Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Stock Option Backdating
'Where were these professionals when these clearly improper transactions were being consummated? Why didn't any of them speak up or disassociate themselves from the transactions?' Lincoln Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wall, 743 F. Supp. 901, 920 (D.D.C. 1990) (Sporkin, J.).
Just as the business community began making headway with Congress to reduce Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) obligations, a new type of corporate wrongdoing has been revealed ' backdated stock options used by the executives at many companies and some directors to convert their options at the most opportune times and at the expense of other shareholders and investors. What is troubling is how the boards of directors at so many companies could have approved the backdating or not known about it after SOX and the recent wave of high-profile corporate fraud investigations and prosecutions.
Criminal charges have already been lodged against some high-ranking corporate executives. See DOJ Press Release, 'Former Executives of Comverse Technology Inc. Charged with Backdating Millions of Stock Options and Creating a Secret Stock Options Slush Fund' (Aug. 9, 2006), www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/August/06_odag_517.html; and 'Brocade Executives Indicted' (Aug. 12, 2006), lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/08/brocade_executi.html. Public companies have been forced to restate their earnings and witness their stock values tumble following the negative publicity from acknowledging that they had incorrectly accounted for and reported stock option grants in prior years.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.