UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Dine Brands Global, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

450 North Brand Boulevard

Glendale, California 91203

(866) 995-DINE

April 1, 2019

Dear Fellow Stockholders:

We are pleased to invite you to attend the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Dine Brands Global, Inc., which will be held on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., Local Time, at our offices located at 450 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203. At this year’s Annual Meeting, you will be asked to: (i) approve and adopt amendments to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation to declassify the Board of Directors and make other related changes; (ii) elect the four Class I directors identified in this proxy statement; (iii) ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent auditor; (iv) approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers; and (v) approve the Dine Brands Global, Inc. 2019 Stock Incentive Plan.

Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person, we hope you will vote as soon as possible. Voting your proxy will ensure your representation at the Annual Meeting. You can vote your shares over the Internet, by telephone or by using a traditional proxy card. Instructions on each of these voting methods are outlined in the enclosed proxy statement.

We urge you to review carefully the proxy materials and to vote: FOR the approval and adoption of amendments to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation; FOR the election of each of the Class I directors identified in this proxy statement; FOR the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent auditor; FOR the approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation of our named executive officers; and FOR the approval of the Dine Brands Global, Inc. 2019 Stock Incentive Plan.

Thank you for your continued support of and interest in Dine Brands Global, Inc. We look forward to seeing you on May 14^th.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Dahl		Stephen P. Joyce
Chairman of the Board of Directors		Chief Executive Officer

450 North Brand Boulevard

Glendale, California 91203

(866) 995-DINE

NOTICE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MAY 14, 2019

April 1, 2019

To the Stockholders of Dine Brands Global, Inc.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Dine Brands Global, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), will be held at the Corporation’s offices located at 450 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203, on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., Local Time, for the following purposes as more fully described in the accompanying proxy statement:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 18, 2019, the record date for the Annual Meeting, are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting and any adjournment thereof.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Bryan R. Adel

Senior Vice President, Legal, General Counsel and Secretary

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of

Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders

of Dine Brands Global, Inc.

to be Held on May 14, 2019

The notice of the Annual Meeting, proxy statement and 2018 annual report to stockholders and the means to vote by Internet are available at www.envisionreports.com/DIN.

Your Vote is Important

Please vote as promptly as possible by using the Internet or telephone or by signing, dating and returning the proxy card. If you did not receive a paper copy of the proxy statement with the proxy card and would like to vote by proxy card, please refer to the instructions on requesting a paper copy of these materials in this proxy statement. All stockholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting in person. If you attend the Annual Meeting, you may vote in person if you wish, even if you have previously voted by another method.

Table of Contents

		i

450 North Brand Boulevard

Glendale, California 91203

(866) 995-DINE

PROXY STATEMENT FOR THE 2019 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

		1

Additional Information

The Corporate Governance section of the Dine Brands Global, Inc. website provides up-to-date information about the Corporation’s corporate governance policies and practices. In addition, the Investors section of the website includes links to the Corporation’s filings with the SEC, news releases, and investor presentations by management. Please note that information contained on the Corporation’s website does not constitute part of this proxy statement. You may also obtain a copy of our periodic filings from the SEC’s EDGAR database at www.sec.gov.

IMPORTANT NOTE

You should rely only on the information contained in this proxy statement to vote on the proposals at the Annual Meeting. The Corporation has not authorized anyone to provide you with information that is different from what is contained in this proxy statement. This proxy statement is dated April 1, 2019. You should not assume that the information contained in this proxy statement is accurate as of any date other than such date, unless indicated otherwise herein, and the mailing of this proxy statement to stockholders shall not create any implication to the contrary.

4

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Current Board of Directors

There are currently 9 members of the Board of Directors who are divided into the following three classes:

Class I directors will serve until the Annual Meeting. Class II directors will serve until the annual meeting in 2020 and Class III directors will serve until the annual meeting in 2021 (in each case until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified). At the Annual Meeting, depending on the outcome of the stockholder vote on Proposal One – Approval and Adoption of Amendments to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation to declassify the Board of Directors and to make other related changes, the four Class I directors will be elected to serve either: (1) a term of three years if Proposal One – Approval and Adoption of Amendments to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation does not pass or (2) a term of one year if Proposal One – Approval and Adoption of Amendments to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation does pass, and, in either case, until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified.

The Structure of the Board of Directors

The business and affairs of the Corporation are managed under the direction of the Board of Directors. It is management’s responsibility to formalize, propose and implement strategic choices and it is the Board of Directors’ role to approve strategic direction and evaluate strategic results, including both the performance of the Corporation and the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

The Corporation’s Amended Bylaws require the Chairman of the Board of Directors to be elected from the independent members of the Board of Directors as determined by the NYSE listing standards. Mr. Dahl was elected to serve as the independent Chairman of the Board of Directors effective September 2017.

The Board of Directors believes the separation of the roles of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer allows the Chief Executive Officer to focus on managing the daily operations of the business and enhances the Board of Directors’ independence from management, thus leading to better monitoring and oversight of management. The Board of Directors believes this structure best serves the interests of the Corporation and its stockholders.

The Corporation’s Corporate Governance Guidelines outline the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Amongst other responsibilities, the duties of the Chairman of the Board of Directors include:

		5

The Role of the Board of Directors in Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors and each of its committees have an active role in overseeing management of the Corporation’s risks. The Board of Directors regularly reviews information regarding the Corporation’s strategic, financial and operational risks and believes that evaluating how the executive team manages the various risks confronting the Corporation is one of its most important areas of oversight.

In carrying out this critical responsibility, the Board of Directors has established an Enterprise Risk Management Council consisting of key members of the brand business units, risk management, quality assurance, legal, finance and internal audit functions within the Corporation. The Enterprise Risk Management Council assists the Board of Directors with the identification, assessment, management, and monitoring of risks inherent to the business of the Corporation and with risk management decisions pertaining to the Corporation’s practices and activities. The Enterprise Risk Management Council is led by the Corporation’s Executive Director, Risk Management, who reports regularly to the Audit and Finance Committee and the Board of Directors.

