Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Prosecution and Defense of Stock Option Backdating Cases
After Michael E. Clark reviewed then-emerging issues in the area of stock option backdating in last December's issue of Business Crimes Bulletin, former Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. CEO Gregory Reyes was found guilty of backdating-related crimes despite what most observers agree was a vigorous and well-funded defense. United States v. Reyes, No. 06-0556 (N.D. Cal., jury verdict, Aug. 7, 2007). This article discusses four critical issues likely to influence future backdating cases.
Backdating Is Not a Garden Variety Stock Fraud
Backdating is different from conduct typically alleged as stock fraud because it is not in itself illegal. So long as the backdating of options is accompanied by proper accounting treatment and public disclosure, there is no securities law violation. Backdating cases thus have come to be thought of largely as accounting cases. As a result, a potent potential defense has emerged for corporate officers who may have known backdating was occurring but, because they did not have hands-on responsibility for their company's financial or accounting practices, were unaware of the accounting or disclosure consequences of that practice. This defense does not exist with more common forms of alleged stock fraud where, for example, a defendant would be unlikely to claim that he or she was aware of revenue manipulation but didn't understand that such manipulation had accounting consequences or had to be disclosed.
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.