified to serve on our Board of Directors for election by shareholders at each annual general meeting of shareholders and to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors, and (2) implement the Board’s criteria for selecting new Directors. The Nominating Committee also oversees the evaluation of the Board members and seeks to annually review Director qualifications and skill sets with the goal of maintaining fresh perspectives on the Board. The Nominating Committee receives recommendations from its members, other members of the Board of Directors, outside advisors, and consultants for candidates to be considered for the Board. The Nominating Committee receives recommendations from its members or other members of the Board of Directors for candidates to be appointed to committee positions, reviews and evaluates such candidates and makes recommendations to the Board of Directors for nominations to fill or add committee positions.

The Nominating Committee’s current process for identifying and evaluating nominees for Director positions consists of general periodic evaluations of the size and composition of the Board of Directors, applicable listing standards and laws, and other appropriate factors with a goal of maintaining continuity of appropriate industry expertise and knowledge of our Company. The Nominating Committee looks for a number of personal attributes in selecting candidates as specified in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines including: sound reputation and ethical conduct; business and professional activities that are complementary to those of the Company; the availability of time and a willingness to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively; an active awareness of changes in the social, political and economic landscape; an absence of any conflicts of interest; a level of health that allows for attendance and active contribution to most Board and committee meetings; limited service on other boards; and a commitment to contribute to the Company’s overall performance, placing it above personal interests. The Nominating Committee does not have a diversity policy regarding its selection criteria for determining Director nominees. However, as specified in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Nominating Committee makes efforts to maintain members on the Board who have substantial and direct experience in areas of importance to the Company. Additionally, the Nominating Committee seeks independent Directors who represent a mix of backgrounds and experiences that will enhance the quality of the Board’s deliberations and decisions.  The Nominating Committee considers all attributes, business diversity, professional qualifications, and experience of all candidates the committee believes will benefit the Company and increase shareholder value, without regard to gender, race or ethnic background. The Nominating Committee does not assign specific weights to particular criteria, and no particular criterion is necessarily applicable to all prospective nominees.

The Nominating Committee will consider candidates recommended by shareholders. Written suggestions for candidates by shareholders should be delivered for consideration by the Nominating Committee to the Secretary of the Company, Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton, Bermuda. Written suggestions for candidates should be accompanied by a written consent of the proposed candidate to serve as a Director if nominated and elected, a description of his or her qualifications and other relevant biographical information. The Nominating Committee may request that the shareholder submitting the proposed nominee furnish additional information to determine the eligibility and qualifications of such candidate. Additionally, any candidate recommended by shareholders must meet the same general requirements outlined in the previous paragraph to be considered for election. Any shareholder recommendation will be considered for nomination as a Director at the sole discretion of the Nominating Committee. Neither the Board of Directors nor the Nominating Committee is required to include any shareholder nominee recommendation as a proposal in the proxy statement and proxy card mailed to shareholders. Our Company did not receive any such Director nominee recommendations for the Annual Meeting.

In addition, Section 79 of the Companies Act 1981 provides that (i) any number of shareholders representing not less than 5 percent of the total voting power of the shares eligible to vote at a general meeting of shareholders, or (ii) not less than 100 shareholders may propose any resolution which may properly be moved at the next annual general meeting of shareholders. Upon timely receipt of a requisition and compliance with Section 79, we will, at the expense of such shareholder(s), give our other shareholders entitled to receive notice of the next annual general meeting of shareholders notice of the proposed resolution. To be timely, the requisition requiring notice of a resolution must be deposited at our registered office at least six weeks before the next annual general meeting of shareholders. Shareholders satisfying the criteria of Section 79 may also require us to circulate a statement in respect of any matter to come before an annual general meeting of shareholders by requisition deposited at our registered office not less than one week prior to the annual general meeting of shareholders.

Corporate Governance Committee.   The primary purposes of the Corporate Governance Committee are to (1) develop, assess and recommend to the Board our corporate governance policies, and (2) evaluate, develop and recommend to the Board succession plans for all of the Company’s senior management. The Corporate Governance Committee works with the Compensation Committee to develop and recommend succession plans to the Board of Directors.

12

Table of Contents

Meetings of Board of Directors and its Committees. The Board of Directors held four regularly scheduled meetings and three other meetings (all of which were telephonic) during fiscal year 2016.  Except for Ms. Raff, who was unable to participate in three Compensation Committee meetings (each of which were telephonic), each Board member attended at least 75 percent of the meetings of our Board of Directors and the committee meetings for which they were members.  We encourage, but do not require, the members of the Board of Directors to attend annual general meetings. Last year, all of our Directors attended the annual general meeting of shareholders. We expect that all Board members and Director nominees will attend the Annual Meeting.

Committee Rotation. The Board will consider the rotation of committee assignments and of committee chairs at such intervals as the Board determines on the recommendation of the Corporate Governance Committee. Consideration of rotation will seek to balance the benefits derived from continuity and experience, on the one hand, and the benefits derived from gaining fresh perspectives and enhancing Directors’ understanding of different aspects of the Company’s business and enabling functions. The Board did not rotate any committee chairs in fiscal year 2016.

SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Any record or beneficial owner of our shares of Common Stock who has concerns about accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters relating to our Company may contact the Audit Committee directly. Any record or beneficial owner of our Common Stock who wishes to communicate with the Board of Directors on any other matter should also contact the Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee has undertaken on behalf of the Board of Directors to be the recipient of communications from shareholders relating to our Company. If particular communications are directed to the full Board, independent Directors as a group, or individual Directors, the Audit Committee will route these communications to the appropriate Directors or committees so long as the intended recipients are clearly stated.

Communications intended to be anonymous may be made by calling our national hotline service at 844-317-9054 or online at WWW.HOTUS.ETHICSPOINT.COM. If calling, please identify yourself as a shareholder of our Company intending to communicate with the Audit Committee. This third party service undertakes to forward the communications to the Audit Committee if so requested and clearly stated. You may also send communications intended to be anonymous by mail, without indicating your name or address, to Helen of Troy, 1 Helen of Troy Plaza, El Paso, Texas, 79912, USA, Attention: Chairman of the Audit Committee.  Communications not intended to be made anonymously may be made by calling the hotline number or by mail to that address, including whatever identifying or other information you wish to communicate.

Communications from employees or agents of our Company will not be treated as communications from our shareholders unless the employee or agent clearly indicates that the communication is made solely in the person’s capacity as a shareholder.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

In fiscal year 2016, the following cash compensation was paid to our non-employee Directors.

(1)          All non-employee Directors received a quarterly cash retainer $25,000.

(2)          For his services as Deputy Chairman, Mr. Abromovitz received quarterly cash fees of $5,000.

(3)          For his services as Chairman of the Board, Mr. Meeker received a quarterly cash fee of $17,500 for the first quarter of fiscal year 2016 and quarterly cash fees of $22,500 for all remaining fiscal quarters.

(4)          For his services as Chairman of the Audit Committee, Mr. Davern received quarterly cash fees of $3,750.

(5)          For his services as Chairman of the Nominating Committee, Mr. Meeker received quarterly cash fees of $1,250.