The Audit and Finance Committee oversees the Corporation’s policies with respect to risk assessment and risk management. In addition, the Audit and Finance Committee oversees and evaluates the management of risks associated with accounting, auditing, financial reporting, internal controls over financial reporting and cybersecurity. The Audit and Finance Committee assists the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer in its oversight of the integrity of the Corporation’s financial statements, the Corporation’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the performance, qualifications, and independence of the Corporation’s independent auditor and the performance of the Corporation’s internal audit function. The Audit and Finance Committee is responsible for reviewing and discussing the guidelines and policies governing the process by which senior management and the Corporation’s internal audit function assess and manage the Corporation’s exposure to risk, as well as the Corporation’s major financial risk exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures.

The Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also oversee risks within their respective areas of responsibility. The Compensation Committee oversees the management of risks relating to the Corporation’s compensation policies and practices. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee oversees the management of risks associated with the Board of Directors’ organization, membership and structure, corporate governance, the independence of members of the Board of Directors and assessment of the performance and effectiveness of each member of the Board of Directors. While each committee is responsible for evaluating certain risks and overseeing the management of such risks, the entire Board of Directors is regularly informed through committee reports and management updates about such risks.

Director Independence

The NYSE rules require listed companies to have a board of directors with at least a majority of independent directors. The Board of Directors has had a majority of independent directors since the Corporation went public in 1991.

Under the NYSE rules, a director qualifies as “independent” if the Board of Directors affirmatively determines that he or she has no material relationship with the Corporation (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with the Corporation). Based upon a review of the directors’ backgrounds and business activities, the Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that directors Howard M. Berk, Daniel J. Brestle, Richard J. Dahl, Larry A. Kay, Caroline W. Nahas, Douglas M. Pasquale, Gilbert T. Ray, and Lilian C. Tomovich have no material relationships (other than service as a director on the Board of Directors) with the Corporation and therefore that they each qualify as independent.

6

In making its determination for Mr. Berk and Ms. Nahas, the Board of Directors specifically considered, amongst other factors, the following:

Stephen P. Joyce, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, does not qualify as an independent director.

Both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the NYSE rules require the Board of Directors to have an audit committee comprised solely of independent directors, and the NYSE rules also require the Board of Directors to have a compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance committee, each of which is comprised solely of independent directors. The Corporation is in compliance with these requirements.

Codes of Conduct

The Corporation is committed to maintaining high standards of business conduct and corporate governance, which the Corporation considers essential to running its business efficiently, serving the Corporation’s stockholders well and maintaining the Corporation’s integrity in the marketplace. Accordingly, the Board of Directors has adopted a Global Code of Conduct, which applies to all directors, officers and employees of the Corporation. The Global Code of Conduct sets forth the fundamental principles and key policies that govern the way the Corporation conducts business, including workplace conduct, conflicts of interest, gifts and entertainment, political and community involvement, protection of corporate property, fair business practices, global relations and other laws and regulations applicable to the Corporation’s business.

In addition to the Global Code of Conduct, the Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Conduct for Non-Employee Directors, which serves as guidance to the Corporation’s non-employee directors on ethical issues including conflicts of interest, confidentiality, corporate opportunities, fair disclosure, protection and proper use of corporate assets, fair dealing, harassment and discrimination, and other laws and regulations applicable to the Corporation’s business.

The Board of Directors has also adopted the Code of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers. These individuals are expected to avoid actual or apparent conflicts between their personal and professional relationships and make full disclosure of any material transaction or relationship that could create or appear to create a conflict of interest to the General Counsel, who will inform and seek a determination from the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee as to whether a conflict exists and the appropriate disposition of the matter. In addition, these individuals are expected to promote the corporate policy of making full, fair, accurate and understandable disclosure in all reports and documents filed with the SEC; report violations of the Code of Ethics to the General Counsel or the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee; and request from the General Counsel any waivers of the Code of Ethics, which shall be publicly disclosed if required by applicable law.

Any waiver of any provision of the Global Code of Conduct or the Code of Ethics for Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers for any executive officer may be granted only by the Board of Directors. Any waiver of the Code of Conduct for Non-Employee Directors may be granted only by the disinterested directors of the Board of Directors or the Audit and Finance Committee, and any such waiver shall be promptly disclosed to the Corporation’s stockholders. The Board of Directors and the Audit and Finance Committee review whether such waivers are in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders, taking into account all relevant factors. In 2018, there were no waivers of (a) the Global Code of Conduct for executive officers, (b) the Code of Ethics for Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers, or (c) the Code of Conduct for Non-Employee Directors.

The Corporation also maintains an ethics hotline to allow any employee to express a concern or lodge a complaint, confidentially and anonymously, about any potential violation of the Corporation’s Global Code of Conduct.

		7

Copies of the Global Code of Conduct, the Code of Conduct for Non-Employee Directors and the Code of Ethics for Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers can be found in the Corporate Governance section of the Corporation’s website, http://www.dinebrands.com. In addition, printed copies of the codes of conduct are available at no charge upon request to the Secretary at Dine Brands Global, Inc., 450 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203, (866) 995- DINE. We will disclose any future substantive amendments to, or waivers granted to any officer from, the provisions of these ethics policies and standards on the Corporation’s website as promptly as practicable as may be required under applicable rules of the SEC or the NYSE.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Corporation has adopted corporate governance guidelines which can be found in the Corporate Governance section of the Corporation’s website, http://www.dinebrands.com. In addition, printed copies of the Corporation’s corporate governance guidelines are available at no charge upon request to the Secretary at Dine Brands Global, Inc., 450 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203, (866) 995-DINE.

Director Attendance at Meetings

Directors are expected to attend the Corporation’s Annual Meeting. All directors attended the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders. The Board of Directors held ten meetings during 2018. During 2018, each incumbent director attended 75% or more of the aggregate of the meetings of the Board of Directors and of the committees on which he or she served that were held during the period for which he or she served as a director.

