Revolt over Burberry chief's £2m

FASHION house Burberry has suffered a revolt by its investors over the £2m package earned by chief executive, Rose Marie Bravo, Britain's best-paid female company boss.

Some 30% of the votes cast by shareholders - other than 77%-owner GUS - were against the New Yorker's deal. The package could land Bravo more than £12m if she is axed.

The vote at today's shareholder meeting comes after the National Association of Pension Funds savaged the pay, bonus, benefits and shares deal as 'extremely generous' by UK standards.

Marie Bravo, 52, refused to comment other than to say she was 'thrilled' by the strong trading figures. But chairman John Peace said 'shareholders would never forgive us' if the company was unable to attract and retain the best managers. He agreed to keep boardroom packages under review.

Bid target and Durex condoms maker SSL International also fended off a shareholder rebellion over its chief executive's right to a £900,000 pay-off in the event of a takeover. About 37% of shareholders did not support a resolution to re-elect Brian Buchan as a director at the annual general meeting. Buchan's one-year rolling contract increases to two if SSL is taken over.

The moves coincided with fresh calls from the CBI employers' body for companies to clamp down on fat-cat payouts for failed executives. John Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI, told a Treasury Select Committee hearing that he favoured reducing the notice period for termination payouts from two or three years to one.

The Government's rules requiring an annual shareholder vote on executive remuneration was also having an effect, with some shareholders voting down proposals that seemed over the top.

Best practice suggestions put forward by the CBI include agreeing to a capped level of severance at the time of an executive's appointment, and paying all or some of severance compensation in instalments rather than in one lump sum.

'CBI wants the notice period brought down to one year as soon as possible,'' Cridland said outside the hearing. 'And we think companies-should revise contracts once an existing notice period expires.'

But he said the CBI opposed the use of legislation to force the hand of companies in relation to excessive termination payouts, warning that it would fuel a spate of legal battles and damage Britain's standing on the global stage.

''We think legislation would be deadly in this area because if you're going to say you shouldn't pay somebody who has performed badly, you're going to have to define poor performance,'' Cridland said.

'There will be endless litigation if it's based on a legislative notion of what is failure, that's not the way to handle this.'