(6)          For his services as Chairman of the Compensation Committee, Mr. Susetka received quarterly cash fees of $3,750.

(7)          For his services as Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee, Mr. Woody received quarterly cash fees of $1,250.

Director Stock Ownership and Compensation Guidelines

The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors believe that Directors should own and hold Common Stock to further align their interests and actions with the interests of the Company’s shareholders. In June 2014, the Board of Directors adopted revised stock ownership and compensation guidelines for the Directors, which replaced previous guidelines. These revised guidelines took effect after the 2014 annual general meeting and require that Directors hold shares of the Common Stock equal in value to at least twice the annual cash retainer for Directors. These revised guidelines require a higher ownership threshold than under the previously effective guidelines. The revised guidelines provide that equity awards to non-employee Directors vest when granted. Because the effectiveness of the revised guidelines took effect concurrent with the increases in the Director annual cash retainers, the Directors were given five years from the date of the increase to acquire any additional shares needed to comply with the revised guidelines. The Compensation Committee will review stock ownership levels on the first trading day of the calendar year based on the fair market value of the shares on such date.

The Board of Directors also believes that compensation arrangements should be flexible enough to allow the Directors to receive a balanced mix of equity and cash keeping in mind the Board’s guidelines for achieving and maintaining stock ownership. In this respect, the Board of Directors will seek to target Director average compensation at a mix of approximately 50 percent cash and 50 percent equity, not including any annual cash chair fees paid to the chairpersons of the Board committees. Each Director receives approximately 30 percent of the value of the stock grant award in cash in order to pay any tax liabilities associated with the grant.

15

Table of Contents

Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Plan

At the 2008 annual general meeting of shareholders, the Company’s shareholders approved the Helen of Troy Limited 2008 Non-Employee Directors Stock Incentive Plan (the “2008 Director Plan”). The purpose of the 2008 Director Plan is to (1) aid the Company in attracting, securing, and retaining Directors of outstanding ability and (2) motivate such persons to exert their best efforts on behalf of the Company and its subsidiaries and its affiliates by providing incentives through the granting of awards under the plan. Only non-employee Directors of the Company are eligible to participate in the 2008 Director Plan.  Because Julien Mininberg is an employee of the Company, he is not eligible to participate in the 2008 Director Plan.

The 2008 Director Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The 2008 Director Plan permits grants of restricted stock, restricted stock units and other stock-based awards to the Company’s non-employee Directors. The vesting criteria and other terms and conditions of restricted stock, restricted stock units and other stock-based awards will be determined by the Compensation Committee. Shares which are subject to awards that terminate, expire, are cancelled, exchanged, forfeited, lapse, or settled for cash may be utilized again with respect to awards granted under the 2008 Director Plan. As of May 10, 2016, 74,821 shares of restricted stock have been granted under the plan and 100,179 shares of Common Stock remain available for future issue (subject to adjustment in certain circumstances). The plan will expire by its terms on August 19, 2018.

16

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

(1)          Includes shares subject to stock options that are exercisable within sixty days of May 10, 2016 as follows:

(2)          Based on the Schedule 13G/A filed on February 12, 2016. According to the filing, FMR LLC currently has sole dispositive power for 4,211,957 shares, shared dispositive power for zero shares, sole voting power for 715,277  shares, and shared voting power for zero shares.

(3)          Based on the Schedule 13G/A filed on January 26, 2016. According to the filing, Blackrock, Inc. has sole dispositive power for 2,618,683 shares, shared dispositive power for zero shares, sole voting power for 2,555,083 shares, and shared voting power for zero shares.

(4)          Based on the Schedule 13G/A filed on February 09, 2016. According to the filing, Dimensional Fund Advisors LP has sole dispositive power for 2,295,966 shares, shared dispositive power for zero shares, sole voting power for 2,269,262 shares, and shared voting power for zero shares.

(5)          Based on the Schedule 13G/A filed on February 11, 2016. According to the filing, Vanguard Group, Inc. currently has sole dispositive power for 2,155,760 shares, shared dispositive power for 46,881 shares, sole voting power for 46,781 shares, and shared voting power for 1,700 shares.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The executive officers of the Company are currently Julien R. Mininberg, Brian L. Grass, Thomas J. Benson and Vincent D. Carson. Mr. Mininberg also serves as a Director of the Company and stands for nomination at the Annual Meeting. His biography is included above under “Proposal 1: Election of Directors.”

BRIAN L. GRASS , age 46, joined the Company in 2006. In May 2014, Mr. Grass was appointed Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Prior to the appointment, he had served in the capacity of the Company’s Assistant Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Grass spent seven years in public accounting at KPMG LLP and six years in various financial leadership roles at Tenet Healthcare Corporation, a healthcare services company.

THOMAS J. BENSON , age 59, joined the Company in August 2003. In May 2014, Mr. Benson was appointed Chief Operations Officer of the Company. From January 14, 2014 through February 28, 2014, Mr. Benson served as Interim Chief Executive Officer in addition to his duties as Chief Financial Officer. Prior to the appointments, Mr. Benson served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Mr. Benson served as Chief Financial Officer of Elamex, S.A. de C.V., a provider of manufacturing and shelter services, from June 2002 to August 2003, and as Chief Financial Officer of Franklin Connections/Azar Nut Company, a manufacturer, packager and distributor of candy and nut products, from May 1994 to June 2002. He has served as an investments director in two private investment firms and spent seven years in public accounting. He received his B.S. from St. Mary’s College and his Masters Degree of Taxation from DePaul University.

VINCENT D. CARSON , age 56, joined the Company in November 2001. In May 2014, Mr. Carson was appointed Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of the Company. Prior to the appointment, he had served in the capacity of Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary from November 2001 to September 2010. From September 2010 to April 30, 2014, he served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of the Company. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Carson had a 16 year legal career in private practice in El Paso, Texas.

18

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our executive compensation program for fiscal year 2016. During fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee was responsible for approving executive compensation and overseeing the administration of our incentive plans and employee benefit plans.

Overall, our executive compensation program emphasizes performance- and equity-based compensation to align it with shareholder interests and includes other practices that we believe serve shareholder interests such as paying for performance, not providing tax “gross-up” payments and maintaining policies relating to clawbacks of incentive awards and prohibitions on hedging or pledging Company stock. Important features of our fiscal year 2016 executive compensation program include the following:

At the 2015 annual general meeting, approximately 98 percent of votes present (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) voted for the “Say-on-Pay” proposal related to our compensation policies. Following the end of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee conducts a review of all components of the Company’s compensation program. In consideration of the results on the “Say-on-Pay” vote, the Compensation Committee acknowledged the support received from our shareholders and viewed the results as a confirmation of the Company’s executive compensation policies and decisions. Accordingly, we did not change our compensation principles and objectives for our named executive officers in fiscal year 2016 in response to the advisory vote of our shareholders. However, on January 7, 2016, we entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer, that, among other matters, extended the term of his employment and modified certain of his compensation terms. This agreement became effective as of March 1, 2016, the first day of our fiscal year 2017. Pursuant to its terms, Mr. Mininberg’s original employment agreement was scheduled to expire on February 29, 2016. For further information, see “– Fiscal Year 2017 Compensation Changes.”