Executive Sessions of Non-Management Directors

The NYSE rules require that the non-management directors of a listed company meet at regularly scheduled executive sessions without management. The Corporation’s non-management directors generally meet separately at regular meetings of the Board of Directors and committee meetings. The independent Chairman of the Board of Directors, Richard J. Dahl, presides during executive sessions of the Board of Directors.

Communications with the Board of Directors

Stockholders and other interested persons wishing to communicate directly with the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, any committee or chair of a committee, or any non-management director, individually or as a group, may do so by sending written communications appropriately addressed to the following address:

Dine Brands Global, Inc.

(or a particular subgroup or individual director)

c/o Office of the Secretary

450 North Brand Boulevard, 7th Floor

Glendale, California 91203

Each written communication should specify the applicable addressee or addressees to be contacted, as well as the general topic of the communication. The Board of Directors has designated the Secretary of the Corporation as its agent to receive and review communications addressed to the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Board of Directors, any committee or chair of a committee, or any non-management director, individually or as a group. The Office of the Secretary will initially receive and process communications to determine whether it is a proper communication for the Board of Directors. If the envelope containing a communication that a stockholder or other interested person wishes to be confidential is conspicuously marked “Confidential,” the Secretary of the Corporation will not open the communication prior to forwarding it to the appropriate individual(s). Generally, any communication that is primarily commercial, offensive, illegal or otherwise inappropriate, or does not substantively relate to the duties and responsibilities of our Board of Directors, may not be forwarded.

Board of Directors Retirement Policy

The Corporation’s corporate governance guidelines provide that no person may stand for election to serve as a member of the Corporation’s Board of Directors if he or she shall have reached his or her 76^th birthday. Under special circumstances,

8

upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and upon approval by the Board of Directors, a person who has reached his or her 76^th birthday may be permitted to stand for election and, if elected, continue to serve on the Board of Directors.

Other Public Corporation Directorships

The Corporation’s corporate governance guidelines provide that directors should not serve on more than a total of four public corporation boards, inclusive of service on the Corporation’s Board of Directors. Directors who also serve as executives of the Corporation should not serve on more than a total of two public corporation boards, inclusive of service on the Corporation’s Board of Directors. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has discretion to waive this guideline on a case by case basis if it determines that special circumstances warrant permitting a director to serve on more than the applicable number of public corporation boards allowed under the corporate governance guidelines.

Mr. Dahl serves on the audit committees of IDACORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Idaho Power Company, and Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., which is considered by the NYSE to be service on four separate public company audit committees. Mr. Dahl also serves on our Audit and Finance Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Dahl’s simultaneous service on the aforementioned audit committees does not impair Mr. Dahl’s ability to effectively serve on the Corporation’s Audit and Finance Committee.

Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions

The Corporation’s Global Code of Conduct provides that executive officers who encounter a potential or actual conflict of interest must fully disclose all facts and circumstances to the Corporation’s General Counsel, who will inform and seek a determination from the Audit and Finance Committee as to whether a conflict exists and the appropriate disposition of the matter. The Corporation’s Code of Ethics for Chief Executive and Senior Financial Officers provides that no senior officer may enter into any investment, accept any position or benefits, participate in any transaction or business arrangement or otherwise act in a manner that creates or appears to create a conflict of interest unless the senior officer makes full disclosure of all facts and circumstances to, and obtains the prior written approval of, the General Counsel, the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors and/or the Board of Directors. The Corporation’s Code of Conduct for Non-Employee Directors provides that any director who becomes aware of any situation that involves, or reasonably may appear to involve, a conflict of interest with the Corporation must promptly bring it to the attention of the Corporation’s General Counsel or to the Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee. The charter of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors provides that it will consider conflicts of interest in evaluating director nominees.

The Board of Directors recognizes that transactions involving the Corporation and related parties present a heightened risk of conflicts of interest. The charter of the Audit and Finance Committee provides that it will review any related party transactions. Since January 1, 2018, there were no transactions between the Corporation and any related party of the type or amount required to be disclosed under Item 404 of Regulation S-K.

Board of Directors Committees and Their Functions

The Board of Directors has three standing committees, each of which operates under a written charter approved by the Board of Directors: the Audit and Finance Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Each member of these committees is an independent director in accordance with the NYSE listing standards and the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. The Audit and Finance Committee Charter, the Compensation Committee Charter, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter can be found in the Corporate Governance section of the Corporation’s website, http://www.dinebrands.com. Printed copies are also available at no charge upon request to the Secretary at Dine Brands Global, Inc., 450 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203, (866) 995-DINE.

		9

The chart below identifies directors who are members and chairs of each committee as of the date of this proxy statement, the principal functions of each committee and the number of meetings held by each committee during 2018. The Board of Directors believes that committee rotation fosters the sharing of new perspectives and enables directors with diverse skills and experiences to focus on different areas of oversight. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee regularly considers committee rotation and makes recommendations to the Board of Directors as appropriate.

10

Board of Directors Nominations

Consistent with its charter, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers various criteria in evaluating Board of Directors candidates, including: business experience, board of directors experience, skills, expertise, education, professions, backgrounds, diversity, personal and professional integrity, character, business judgment, business philosophy, time availability in light of other commitments, dedication, conflicts of interest, and such other relevant factors that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers appropriate in the context of the needs of the Board of Directors. In considering diversity, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee evaluates candidates with a broad range of expertise, experience, skills, professions, education, backgrounds and other board of directors experience. While the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity, it considers diversity of race, gender and ethnicity as one of several factors in seeking to identify directors who will bring diverse viewpoints, opinions and areas of expertise that will benefit the Board of Directors as a whole. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does not assign specific weights to particular criteria in evaluating prospective nominees.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also considers whether a potential nominee would satisfy the NYSE’s criteria for director “independence,” the NYSE’s “accounting or related financial management expertise” standard and the SEC’s definition of “audit committee financial expert.”