20

Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2016 Performance Overview

We were able to meet a number of objectives aimed to further our core initiatives to grow our business and increase shareholder value, including:

·                   cumulative total shareholder returns of 157 percent and 241 percent over the past three and five fiscal years, respectively, that exceed our Compensation Peer Group (as described below), the NASDAQ Market Index, and the Dow Jones-U.S. Personal Products, Broad Market Cap, Yearly, and Total Return Index (which we sometimes refer to as the “Industry Group”);

·                   net revenue compound annual growth rates of 6.3 percent and 14.8 percent over the past three and five fiscal years, respectively; and

·                   cash flow from operations compound annual growth rates of 16.2 percent and 28.4 percent over the past three and five fiscal years, respectively.

21

Table of Contents

Overview of Compensation Practices

Oversight of Our Executive Compensation Program

The Compensation Committee oversees the compensation of our named executive officers and is composed entirely of independent Directors as defined under the listing standards of NASDAQ. The Compensation Committee is responsible for evaluating the Chief Executive Officer’s performance in light of the goals and objectives of the Company. It also makes compensation recommendations with respect to our other executive officers, including approval of awards for incentive compensation and equity-based plans. The Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee also assist the Board of Directors in developing succession planning for our named executive officers.

22

Table of Contents

The Role of Chief Executive Officer in Determining Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee, working with the Chief Executive Officer, evaluates and approves all compensation regarding our other named executive officers. Our other named executive officers report directly to our Chief Executive Officer who supervises the day to day performance of those officers. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer establishes the criteria and any targets used to determine bonuses, including each other named executive officer’s individual performance and Company-based performance factors, and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding salaries, bonuses and equity awards for the other named executive officers. The Compensation Committee strongly considers the compensation recommendations and the performance evaluations of the Chief Executive Officer in making its decisions and any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to other named executive officers’ compensation, incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans that are required to be submitted to the Board.  In deliberations or approvals regarding the compensation of the other named executive officers, the Compensation Committee may elect to invite the Chief Executive Officer to be present but not vote.  In any deliberations or approvals of the Compensation Committee regarding the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, the Chief Executive Officer is not invited to be present.

Objectives of Our Compensation Program

Our compensation program is designed to attract, motivate and retain key employees and to align the long-term interests of the named executive officers with those of our shareholders. The philosophy that the Compensation Committee uses to set executive compensation levels and structures is based on the following principles:

·                   compensation for our named executive officers should be linked to performance;

·                   a higher percentage of compensation should be performance-based as an executive officer’s range of responsibility and ability to influence the Company’s results increase;

·                   compensation should be competitive in relation to the marketplace; and

·                   outstanding achievement should be recognized.

In addition, we believe that our compensation programs for executive officers should be appropriately tailored to encourage employees to grow our business, but not encourage them to do so in a way that poses unnecessary or excessive material risk to the Company.

Compensation Consultant and Other Advisers

The Compensation Committee has the independent authority to hire compensation, accounting, legal, or other advisors. In connection with any such hiring, the Compensation Committee can determine the scope of the consultant’s assignments and their fees. The scope of a consultant’s services may include providing the Compensation Committee with data regarding compensation trends, assisting the Compensation Committee in the preparation of market surveys or tally sheets or otherwise helping it evaluate compensation decisions.

The Compensation Committee retained Pearl Meyer & Partners (“Pearl Meyer”) as its independent compensation consultant to assist in the evaluation of the compensation packages of our Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers for fiscal year 2015. Pearl Meyer worked directly with the Compensation Committee (and not on behalf of management) to analyze the compensation received by our named executive officers, and assisted in establishing a peer group on which a benchmarking study was conducted. In April 2015, the Compensation Committee engaged Frederic W. Cook & Company (“FW Cook”) as its independent compensation consultant to assist the Compensation Committee with its compensation decisions for our named executive officers for fiscal year 2017. The Compensation Committee has determined that neither Pearl Meyer nor FW Cook had any conflicts of interest relating to its engagement by the Compensation Committee.

23

Table of Contents

Benchmarking

The Compensation Committee benchmarked the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer for fiscal year 2016, which was not changed from fiscal year 2015.  The Compensation Committee believes that targeting executive compensation within the peer group permits the Compensation Committee to assess an appropriate total value and mix of pay for our executives and to set the compensation of our named executive officers in a manner that is competitive in relation to the marketplace. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee engaged Pearl Meyer to prepare a peer group list for the Compensation Committee to consider as a benchmark in determining the fiscal year 2015 total compensation of our Chief Executive Officer (the “Compensation Peer Group”).  The Compensation Committee also used the Compensation Peer Group, as well as survey data, to assist the committee in setting the fiscal year 2016 total compensation of our other executive officers. The fiscal year 2016 Compensation Peer Group consists of the following 14 companies:

In compiling the Compensation Peer Group, the Compensation Committee considered management input, peer groups lists prepared by proxy advisers and the input of its independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Peer Group includes a mix of companies identified as being within our peer group by proxy advisors or recommended by our compensation consultant or management. The organizations ultimately included in the Compensation Peer Group were chosen because they are a source of talent, are within the general industry of the Company and have comparable revenues, are competitors of the Company or have similar distribution channels as the Company. The Compensation Committee also screened companies included in the Compensation Peer Group with a focus on including those with revenues of one-third to three times the revenue of the Company. Although their revenues are more than three times larger than those of the Company, the Compensation Committee decided to include The Clorox Co., Jarden Corp., Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and Coty Inc. in the Compensation Peer Group because they are direct competitors of the Company and are a source of talent. The Compensation Committee plans to review the Compensation Peer Group on an annual basis.  Other than the removal of one company from the peer group due to corporate transactions, the Compensation Committee determined not to change the peer group for fiscal year 2016.

The Compensation Committee used median compensation data for similar positions in the Compensation Peer Group as a guide to setting fiscal year 2015 compensation targets for our named executive officers. For our named executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee also considered survey data. The actual total compensation and/or amount of each compensation element for an individual may be more or less than this median. For fiscal year 2015 compensation, the Compensation Committee benchmarked the total target compensation of Mr. Mininberg at approximately the 50th percentile level. Because of the overwhelming approval by our shareholders of our compensation policies in fiscal year 2015, the Compensation Committee determined not to make significant changes to Mr. Mininberg’s elements of compensation for fiscal year 2016 and elected to maintain the same level of total target compensation for Mr. Mininberg in fiscal year 2016.