12

Whenever a vacancy or potential vacancy exists on the Board of Directors due to expansion of the size of the Board of Directors or the resignation or retirement of an existing director, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee begins its process of identifying and evaluating potential director nominees. The Nominating and Corporate Governance

Committee considers recommendations of members of the Board of Directors, management, stockholders and others. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has sole authority to retain and terminate any search firm to be used to identify director candidates, including approving its fees and other retention terms.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee conducted an evaluation and assessment of each director whose term expires in 2019 for purposes of determining whether to recommend them for nomination for re-election to the Board of Directors. After reviewing the assessment results, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee determined to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors that Howard M. Berk, Daniel J. Brestle, Caroline W. Nahas, and Gilbert T. Ray be nominated for re-election to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors reviewed and accepted the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation and has nominated Howard M. Berk, Daniel J. Brestle, Caroline W. Nahas, and Gilbert T. Ray for re-election to the Board of Directors.

Stockholder Nominations

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended by stockholders and will apply the same standards in considering director candidates recommended by stockholders that it applies to other candidates. Stockholders wishing to recommend director candidates for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may do so by writing to the Secretary, giving the recommended nominee’s name, biographical data and qualifications, accompanied by the written consent of the recommended nominee to serve if elected. Any stockholder who wishes to directly nominate a director candidate to stand for election at a meeting of stockholders must provide written notice that is timely and in proper form in accordance with the advance notice procedures provided in the Corporation’s Bylaws.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee did not receive any recommendations from stockholders proposing candidates for election to the Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting.

		13

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Generally, the Corporation does not pay directors who are also employees of the Corporation additional compensation for their service on the Board of Directors. Compensation for non-employee directors is comprised of a cash component and an equity component. Cash compensation for non-employee directors includes retainers for Board of Directors membership and for serving as a member and/or chair of a Board of Directors committee and as the Chairman of the Board of Directors.

During 2018, non-employee directors were entitled to receive $70,000 as an annual cash retainer for serving as a member of the Board of Directors. In addition, depending on their roles, non-employee directors were entitled to receive:

The Corporation also reimburses each of the directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred for attendance at Board of Directors and committee meetings and other corporate events.

Under the Dine Brands Global, Inc. 2016 Stock Incentive Plan (“2016 Stock Incentive Plan”), non-employee directors may receive periodic grants of non-qualified stock options (“NQSOs”), restricted stock awards (“RSAs”), restricted stock units (“RSUs”), stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) or performance unit awards. In February 2018, equity awards valued at approximately $105,000 in the form of RSUs were granted to each non-employee director under the 2016 Stock Incentive Plan. In December 2018, upon recommendation by the Compensation Committee, the Board of Directors approved a change to the vesting schedule for non-employee director equity award grants from three years from the date of grant to one year from the date of grant, effective for all future grants. The Board of Directors approved this change to better align with current market practice within the Corporation’s peer group. Other than the annual equity awards granted to non-employee directors in February 2019, which are subject to a one-year cliff vesting from the date of grant, all of the currently outstanding RSUs previously granted to non-employee directors are subject to three-year cliff vesting from the date of grant. In the event a director retires from the Board of Directors after completing five years of service, all of the director’s then-outstanding RSUs will vest. To the extent the Corporation declares dividends, non-employee directors receive dividend equivalent rights in the form of additional RSUs in lieu of receiving cash dividends based upon the number of RSUs held by the director at the time of the dividend record dates. Dividend equivalent rights are subject to the same vesting restrictions as the underlying RSUs.

Directors are eligible to defer up to 100% of their annual Board of Directors retainer fees and equity award compensation pursuant to the Dine Brands Global, Inc. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”).

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Non-employee directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines whereby each director is expected to hold the lesser of 7,000 shares of Common Stock or Common Stock with a value of at least five times the amount of the Board of Directors’ annual retainer (currently, $350,000). Directors are expected to meet the ownership guidelines within five years of joining the Board of Directors. Upon review by the Compensation Committee in 2018, all directors met, were on track to meet, or exceeded the ownership guidelines.

14

Director Compensation Table for 2018

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the compensation earned or paid in cash and stock awards granted to each non-employee director who served on the Board of Directors in 2018. Mr. Joyce did not receive any additional compensation for his service as a director in 2018. Please see the 2018 Summary Compensation Table for the compensation received by Mr. Joyce in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer.

		15

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial ownership of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of any class of the Corporation’s voting securities, which information is derived solely from certain SEC filings available as of March 18, 2019, as noted below. The percentages of Common Stock ownership have been calculated based upon 17,679,457 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 18, 2019.

16

Security Ownership of Management

The following table sets forth as of March 18, 2019 the beneficial ownership of the Corporation’s Common Stock, including shares as to which a right to acquire ownership exists within the meaning of Rule 13d-3(d)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), within 60 days of March 18, 2019, of each director, each nominee for election as director, each named executive officer and all directors and executive officers of the Corporation, as a group. The percentages of ownership have been calculated based upon 17,679,457 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 18, 2019.

		17

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires that the Corporation’s directors, executive officers and persons who own more than ten percent of the Corporation’s equity securities file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC. Based on its review of such reports and other information furnished by the directors and executive officers, the Corporation believes that all reports required to be filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act were filed on a timely basis in 2018 except for one report required to be filed in connection with a transaction for a special retention award granted to Greggory H. Kalvin, the Corporation’s former Senior Vice President, Corporate Controller, in June 2018, and two subsequent reports required to be filed in connection with two transactions for the accrual of dividend equivalent rights on the special retention award in July and October of 2018.

		19

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management. Based on its review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors include the Compensation Discussion and Analysis in this proxy statement and the Corporation’s annual report on Form 10-K.

THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED BY THE

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Daniel J. Brestle (Chairman)

Howard M. Berk

Caroline W. Nahas

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The following discussion provides an overview and analysis of the Corporation’s compensation programs and policies, the material compensation decisions made under those programs and policies with respect to the Corporation’s named executive officers (the “NEOs”) and the material factors that were considered in making those decisions. Following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis is a series of tables under the heading “Compensation Tables” containing specific data about the compensation earned by or granted to our NEOs in 2018.