24

Table of Contents

25

Table of Contents

Our Compensation Program for Our Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Mininberg has served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company since March 1, 2014 and was party to an employment agreement that became effective on that date (the “Employment Agreement”). On January 7, 2016, we entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with Mr. Mininberg, effective March 1, 2016 (the “New Employment Agreement”). For further information regarding the compensatory terms of the New Employment Agreement, see “– Fiscal Year 2017 Compensation Changes.” Mr. Mininberg sets the overall strategic vision for our Company, and oversees the senior management team and the Company’s growth and acquisition strategy.  The Compensation Committee has structured his compensation so that it falls within a range paid to chief executives of peer companies that followed the compensation guidelines of proxy advisory firms. To assist the Compensation Committee in these efforts, it evaluated the compensation relative to organizations in the Compensation Peer Group. The Compensation Committee targeted Mr. Mininberg’s total compensation in fiscal year 2015 at approximately the 50th percentile level of the Compensation Peer Group. The Compensation Committee elected to maintain the same level of total target compensation for Mr. Mininberg and determined not to make significant changes to Mr. Mininberg’s elements of compensation for fiscal year 2016. The Compensation Committee believes the compensation program of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer is closely aligned with the interests of the shareholders and reflective of the marketplace.

Pay for Performance

The Compensation Committee believes that performance-based compensation aligns our Chief Executive Officer’s interests with our annual corporate goals and that a substantial majority of his compensation should be performance-based considering the scope and level of his business responsibilities. For fiscal year 2016 and the remaining term of the New Employment Agreement, Mr. Mininberg’s performance compensation was and will be based on a balanced mix of equity and cash awards. Under the Employment Agreement and related compensation programs, the Compensation Committee uses targeted, performance-based compensation goals for our Chief Executive Officer.  These targets are designed to incorporate performance criteria that promote our short-term and long-term business strategies, build long-term shareholder value and avoid encouraging excessive risk-taking.

For fiscal year 2016, approximately 79 percent of Mr. Mininberg’s target total compensation was tied to Company performance.

Elements of the Compensation Program for Our Chief Executive Officer

For fiscal year 2016, the principal components of compensation for our Chief Executive Officer were:

·                   base salary;

·                   performance-based incentive awards (annual and long-term);

·                   limited perquisites; and

·                   limited post-termination benefits.

26

Table of Contents

Additionally, the Compensation Committee approved the payment of a discretionary bonus to our Chief Executive Officer in fiscal year 2016.  The Compensation Committee reviews total compensation for the Chief Executive Officer annually and evaluates his performance. Each year, the Compensation Committee also certifies that the amounts of any bonus payments under the 2011 Annual Incentive Plan (“2011 Bonus Plan”) have been accurately determined and that the performance targets approved by the shareholders, and any other material terms previously established by the Compensation Committee, were in fact satisfied.  The Compensation Committee believes that performance-based compensation should constitute a substantial portion of our Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation. As a result, the Compensation Committee anticipates that the Chief Executive Officer’s base salary will represent a small percentage of the Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation in any given fiscal year. Mr. Mininberg’s total compensation is primarily performance-based and tied directly to the success of the Company.  In addition, Mr. Mininberg’s performance-based compensation consists of a mix of cash and equity to provide an appropriate balance of incentives to achieve both the short-term and long-term goals of the Company.

Base Salary of Our Chief Executive Officer

We provide our named executive officers and other employees with a base salary to provide a fixed amount of compensation for regular services rendered during the fiscal year.  The Employment Agreement sets Mr. Mininberg’s salary at $900,000 per year.

Performance-Based Incentive Awards for Our Chief Executive Officer

The Compensation Committee also designed Mr. Mininberg’s compensation package to include a balance of short-term incentive compensation awarded on an annual basis and long-term incentive compensation measured over a three-year performance period. Both short-term and long-term incentive compensation for Mr. Mininberg is based on multiple performance measures.

Annual Incentive Awards

The Compensation Committee believes that performance-based awards align our executives’ interests with our annual corporate goals and are important to the success of the Company.  Accordingly, Mr. Mininberg is entitled to receive an annual incentive bonus, subject to the achievement of specific performance conditions that are not duplicative of the performance conditions of his long-term incentive awards.   The Compensation Committee also based the annual incentive award on two performance measures, which are intended to measure identified short term goals of the Company.  Mr. Mininberg’s annual incentive compensation was not based on a set performance measure over the term of the Employment Agreement.  Accordingly, the Compensation Committee was able to reevaluate and establish the performance measures on an annual basis to reflect shareholder input and changes in market trends.

The fiscal year 2016 bonus opportunity was based on the achievement of adjusted income and net sales targets, with no annual incentive award to be paid if the threshold adjusted income target was not met. Adjusted income is calculated based on net income, without asset impairment charges, gains and losses from dispositions, acquisition related expenses, restructuring charges, litigation charges, non-market based currency revaluations, and chief executive officer succession costs (collectively, the “Signinficant Items”). The Compensation Committee values both goals as important to the Company’s success. For fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee set the threshold, target and maximum adjusted income and net sales values at the following levels:

Depending upon the achievement of the above performance goals, for fiscal 2016, Mr. Mininberg was eligible for cash payout under the 2011 Bonus Plan targeted at $1,800,000, with a maximum payout of 165 percent of the target amount and a threshold payout of 50 percent of the target amount. For adjusted income and net sales results that fall in between the threshold and the target and the target and maximum values, the payout percentage of the award is calculated as a percent of the target amount using a non-linear curve.

Eighty percent (80%) of the bonus opportunity was based on the achievement of the adjusted income performance measure and twenty percent (20%) of the bonus opportunity was based on the achievement of the net sales performance measure. The committee placed a higher weight on the adjusted income goal over the net sales goal because it believes that adjusted income is the most accurate and significant factor in measuring our performance.  Additionally, the emphasis on the adjusted income metric reflects the importance the Board places on achieving profitability through disciplined business expansion and expense management.  If the adjusted income threshold had not been achieved, because of the importance the Compensation Committee places on adjusted income, no bonus would have been earned or payable with respect to fiscal year 2016.  Additionally, Mr. Mininberg is not entitled to that

27

Table of Contents

portion of the bonus attributed to any performance measure if the threshold amount associated with such performance measure is not achieved.

The adjusted income and net sales targets are subject to adjustment in the event that the Company or any of its subsidiaries consummates an acquisition of the stock or assets of another entity or business or divests any stock or assets of the Company or its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee believes these adjustments properly modify performance results under the 2011 Bonus Plan to account for the impact of acquisitions and divestitures.

For fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee’s exercised its discretion to negatively adjust the adjusted income and net sales amounts for fiscal year 2016 used in the determination of the bonus payout percentage, decreasing the amounts by approximately $2,680,000 and $4,057,000, respectively, due to the beneficial impact that hyperinflation had on the Company’s Venezuelan operating results. Following these adjustments, for purposes of determining the bonus payout percentage, the Company’s adjusted income was  $145,719,000, representing 105.6 percent of the target measure and resulting in a payout percentage relating to that target of 149.8 percent, and the Company’s net sales were $1,541,644,000, representing 102.1 percent of the target measure and resulting in a payout percentage relating to that target of 111.6 percent. As a result, the Compensation Committee determined Mr. Mininberg had earned a cash bonus of $2,558,942 under the 2011 Bonus Plan (a blended percentage of 142.2 percent of the target award).

Long-Term Incentive Awards

The Compensation Committee believes that executive compensation should be linked, in part, to building long-term shareholder value. This objective is met by providing long-term incentives in the form of equity-based awards, such as performance-based restricted stock units (“Performance RSUs”). These grants make the performance of the Company’s Common Stock a targeted incentive.  The Compensation Committee established what it believes are rigorous performance goals that are not duplicative between short term and long-term incentive awards.  Additionally, the Compensation Committee established a three-year performance period for long-term incentive awards of our Chief Executive Officer.