The following executive officers were NEOs in 2018:

20

Executive Summary

2018 Fiscal Year Performance Highlights^† and Link to Pay Decisions

Our compensation decisions for 2018 were driven by our overarching goal of creating long-term stockholder value and linking pay with performance. While 2017 was a transitional year, in 2018, the Corporation delivered against its strategic priorities to enhance brand relevance, build momentum at Applebee’s and IHOP, and return the Corporation to growth. 2018 performance was notably strong across several key metrics:

		21

We believe that the Corporation’s 2018 compensation results were commensurate with the Corporation’s strong performance in 2018, demonstrating a commitment to a pay for performance philosophy.

Annual Cash Incentive Plan Payout		Cash LTIP Payout (as a percentage of target)

Compensation Policies, Practices and Risk Management

The Compensation Committee, along with the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer, continually assess the Corporation’s compensation policies and practices to evaluate whether they remain aligned with the Corporation’s pay-for-performance culture, the creation of long-term stockholder value, effective risk management and strong governance practices.

The Compensation Committee believes that, through a combination of risk-mitigating features and incentives guided by relevant market practices and corporate-wide goals, our compensation policies and practices do not present risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Corporation. The Compensation Committee believes that appropriate safeguards are in place with respect to compensation policies and practices that assist in mitigating excessive risk-taking that could harm the value of the Corporation or reward poor judgment by the Corporation’s executives and other employees.

The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Exequity LLP (“Exequity”), conducted a risk assessment in 2018 of the Corporation’s compensation policies and practices as they apply to all employees, including the

22

NEOs. Exequity reviewed the design features and performance metrics of the Corporation’s cash and stock-based incentive programs along with the approval mechanisms associated with each and determined that the Corporation’s policies and practices were unlikely to create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Corporation.

The following actions, practices and policies are intended to provide for continued alignment with the Corporation’s principles and/or reduce the likelihood of excessive risk-taking:

Overview of Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

The Compensation Committee has structured the Corporation’s executive compensation programs to align with a compensation philosophy that is based on several objectives, including:

		23

The Role of the Compensation Committee

Under its charter, the Compensation Committee has the sole authority to determine and approve compensation for the Corporation’s NEOs and other executive officers. In addition, the Compensation Committee, which is comprised solely of independent directors and reports regularly to the Board of Directors, reviews and approves compensation and benefits programs including grants made pursuant to the Corporation’s equity compensation plans, oversees the Corporation’s

executive compensation philosophy and strategy, ensures that proper due diligence, deliberations, and reviews of executive compensation are conducted and oversees risks related to the Corporation’s compensation practices. The Compensation Committee is also responsible for reviewing the compensation for the members of the Board of Directors and submits any recommended changes for approval by the Board of Directors.

The Compensation Committee reviews the Corporation’s executive compensation plans throughout the fiscal year. Decisions concerning annual salary increases, the approval of annual cash incentives, the design and objectives of each year’s incentive plan and the granting of long-term incentive (“LTI”) awards are typically made in the first quarter of each fiscal year after a series of meetings among the Compensation Committee, its compensation consultant, the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer. The Compensation Committee also performs a “tally sheet” analysis which provides the Compensation Committee with information related to total annual compensation of each NEO and the potential payout each NEO would receive upon separation from the Corporation. The Compensation Committee performs this analysis on an annual basis as part of its oversight function with respect to executive compensation.

The general practice of the Compensation Committee has been to evaluate annually the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and the other executive officers and approve compensation based on this evaluation. As it relates to the assessment of the Chief Executive Officer’s performance, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the chairs of the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee discuss annual performance goals with the Chief Executive Officer and conduct an annual performance review and compensation discussion.

In addition, the Compensation Committee annually determines the compensation of the other executive officers based on evaluations of their respective performance.

Generally, the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer provide input to the Compensation Committee in connection with its compensation deliberations except with regard to decisions concerning themselves:

The Role of the Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to retain or terminate a compensation consultant to assist in carrying out its responsibilities. Accordingly, during 2018, the Compensation Committee directly engaged Exequity as its independent compensation consultant to provide objective and expert analyses, advice, and information with respect to executive compensation. In performing its services, Exequity interacted collaboratively with the Compensation Committee and with senior management at the direction of the Compensation Committee. In 2018, Exequity performed the following services:

24

Exequity did not provide any additional services to the Corporation during 2018 beyond those provided in the capacity of independent compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee has assessed the independence of Exequity pursuant to the rules of the SEC and concluded that Exequity’s work for the Compensation Committee does not raise any conflicts of interest.

Compensation Benchmarking and Peer Group

The Corporation uses a restaurant peer group and compensation surveys for different benchmarking comparisons, including base salary, target annual cash incentive, LTI awards and total direct compensation opportunity (“TDCO”). The Compensation Committee, with input from its independent compensation consultant and management, periodically reviews its peer group (the “NEO Peer Group”) for the purpose of evaluating executive compensation.

The Corporation’s significantly franchised business model is uncommon amongst its peer group. The majority of the peer companies have a significant number of company-owned restaurants. We believe our significantly franchised business model requires less capital investment and general and administrative overhead, generates higher gross profit margins and reduces volatility of adjusted free cash flow performance as compared to owning company-operated restaurants. In acknowledging the structural differences, the Compensation Committee considers a variety of metrics in evaluating the NEO Peer Group which includes but is not limited to revenues, system-wide sales, market capitalization and enterprise value and the ratio of these metrics per employee. The Corporation ranked in the first quartile in revenues and market capitalization, second quartile in enterprise value, and the top quartile in system-wide sales. The NEO Peer Group consists of companies in the Corporation’s industry and companies with similar business models in related industries that the Compensation Committee believes to approximate the Corporation’s general labor market for top executive talent.

The NEO Peer Group used for evaluating 2018 compensation decisions consisted of the companies set forth below. Several changes were made to the NEO Peer Group during 2018 to account for acquisitions impacting former peer group companies (Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Ruby Tuesday, Inc.). Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc. were added to the NEO Peer Group for 2018 as they satisfied the selection criteria noted above.