As part of this objective, with respect to fiscal year 2016, Mr. Mininberg is eligible to receive a long-term incentive award for a three year performance period ending February 28, 2018, pursuant to the Helen of Troy Amended and Restated 2008 Stock Plan (the “2008 Stock Plan”). Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, this award is in the form of a grant of Performance RSUs. The fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU grant is targeted at 19,577 Performance RSUs (with a grant date fair value of $1,500,000), with the opportunity to earn up to 39,154 Performance RSUs (with a grant date fair value of $3,000,000) and a threshold achievement payout of 9,789 Performance RSUs (with a grant date fair value of $750,000). The fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU grant is based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share growth (based on earnings per share, without Significant Items, adjusted cash flow productivity (as described below) and relative total shareholder return. Fifty percent (50%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU grant is based on the achievement of the adjusted earnings per share growth performance measure, twenty-five percent (25%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU grant is based on the achievement of the adjusted cash flow productivity performance measure and twenty-five percent (25%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU grant is based on the achievement of the relative total shareholder return performance measure.  The comparison group for purposes of the relative total shareholder return measure is the benchmarked Compensation Peer Group.  However, for purposes of this calculation, the Compensation Committee excluded American Greetings Corp. due to it becoming a privately-held corporation.

The Compensation Committee used adjusted earnings per share growth because it believes it is viewed by our shareholders as an important reflection of the Company’s financial health and it measures how the Company is performing with respect to profitability and value creation.  Due to the importance of adjusted earnings per share growth to the Company’s shareholders over the long-term, the Compensation Committee elected to use the measure as the highest weighted metric in the determination of Mr. Mininberg’s long-term incentive award. The adjusted cash flow productivity metric is calculated by dividing (1) net cash provided by operating activities of the Company, less capital and intangible asset expenditures, by (2) adjusted income (calculated based on net income, without Significant Items). The Compensation Committee chose this metric because it calculates how the Company’s operations are effectively using its investments to generate cash flow.  The measure also reflects the importance of cash flow as a means of assessing the fiscal soundness of the Company.  The Compensation Committee chose the relative total shareholder return metric because it provides a direct link between Mr. Mininberg’s compensation and shareholder results allowing his performance to be judged in comparison to peer group performance, while also allowing positive and negative adjustments for unexpected market conditions. Mr. Mininberg is not entitled to that portion of the award attributed to any performance measure if the threshold amount associated with such performance measure is not achieved.

28

Table of Contents

Discretionary Bonuses

The Compensation Committee made a discretionary grant of 2,000 restricted shares in March 2015, with a grant date fair value of $178,240.  The grant rewarded Mr. Mininberg for his contributions to the Company’s success and his extensive efforts toward those ends and in lieu of increasing Mr. Mininberg’s base salary for fiscal year 2016.  Additionally, Mr. Mininberg received a holiday bonus of $2,500 in fiscal year 2016.

Limited Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits Provided to Our Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Mininberg is entitled to participate in various benefit plans available to all employees of the Company, such as a 401(k) plan (including matching contributions), group medical, group life and group dental insurance, as well as vacation and paid holidays. In addition, the Company pays or reimburses Mr. Mininberg for reasonable travel and other expenses incurred by him in performing his obligations. Additionally, in fiscal year 2016, the Company paid $25,000 in legal fees on Mr. Mininberg’s behalf in connection with the negotiation of the New Employment Agreement.

The Compensation Committee believes the severance provisions of the Employment Agreement were a competitive compensation element in the executive labor market at the time the Employment Agreement was negotiated and were necessary because the Employment Agreement did not provide for any retirement benefits for Mr. Mininberg following his termination with the Company. As noted above, the Employment Agreement limited the potential severance payable to our Chief Executive Officer over the term of the Employment Agreement for the termination events described in the preceding paragraph. The Employment Agreement did not contain the provision of any payment that is linked to a change of control of the Company. However, the Compensation Committee can provide for the acceleration of equity awards to our Chief Executive Officer based on a “double trigger,” which means that the acceleration of those awards would generally occur if, during the employment period, the named executive officer’s employment was involuntarily terminated by the Company other than for cause or by the named executive officer for good reason, in each case, within a specified period following a change of control or if the equity award is not assumed or substituted in connection

29

Table of Contents

with the change of control. On March 1, 2016, the New Employment Agreement became effective, which amends certain post-termination benefits our Chief Executive Officer is eligible to receive. For further information, see “– Fiscal Year 2017 Compensation Changes.”

The Company’s Compensation Program for our Other Named Executive Officers

Our other named executive officers for fiscal year 2016 are Mr. Grass, Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Benson, Chief Operations Officer, and Mr. Carson, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary. None of these named executive officers is party to an employment agreement.  As a result, their compensation is reviewed and determined by the Compensation Committee on an annual basis. The Compensation Committee may also review an executive officer’s compensation if that executive officer is promoted or experiences a change in responsibilities.

Our other named executive officers report directly to our Chief Executive Officer who supervises the day to day performance of those officers. Our Chief Executive Officer annually reviews our executive compensation program (other than for himself) and makes compensation recommendations to the Compensation Committee with respect to the other named executive officers, among others. The Compensation Committee strongly considers the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer in making its decisions and any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to non-CEO compensation, incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans that are approved by the Board.  Additionally, for fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee evaluated compensation trends and market practice for the other named executive officers.

Pay for Performance

The Compensation Committee believes that a significant portion of compensation to our named executive officers should be “at risk” based on the financial performance of the Company and the individual performance of the executive. The Compensation Committee also believes that the performance compensation should promote both a near- and long-term outlook.  As a result, each of the other named executive officers is eligible to earn a cash annual incentive award and a mix of long-term performance-based incentive awards, similar to the compensation structure of our Chief Executive Officer. Additionally, each of the other named executive officers is eligible to earn time vested long-term incentive awards in the form of equity. Multiple performance criteria have been established for both annual performance awards (based on adjusted income and net sales targets) and long-term performance awards (based on adjusted earnings per share growth, adjusted cash flow productivity and relative total shareholder return targets). For fiscal year 2016, approximately 61, 61, and 64 percent of the total compensation of Messrs. Grass, Benson and Carson, respectively, were tied to performance. For additional information regarding these awards, see “– Annual Incentive Awards for our Other Named Executive Officers” and “– Long-Term Incentive Awards for our Other Named Executive Officers.”

30

Table of Contents

Elements of Our Compensation Program for Our Other Named Executive Officers

The principal components of compensation for our other named executive officers in fiscal year 2016 were:

·                   Base salary;

·                   Annual performance-based incentive bonuses;

·                   Long-term equity compensation; and

·                   Other personal benefits.