The NEO Peer Group was the primary data source considered by the Compensation Committee when reviewing total pay levels of the NEOs. The Compensation Committee also considered broader compensation data from the 2018 AON Hewitt US Total Compensation by Industry Survey and the 2018 Chain Restaurant Total Rewards Association Executive and Management Compensation Survey, which provided general industry and restaurant industry pay data on executive positions for companies with comparable sales.

		25

The Role of Say on Pay Votes and Stockholder Outreach Efforts

The Corporation provides its stockholders with the opportunity to cast an annual advisory vote on executive compensation (say on pay). In addition to receiving overall feedback on the Corporation’s compensation programs as part of the annual say on pay proposal, the Board of Directors and management are committed to regular engagement with our stockholders to solicit views and input on important topics including executive compensation. In advance of the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders, the Corporation reached out to stockholders representing approximately 58% of outstanding shares to discuss our Chief Executive Officer’s compensation package and other key executive compensation topics. At the Corporation’s annual meeting of stockholders held in May 2018, approximately 81% of the votes present and entitled to vote at the meeting on the say on pay proposal were voted in favor of the proposal approving the compensation of the NEOs as disclosed in the 2018 proxy statement. This was the highest say on pay vote since the Corporation’s 2015 annual meeting of stockholders. The Compensation Committee believes the 2018 say on pay vote reflects stockholders’ support of the Corporation’s approach to executive compensation, including our Chief Executive Officer’s compensation package, and certain other changes that the Compensation Committee has implemented over the years.

Following the Corporation’s stockholder outreach efforts in connection with the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders, the Corporation continued its engagement by reaching out to 12 of its largest institutional stockholders representing approximately 69% of outstanding shares in November 2018 through February 2019, to discuss key topics including executive compensation. The Corporation had meaningful conversations with key institutional stockholders who accepted our invitation to engage, representing approximately 54% of the Corporation’s outstanding shares. In addition to direct feedback from the Corporation’s stockholders, the Compensation Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Corporation’s say on pay votes when making future compensation decisions for its NEOs.

Compensation Discussion Related to the Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Joyce joined the Corporation as Chief Executive Officer in September 2017 amidst a challenging environment for casual and family dining and during a transitional time for the Corporation. Given Mr. Joyce’s previous experience and proven track record for returning companies to growth, the Board of Directors identified Mr. Joyce as the best candidate to lead the Corporation in executing its long-term strategy to return the Corporation to a growth company focused on delivering strong results. As such, Mr. Joyce’s overall compensation opportunity was strategically designed to include a significant proportion of front-loaded, performance-contingent equity awards that would be directly linked to the performance of the Corporation.

Mr. Joyce’s compensation package primarily consists of the following:

In determining the overall compensation package for Mr. Joyce, the Compensation Committee considered the state of the business at the time of Mr. Joyce’s hire, the critical role Mr. Joyce would have in returning the Corporation to growth, and Mr. Joyce’s previous experience and proven track record for returning companies to growth. The Compensation Committee also considered competitive market data and the input of Exequity.

Front-loaded Equity Awards

88% of the front-loaded equity awards granted to Mr. Joyce are tied to stock price performance hurdles that represent a rigorous performance standard and directly align his compensation with the interests of our stockholders.

26

The performance contingent NQSOs and RSUs are earned in increments based on nine different stock price performance hurdles that are successively more difficult to achieve, with the first stock price hurdle set at $50.00, or approximately 123% of the stock price on the date of grant, and the last stock price hurdle set at $90.00, or approximately 221% of the stock price on the date of grant. In order for each and any of the stock price performance hurdles to be considered satisfied, the closing stock price of the Corporation’s common stock must be at or above the stock price target for a period of 20 consecutive New York Stock Exchange trading days. In addition to satisfying the performance conditions referenced above, Mr. Joyce must remain continuously employed through February 1, 2021 in order for any of the equity awards to vest.

2018 Compensation Decisions

The Compensation Committee did not approve any increase to Mr. Joyce’s base salary for 2018 or 2019. Further, the Compensation Committee did not approve an increase to Mr. Joyce’s target opportunity under the annual cash incentive plan, which remains at 100% of base salary. The equity award grants described above which were made in conjunction with Mr. Joyce’s hire are intended to cover the entire term of his employment agreement. To that end, Mr. Joyce did not receive any additional equity awards in 2018 and did not participate in, or receive any payouts under, the Corporation’s cash LTIP for performance periods covering 2018. Further, the Compensation Committee did not grant Mr. Joyce any long-term incentive awards as part of the 2019 annual grant cycle. The Compensation Committee does not intend to grant Mr. Joyce any additional long-term incentive awards prior to the end of the term of his current employment agreement in February 2021.

In line with the sustained improvement in stock price performance since Mr. Joyce joined as Chief Executive Officer, 90% of the performance conditions tied to Mr. Joyce’s performance-contingent equity awards have been satisfied. As of December 31, 2018, the stock price hurdles associated with the performance conditions that were achieved during 2018 ranged from $50.00 to $85.00, representing 123% and 209%, respectively, of the stock price on the date of grant. Mr. Joyce must remain continuously employed through February 1, 2021 for any of these performance-contingent equity awards to vest. This post-performance vesting requirement facilitates the continued retention of the Chief Executive Officer through the term of his employment agreement and was a primary element considered by the Compensation Committee when designing Mr. Joyce’s performance-contingent equity awards. Further, given the stock-denominated awards, the value of the performance-contingent awards Mr. Joyce receives at the end of the vesting period is directly dependent on the Corporation’s stock price on the vesting date and the continued success of the Corporation under Mr. Joyce’s leadership. Please see the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2018 Fiscal Year-End Table in this proxy statement for additional information.

Please see Elements of the Compensation Program For NEOs section below for additional information regarding Mr. Joyce’s 2018 compensation.

Elements of the Compensation Program For NEOs

The Corporation’s executive compensation program for NEOs generally consists of the following components:

		27

The Compensation Committee’s compensation strategy is comprised of a TDCO for each NEO which is defined as base salary, target annual cash incentive and the grant date fair market value of LTI awards.

The TDCO for each NEO is generally set to fall within the third quartile (i.e., between the 50^th and 75^th percentiles) of relevant benchmark data. Rather than striving for a single market reference point, the Compensation Committee believes that a broader, third-quartile positioning provides appropriate flexibility in tailoring award opportunities based on a variety of factors such as performance, experience level, internal equity and external competitiveness.

The TDCO for 2018, as reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee for the NEOs, is listed in the following table. TDCO differs from the total compensation amounts reported in the 2018 Summary Compensation Table in that it includes the target annual cash incentive opportunity while the 2018 Summary Compensation Table includes the amounts actually earned under the 2018 Annual Incentive Plan. Further, TDCO does not include amounts set forth in the “All Other Compensation” column of the 2018 Summary Compensation Table nor does it include one-time equity awards made in connection with hiring, retention or other non-standard circumstances. In addition, TDCO includes the value of the target opportunity under the cash LTIP grant at the time it is awarded whereas the 2018 Summary Compensation Table includes the actual value earned, if any, based upon performance under the cash LTIP after the completion of the performance period.

Total Direct Compensation Opportunity

A significant portion of executive pay has been structured to be contingent on satisfying pre-established performance goals and increasing stockholder value. Accordingly, executives will not realize the incentive portion of their TDCO unless these objectives are satisfied. For the NEOs, excluding Mr. Joyce who did not receive any equity awards in 2018, an average of 65% of 2018 TDCO was linked to performance and/or increasing stockholder value.

Mr. Kalvin’s TDCO does not include the additional $5,500 monthly stipend provided to Mr. Kalvin during the time he served as Interim Chief Financial Officer. Additionally, Mr. Kalvin’s annual cash incentive target was pro-rated at 75% of base salary through May 2018 during the period he served as Interim Chief Financial Officer and 60% of base salary for the remainder of the year. The TDCO for Mr. Song, Mr. Rebelez, Mr. Cywinski and Mr. Kalvin excludes one-time sign-on, special retention or recognition awards granted to such individuals.

See the section entitled “Compensation Decisions Made in 2018” in this proxy statement for additional information regarding the elements of compensation for NEOs.

28

The chart below illustrates the 2018 pay mix for the NEOs, excluding Mr. Joyce:

Compensation Decisions Made in 2018

Annual Base Salaries

In setting annual base salaries, the Compensation Committee generally considers benchmarking data derived from a review of the proxy statement disclosures of the NEO Peer Group, the AON Hewitt and Chain Restaurant surveys and, in the case of the NEOs other than the Chief Executive Officer, recommendations and assessments of the performance of the individual NEOs by the Chief Executive Officer. The Compensation Committee uses the market data to establish points of reference to determine whether and to what extent it is establishing competitive levels of compensation for the NEOs. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee set annual base salaries for 2018 as follows:

Base salary increases for the NEOs were based on individual performance and external market competitiveness.

Mr. Song joined the Corporation in May 2018. The Compensation Committee set Mr. Song’s base salary at $500,000 after considering internal and external benchmarking data, the compensation paid to prior chief financial officers of the Corporation and Mr. Song’s skill set and qualifications relative to those desired by the Corporation. Mr. Kalvin received a $5,500 monthly stipend during his service as Interim Chief Financial Officer which is not reflected in the amounts above. After Mr. Song joined the Corporation as Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Kalvin’s base salary was increased to $350,000 in recognition of his service as Interim Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Adel did not receive an annual base salary increase in February 2018 due to the fact that Mr. Adel’s base salary was previously increased in November 2017 in recognition of the expanded scope of his role to include cyber security, internal audit and franchise administration.

		29

Performance- and Stock-Based Compensation

Annual Cash Incentives

In early 2018, the Compensation Committee approved the 2018 Annual Incentive Plan to reward executive officers whose performance meets or exceeds the Corporation’s expectations, to provide incentives for excellent future performance that contributes to the Corporation’s success and profitability and to serve as a means by which eligible participants may share in the Corporation’s financial success. The Compensation Committee uses negative discretion to reduce the maximum incentive payout for each NEO based on performance against our pre-established metrics as outlined below.

Pursuant to the 2018 Annual Incentive Plan, the target annual cash incentive amount for each of the NEOs is established as a percentage of base salary based on the participant’s level in the management structure. The 2018 threshold, target, and maximum payout amounts for each NEO are provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2018 table. The 2018 threshold, target and maximum percentages for each of the NEOs under the Corporation’s 2018 Annual Incentive Plan were as follows:

Decisions regarding the threshold, target and maximum incentive percentages were made in consultation with Exequity and after consideration of the NEO Peer Group and survey data mentioned above and the desired TDCO pay mix. The Compensation Committee believes the incentive targets to be generally consistent with incentive opportunities at the NEO Peer Group companies for similarly situated executives. Mr. Kalvin’s 2018 target was pro-rated at 75% of base salary through May 2018 during his service as Interim Chief Financial Officer and 60% of base salary for the remainder of the year.

The annual cash incentive for the NEOs is based on a combination of the Corporation’s AEPS, Dine Brands Global, Inc., IHOP, and Applebee’s Operating Profit, Traffic, and Net Franchise Restaurant Development. The Compensation Committee focused the 2018 annual incentive metrics entirely on financial and operating performance metrics to drive an emphasis on delivering results and improving performance. The Compensation Committee pivoted from same restaurant sales to traffic as a primary financial performance metric in order to encourage the brands to drive improved same restaurant sales performance based on guests visiting our restaurants rather than increases to average check. Overall, the Compensation Committee believes the 2018 annual cash incentive metrics reflect the appropriate balance between profitability (60-70%) and growth (30-40%). The annual cash incentive for each of the NEOs may then be decreased or increased based on the individual performance of each executive.

The Compensation Committee uses AEPS as a primary incentive metric as it represents a broad and commonly used measure of financial performance for the Corporation. The Compensation Committee includes Operating Profit as a performance measure because it believes operating profit appropriately incentivizes the business units on items specifically within their control. “Operating Profit” is defined as Segment Profit plus gains on asset dispositions, less Direct G&A and losses on asset dispositions. “Segment Profit” is defined as segment revenues less segment expenses. Direct G&A is defined as general and administrative expenses directly incurred at operating units excluding any allocation of shared service and general corporate overhead. Traffic is a growth performance indicator used by the Corporation and the restaurant industry and provides a measure of the change in the number of guests visiting restaurants. Net Franchise Restaurant Development is a growth performance indicator measuring the number of new restaurants opened during the fiscal year, less any restaurant closings.