Messrs. Grass, Benson, and Carson are each eligible to earn a cash annual incentive award and a mix of performance-based and time-vested long-term incentive awards in the form of equity, similar to the compensation structure of our Chief Executive Officer. The Compensation Committee used compensation data for similar positions in the benchmarked Compensation Peer Group, as well as survey data, as a guide to setting fiscal year 2016 compensation targets for these executive officers. In fiscal 2016, we had no severance plans or arrangements in place for our other named executive officers. Additionally, the Compensation Committee approved the payment of discretionary cash bonuses to our other named executive officers in fiscal year 2016.

31

Table of Contents

Base Salary of Our Other Named Executive Officers

The Company provides our other named executive officers with a base salary to provide a fixed amount of compensation for regular services rendered during the fiscal year.  In setting or increasing base salaries, the Compensation Committee strongly considers the recommendations made by our Chief Executive Officer.  In addition, the committee considers each executive’s job responsibilities, qualifications, experience, performance history and length of service with the Company and comparable salaries paid by our competitors.  The Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, change the base salary of other named executive officers based on that named executive officer’s performance.  In recognition of their respective increased responsibilities assigned to them during fiscal year 2015, and the recommendation of our Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee approved an increase in Messrs. Grass’s and Carson’s annual base salary from $350,000 to $375,000 and from $375,000 to $450,000, respectively. For fiscal year 2016, the annual base salary of Mr. Benson remained at $600,000.

Annual Incentive Awards for Our Other Named Executive Officers

Our other named executive officers are eligible to earn a cash annual incentive award. These awards are intended to align our executives’ interests with our annual corporate goals. After considering the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer, for fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee established multiple performance criteria for the cash annual incentive award of each other named executive officer.

The fiscal year 2016 bonus opportunity was based on the achievement of adjusted income and net sales targets, with no annual incentive award to be paid if the threshold adjusted income was not met. Adjusted income is calculated based on net income without Significant Items. The Compensation Committee values both goals as important to the Company’s success. For fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee set the threshold, target and maximum adjusted income and net sales values at the following levels:

The annual incentive threshold, target and maximum award for each of Messrs. Grass, Benson, and Carson are based upon a percentage of such respective executive officer’s base salary as follows:

For adjusted income and net sales results that fall between the threshold and the target and the target and maximum values, the payout percentage of the award of each other named executive officer is calculated as a percent of the target amount using a non-linear curve.

Eighty percent (80%) of the annual incentive award is based on the achievement of the adjusted income performance measure and twenty percent (20%) is based on the achievement of the net sales performance measure.  If the adjusted income threshold had not been achieved, because of the importance the Compensation Committee places on adjusted income, no bonus would have been earned or payable with respect to fiscal year 2016. Additionally, none of our other named executive officers is entitled to that portion of the bonus attributed to any performance measure if the threshold amount associated with such performance measure is not achieved. For a discussion concerning the Compensation Committee’s decisions relating to the establishment of these performance measures, see “– Our Fiscal Year 2016 Compensation Program for our Chief Executive Officer – Performance-Based Incentive Awards for our Chief Executive Officer – Annual Incentive Awards.”The adjusted income and net sales targets are subject to adjustment in the event that the Company or any of its subsidiaries consummates an acquisition of the stock or assets of another entity or business or divests any stock or assets of the Company or its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee believes these adjustments properly modify performance results under the 2011 Bonus Plan to account for the impact of acquisitions and divestitures.

The adjusted income and net sales targets are subject to adjustment in the event that the Company or any of its subsidiaries consummates an acquisition of the stock or assets of another entity or business or divests any stock or assets of the Company or its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee believes these adjustments properly modify performance results under the 2011 Bonus Plan to account for the impact of acquisitions and divestitures.

32

Table of Contents

For fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee exercised its discretion to negatively adjust the adjusted income and net sales amounts for fiscal year 2016 used in the determination of the bonus payout percentage, decreasing the amounts by approximately $2,680,000 and $4,057,000, respectively, due to the beneficial impact that hyperinflation had on the Company’s Venezuelan operating results. Following these adjustments, for purposes of determining the bonus payout percentage, the Company’s adjusted income was  $145,719,000, representing 105.6 percent of the target measure and resulting in a payout percentage relating to that target of 149.8 percent, and the Company’s net sales were $1,541,644,000, representing 102.1 percent of the target measure and resulting in a payout percentage relating to that target of 111.6 percent. As a result, the Compensation Committee approved an annual incentive award payout for each of Messrs. Grass, Benson and Carson of $340,662, $639,736 and $398,502, respectively. These awards represent a blended payout percentage of 142.2 percent of the target award of each other named executive officer.

Long-Term Incentive Awards for Our Other Named Executive Officers

At the 2008 annual general meeting of shareholders, the Company’s shareholders approved the 2008 Stock Plan, which the Company uses to grant equity awards to its named executive officers and to key employees.  Equity-based compensation and ownership give these individuals a continuing stake in the long-term success of the Company, and the delayed vesting of stock options helps to encourage retention.  The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the executive officers and key employees of the Company should be rewarded for earnings performance that may result from their efforts and that this should be accomplished, in part, by awarding equity compensation to these individuals, which increases their stake in the Company’s long-term success and further aligns their interests with those of shareholders.  For more information regarding the Company’s long-term equity compensation, see “Executive Compensation – Equity Compensation Plan Information.”

After considering the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee also established multiple performance criteria for the long-term incentive awards in the form of equity RSUs for each other named executive officer. Fifty percent (50%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU awards were based on the achievement of the adjusted earnings per share growth performance measure, twenty-five percent (25%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU awards were based on the achievement of the adjusted cash flow productivity performance measure and twenty-five percent (25%) of the fiscal year 2016 Performance RSU awards were based on the achievement of the relative total shareholder return performance measure.  None of our other named executive officers is entitled to that portion of the award attributed to any performance measure if the threshold amount associated with such performance measure is not achieved.  The values of the threshold, target and maximum award for each of Messrs. Grass, Benson, and Carson’s Performance RSUs are as follows:

The Compensation Committee also granted time-vested RSUs that will vest fifty percent (50%) on February 28, 2017 and fifty percent (50%) on February 28, 2018.  The time-vested RSUs are targeted at $87,500, $125,000, and $125,000 in value, respectively, for fiscal year 2016 for Messrs. Grass, Benson, and Carson.

Discretionary Cash Bonuses

The Compensation Committee granted each of Messrs. Grass and Carson a discretionary cash bonus of $70,000 and $95,000, respectively, in fiscal year 2016. They were awarded these bonuses in recognition of their substantial efforts provided to the Company during fiscal year 2016 that were beyond their normal responsibilities.  For Mr. Grass, the Compensation Committee also considered his significant work in connection with implementing the Company’s strategic plan and the Company’s successful acquisitions and related integration.   For Mr. Carson, the Compensation Committee also considered his significant work on the Company’s acquisitions and dispute resolution matters relating to our former chief executive officer during the fiscal year. A holiday bonus of $2,500 was also awarded to each of Mr. Grass, Mr. Benson, and Mr. Carson in fiscal year 2016.

Other Benefits Provided for Our Other Named Executive Officers

We provide other benefits to the other named executive officers, such as participation in a 401(k) plan, including matching contributions, group medical, group life and group dental insurance, as well as vacation and paid holidays.  These benefits are available to all our employees, including each named executive officer, and we believe they are comparable to those provided at other companies.

33

Table of Contents

Potential Post-Termination and Change of Control Benefits for our Other Named Executive Officers

The Company did not previously have any formal employment or severance agreements with any other named executive officer in fiscal year 2016. In the event any other named executive officer is terminated, the payment of any cash severance would be at the discretion of the Company, based upon the facts and circumstances at that time.

For stock options granted to our other named executive officers prior to August 19, 2015, the date on which the 2008 Stock Plan (as amended and restated) was approved by our shareholders, any unvested options immediately vest upon a change of control of the Company (as defined under the plan) pursuant to the provisions of the Helen of Troy 2008 Stock Incentive Plan in effect prior to August 19, 2015 (the “Prior 2008 Stock Plan”). In addition, if an option holder’s employment with the Company is terminated due to his death or disability, to the extent the participant was entitled to exercise the option on the date of death or disability, the option may be exercised within one year after such termination. If an option holder’s employment is terminated voluntarily or with cause, all of his options that are exercisable as of the date of termination will remain exercisable for ninety days under the Prior 2008 Stock Plan. Additionally, if an option holder’s employment is terminated without cause, all of his options that are exercisable as of the date of termination will remain exercisable for ninety days, regardless of whether they are incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options. Beginning in fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee does not plan to grant stock options to our other named executive officers.

Any unvested time-vested RSUs granted to our other named executive officers prior to August 19, 2015, would accelerate upon a change in control of the Company. Additionally, any unearned Performance RSUs granted to our other named executive officers prior to August 19, 2015 would vest pro rata based upon target performance and the number of days elapsed during the performance period at the time of the change in control. In the event of the death or disability or in the event of the termination of the employment for any reason following a change in control, each of the other named executive officers would receive the pro rata portion of his annual incentive award he would have received had he remained employed for the entire year in which his employment was terminated.

Any equity awards granted on or after August 19, 2015 to our other named executive officers would accelerate based on a “double trigger,” which means that the acceleration of those awards would generally occur if, during the employment period, the other named executive officer’s employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company other than for cause or by the other named executive officer for good reason, in each case, within a specified period following a change of control or if the equity award is not assumed or substituted in connection with the change of control.  For further information, see “Equity Compensation Plan Information.”

Fiscal Year 2017 Compensation Changes

Compensation Consultant for Fiscal Year 2017 Compensation

The Compensation Committee retained FW Cook as its independent compensation consultant to assist in the evaluation of the compensation packages of our Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers for fiscal year 2017. FW Cook worked directly with the Compensation Committee (and not on behalf of management) to analyze the compensation received by our named executive officers, and assisted in establishing a peer group for which a benchmarking study was conducted. FW Cook has not performed any other services for the Company nor undertaken any projects on behalf of management. The Compensation Committee has determined that FW Cook had no conflicts of interest relating to its engagement by the Compensation Committee.

Amended and Restated Employment Agreement of our Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to its terms, Mr. Mininberg’s Employment Agreement was scheduled to expire on March 1, 2016. During his tenure as Chief Executive Officer, the Company has experienced tremendous growth in revenue and in market capital. Mr. Mininberg’s leadership and performance during this time has been integral to the Company’s success. As a result, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to extend the term of his employment agreement.  The Compensation Committee engaged the services of independent counsel and FW Cook, its independent compensation consultant, to negotiate a revised employment agreement with Mr. Mininberg. The Company entered into the New Employment Agreement with Mr. Mininberg on January 7, 2016, which took effect on March 1, 2016, and extended the term of his employment through February 28, 2019. The Compensation Committee believes the revised compensation program of Mr. Mininberg remains closely aligned with the interests of the shareholders and reflective of the marketplace.

34

Table of Contents

While many of the provisions of the New Employment Agreement match that of Mr. Mininberg’s former Employment Agreement, certain compensation provisions were amended. These changes include the following:

35

Table of Contents

36

Table of Contents

Severance Arrangements

In March 2016, the Compensation Committee authorized the Company to enter into severance arrangements with the other named executive officers, which the Company expects to complete during fiscal year 2017. The severance agreements would include the following terms:

·                   For a termination by the Company without cause (not in connection with a change in control), the other named executive officer will receive (1) cash severance equal to his base salary plus his target annual incentive award for the year in which the termination occurred, (2) the pro rata portion of his annual incentive award for the year in which the termination occurred based upon the actual performance of the Company during the performance period, (3) the pro rata portion of his outstanding long-term incentive awards based upon the actual performance of the Company during the applicable performance periods, (4) pro rata acceleration of all time-vested equity awards held by the other named executive officer that are not vested at the time of termination, and (5) to the extent permitted by benefit plans of the Company and its subsidiaries, and applicable law, the continuation of health insurance benefits under COBRA for him and his family for a maximum of 12 months after the date of termination or until he is covered by or eligible for coverage under another health insurance policy, if that occurs earlier than 12 months.

·                   For a termination in connection with a change in control (whether by the Company without cause or by the other named executive officer for good reason within two years of the change in control), the other named executive officer will receive (1) cash severance equal to 150 percent of both his base salary and his target annual incentive award for the year in which the termination occurred, (2) the pro rata portion of his target annual incentive award for the year in which the termination occurred, (3) acceleration of all time-vested equity awards held by the other named executive officer that are not vested at the time of termination, (4) acceleration of all unvested performance-based equity awards at target held by the named executive officder at the time of termination (5) a modified tax gross-up similar to that received by our Chief Executive Officer, and (6) to the extent permitted by benefit plans of the Company and its subsidiaries, and applicable law, the continuation of health insurance benefits under COBRA for him and his family for a maximum of 18 months after the date of termination or until he is covered by or eligible for coverage under another health insurance policy, if that occurs earlier than 18 months.

The Compensation Committee believes these severance provisions are a competitive compensation element in the current executive labor market and are more beneficial to the Company and its shareholders than conducting an individual negotiation with each executive officer in the event of a termination of his employment.  Furthermore, the Compensation Committee believes the change of control severance benefits provide incentive for our executive officers to fully consider potential changes that are in the best interest of the Company and our shareholders, even if such changes would result in the executive’s termination.  The Company competes for executives in a highly competitive market in which companies routinely offer similar benefits to senior executives.  As a result, the Compensation Committee views these amounts as reasonable and appropriate for the executive officers.

37

Table of Contents

Base Salary Increase of our Chief Financial Officer

For fiscal year 2017, the Compensation Committee also approved a base salary increase of $60,000 for Mr. Grass because the Compensation Committee believes his compensation was below market levels and in recognition of his performance.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Beginning in May 2014, our named executive officers became subject to stock ownership and holding requirements. Our Chief Executive Officer is required to own Common Stock equal in value to at least three times his annual salary, and each other named executive officer is required to own Common Stock equal in value to at least one times his annual salary. For purposes of these requirements, ownership includes not only shares owned directly by the executive, but also shares covered by in-the-money stock options that are vested or exerciseable within 60 days of the date of determination and certain units held through various plans and programs of the Company. We have also established milestone guidelines that we use to monitor progress toward meeting these targets over a five-year period, at the end of which the executive is expected to have reached the applicable ownership level.