30

The table below outlines the annual cash incentive metrics and weighting for each of the NEOs for 2018:

For each of the performance metrics, amounts were not paid unless the threshold performance level for that metric was achieved. The threshold, target and maximum payout levels for certain of the performance metrics are illustrated in the table below. Payouts increase incrementally for performance up to a maximum of 200% of an executive’s target annual cash incentive opportunity.

Traffic growth for the domestic IHOP Business Unit fell short of its target by 0.5%, resulting in a payout percentage of 86% of target. Traffic growth for the domestic Applebee’s Business Unit exceeded target by 2.25%, resulting in a maximum payout of 200% of target.

All metrics were set after consideration of the business environment at the time the metrics were approved and the Corporation’s forward-looking strategic plan. The Compensation Committee established challenging levels such that attainment of the targeted amounts was not assured at the time they were set and would require a high level of effort and execution in order to obtain them.

		31

The final annual cash incentive amounts under the 2018 Annual Incentive Plan were determined by multiplying the results of the performance metrics that each NEO was measured against by an individual performance modifier for the NEOs. The final annual cash incentive payout amount may be modified upward or downward based on individual performance and other factors deemed relevant by the Compensation Committee. At the end of 2018, Mr. Joyce assessed the performance of each of the NEOs, other than himself, and their overall contribution to the Corporation’s strategy and results and assigned a performance modifier as set forth in the table below:

Mr. Cywinski’s performance modifier was in recognition of the outstanding performance for the Applebee’s Business Unit in 2018. Mr. Adel’s performance modifier was in recognition of Mr. Adel’s leadership in successfully completing several transactions and bringing to resolution certain matters related to Applebee’s franchisee financial health issues.

The amounts in the table below represent the annual cash incentive paid to each of the NEOs pursuant to the 2018 Annual Incentive Plan and are calculated by multiplying the NEO’s base salary by the target percentage and by the achievement level.

Mr. Kalvin’s base salary does not include the additional $5,500 monthly stipend provided to Mr. Kalvin during the time he served as Interim Chief Financial Officer. Additionally, Mr. Kalvin’s annual cash incentive target was pro-rated at 75% of base salary through May 2018 during the period he served as Interim Chief Financial Officer and 60% of base salary for the remainder of the year, resulting in a pro-rated target opportunity equal to 66.3%.

In November 2018 and March 2019, Mr. Adel received a special recognition bonus of $50,000 and $200,000, respectively, for his leadership in successfully resolving certain matters regarding Applebee’s franchisee financial health.

Annual Long-Term Incentive or LTI Awards

The Compensation Committee grants each of the NEOs, other than the Chief Executive Officer, a blend of NQSOs, RSAs and cash LTIP awards. The NQSOs vest in equal installments over a three-year period and are exercisable for up to a maximum of ten years. The RSAs typically cliff vest after three years and the cash LTIP payout is based on cumulative TSR against an index of publicly-traded restaurant companies over a three-year performance period, and, beginning in 2018, three-year average AEPS over the performance period. NQSOs have value to the executive only if the Corporation’s stock price increases over the price on the date of grant and the value of RSAs increases or decreases with the changes in the Corporation’s stock price. The 2016 – 2018 and 2017 – 2019 cash LTIP cycles provide payment between zero and 200% of the target award based on the Corporation’s relative TSR performance. The 2018 – 2021 cash LTIP provides payment between zero and 200% of the target award based on the Corporation’s relative TSR performance and three-year average AEPS performance against pre-established performance goals, with each performance metric weighted equally. The performance goals were designed to be challenging but achievable with strong management performance.

32

For the 2016 – 2018 cash LTIP, the award vested based on the Corporation’s TSR performance within the rankings depicted in the table below:

For the 2018 – 2021 cash LTIP, the award will vest 50% based on the Corporation’s TSR performance within the rankings depicted above as well as 50% based on the Corporation’s AEPS performance as depicted below. AEPS performance is based on the Corporation’s adjusted earnings per share as determined by the Board of Directors and reported in the Corporation’s audited financial statements.

The Compensation Committee believes that this mix of long-term incentives appropriately balances an emphasis on absolute and relative stock price performance and aligns the compensation of our NEOs with the long-term interests of stockholders. The LTI awards are comprised of 34% of the grant date value in NQSOs, 33% of the grant date value in RSAs and 33% of the grant date value in the cash LTIP (at target). The Compensation Committee believes this weighting provides a balanced strategy between stockholder alignment, executive retention, risk and performance.

The Compensation Committee considered a range of factors in setting the value to be awarded to the NEOs, including assessments of individual performance, the potential contributions that each NEO could be expected to make in the future, each NEO’s TDCO, LTI awards previously granted to certain NEOs, the size of awards provided to other individuals holding similar positions in the market data considered by the Compensation Committee, the number of shares which remained available for issuance under the 2016 Stock Incentive Plan and overall accounting expense associated with the awards.

The table below summarizes the grant date value of the annual long-term incentive awards made in 2018 (additional detail regarding long-term incentive awards granted in 2018 can be found in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2018 table in this proxy statement):

The Compensation Committee increased Mr. Adel’s total LTI opportunity to reflect his expanded role in managing the Corporation’s cyber security, internal audit and franchise administration functions and his leadership role in resolving certain Applebee’s franchisee financial health matters.

		33

In addition, the Compensation Committee approved several additional LTI awards to various NEOs in 2018:

2016—2018 Cash LTIP Payout

Demonstrating the Corporation’s pay-for-performance philosophy and the direct link between pay and the Corporation’s stock price performance, no payouts were made under the cash LTIP for the prior three performance periods. Performance and payouts under the 2016-2018 performance period and prior performance periods were as follows:

34