Until an executive reaches the applicable milestone, he or she must hold and may not sell any shares (except to meet tax withholding obligations); once the ownership level is met, he or she must hold and may not sell shares if doing so would cause his or her ownership to fall below that level. Although the Company does not require its executive officers to hold Common Stock for specified periods of time, we believe that the above holding requirements result in the ownership by our executives of significant amounts of Common Stock for substantial periods of time and align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders. For fiscal year 2016, all our named executive officers met their stock ownership requirements.

Prohibition on Pledging and Hedging and Restrictions on Other Transactions involving Common Stock

Our Insider Trading Policy prohibits Board members and our named executive officers from pledging Common Stock or using Common Stock as collateral for any margin loan.  In addition, the Insider Trading Policy contains the following restrictions:

·                   Board members and our named executive officers are prohibited from engaging in transactions (such as trading in options) designed to hedge against the value of the Company’s Common Stock, which would eliminate or limit the risks and rewards of the Common Stock ownership;

·                   Board members and our named executive officers are prohibited from short-selling the Common Stock, buying or selling puts and calls of the Common Stock, or engaging in any other transaction that reflects speculation about the Common Stock price or that might place their financial interests against the financial interests of the Company;

·                   Board members and our named executive officers are prohibited from entering into securities trading plans pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1 without pre-approval; further, no Board member or any named executive officer may trade in our Common Stock without pre-approval; and

·                   Board members and our named executive officers may trade in Common Stock only during open window periods, and only after they have pre-cleared transactions.

Currently, none of our Directors or executive officers has any pledging arrangements in place involving Common Stock.

Tax Implications of Executive Compensation

Section 162(m) of the Code places a limit of $1,000,000 on the amount of compensation that a company may deduct in any one year with respect to its principal executive officer and each of its other three most highly paid executive officers other than the Chief Financial Officer.  There is an exception to the $1,000,000 limitation for performance-based compensation that meets certain requirements.  Annual cash incentive compensation and equity awards are generally forms of performance-based compensation that meet those requirements and, as such, are fully deductible. Grants of stock options to our other named executive officers under our 2008 Stock Plan and the grant of the Performance RSUs are intended to comply with Section 162(m) for treatment as performance-based compensation.  Therefore, we expect to be able to deduct compensation of our named executive officers related to compensation with respect to these grants.

The incentive cash bonus payments to our Chief Executive Officer under the 2011 Bonus Plan are intended to be designed to comply with Section 162(m) for treatment as performance-based compensation. Section 162(m) allows companies to deduct, for federal income tax purposes, certain performance-based compensation over $1,000,000. The material terms of the performance goals for the awards under the 2011 Bonus Plan must be approved by the shareholders every five years in order for the Company to be

38

Table of Contents

eligible to deduct for tax purposes the incentive awards paid under those plans. The Company’s shareholders originally approved the terms of the 2011 Bonus Plan at the 2011 annual general meeting and approved an amendment and restatement of the 2011 Bonus Plan at the 2014 annual general meeting.

The Compensation Committee has considered and will continue to consider tax deductibility in structuring compensation arrangements.  However, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to establish executive compensation arrangements that it believes are consistent with the principles described earlier and in the best interests of our Company and its shareholders, even if those arrangements may not be fully deductible under Section 162(m).

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth the summary of compensation during fiscal years 2014 through 2016 for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and other executive officers whose total compensation exceeded $100,000 and who were serving as an executive officer at the end of the fiscal year 2016 (such persons referred to collectively, as the “named executive officers”).

(1)          Effective March 1, 2014, the Board of Directors appointed Julien Mininberg to serve as the Chief Executive Officer. Effective May 1, 2014, the Board of Directors appointed (1) Brian L. Grass, formerly serving as the Company’s Vice President and Assistant Chief Financial Officer, to serve as the Chief Financial Officer; (2) Thomas J. Benson, formerly serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, to serve as the Chief Operations Officer; and (3) Vincent D. Carson, formerly serving as the Company’s General Counsel and Senior Vice President, to serve as Chief Legal Officer and Secretary.

(2)          These amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Long-term incentive awards were granted in fiscal year 2016 under the 2008 Stock Plan in the form of Performance RSUs to Messrs. Mininberg, Grass, Benson and Carson and in the form of time-vested RSUs to Messrs. Grass, Benson and Carson. The reported value of the Performance RSUs is computed based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions, which is “target”. For each of the named executive officers, the ultimate payout for the Performance RSUs can range from zero shares to a maximum of 200 percent of target. Further information regarding the awards is included in the tables entitled “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2016,” “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End 2016” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information.”

(3)          These amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Further information regarding the awards is included in the tables entitled “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End 2016” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information.” Assumptions used in the calculation of the grant date fair value of these options are

39

Table of Contents

discussed in Note (15) to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year then ended, filed with the SEC on April 29, 2016.

(4)          The amounts in this column represent annual cash incentive bonuses under the 2011 Bonus Plan that were earned in fiscal year 2016. These amounts were accrued in the Company’s financial statements in fiscal year 2016, but were actually paid to Messrs. Mininberg, Grass, Benson, and Carson after fiscal year end 2016, when the Compensation Committee certified that the related performance goals had been achieved. For further information regarding these awards, see “Grants of Plan Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2016.”

(5)          For fiscal year 2016, the following compensation was paid to our named executive officers, which comprises “All Other Compensation”:

(A)        Represents legal fees paid on Mr. Mininberg’s behalf in connection with the negotiation of the New Employment Agreement.

(6)          Includes 19,577 shares, or $1,500,000 of Performance RSUs, which represents the target award, calculated using a price per share of $76.62, the closing market price of the Common Stock on February 27, 2015, the last trading day prior to the date of grant. At the date of the grant, the maximum potential value of the Performance RSUs, assuming the achievement of the highest level of performance conditions, is 39,154 shares, or $3,000,000.  Also includes 2,000 shares, or $178,240, of a discretionary restricted share award granted and vested on May 8, 2015.  This represents the aggregate grant date fair value of the award, calculated in accordance with FASB  ASC Topic 718.

(7)          Calculated using a price per share of $76.62, the closing market price of the Common Stock on February 27, 2015, the last trading day prior to the date of grant. Includes 1,142 shares, or $87,500 of RSUs, which vest over a three-year period, and 3,426 shares, or $262,500 of Performance RSUs, which represents the target award. At the date of the grant, the maximum potential value of the Performance RSUs, assuming the achievement of the highest level of performance conditions, is 6,852 shares, or $525,000.

(8)          Calculated using a price per share of $76.62, the closing market price of the Common Stock on February 27, 2015, the last trading day prior to the date of grant. Includes 1,631 shares, or $125,000 of RSUs, which vest over a three-year period, and 4,894 shares, or $375,000 of Performance RSUs, which represents the target award. At the date of the grant, the maximum potential value of the Performance RSUs, assuming the achievement of the highest level of performance conditions, is 9,788 shares, or $750,000.

40

Table of Contents

For fiscal year 2016, the following plan-based compensation was awarded to the named executive officers: