In essence, the revision enabled companies to increase executive compensation without informing their shareholders if the compensation was in the form of stock options contracts that would only become valuable if the underlying stock price were to increase at a later time.The thing I liked about the Journal's treatment of the Alexander case was how the reporter managed to be respectful toward the Namibian legal system while at the same time hinting to readers that not every society has the same attitude toward Option backdating scandals: how management accountants can help: backdating of employee stock options can have a significant negative effect on a public company.
This is a way of repricing options to make them valuable or more valuable when the option "strike price" (the fixed price at which the owner of the option can purchase stock) is fixed to the stock price at the date the option was granted.
Cases of backdating employee stock options have drawn public and media attention.
In the context of mutual funds, a feature allowing fundholders to use an earlier date on a letter of intent to invest in a mutual fund in exchange for a reduced sales charge, e.g.
Giving retroactive value to purchases from the earlier date.
You're free to use the Common Draft materials (which are copyrighted) in accordance with the following license; all of the following permissions are given on the express condition that you agree to the Cautions below. This list of exclusions requires only reasonable corroboration of a claim of exclusion from confidentiality, as opposed to some provisions of this kind that require documentary proof of the claim. According to the court, that requirement helps to guard against the possibility that someone might "describe [their] actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner …. (a) Information that is made available to the Receiving Party in connection with the Agreement, by or on behalf of the Disclosing Party, will not be considered Confidential Information unless the information is marked as provided in the Agreement. Compaq won because Convolve, which claimed trade-secret rights in certain information, had disclosed some of that information orally to Compaq, but didn't follow up those oral disclosures with written summaries, which was required by the parties' non-disclosure agreement. At all times during the Confidentiality-Obligation Period, the Receiving Party must cause the following precautions to be taken to safeguard Confidential Information in its possession, custody, or control: (1) at least the same precautions as the Receiving Party takes for its own information of comparable significance; (2) in no case less than those precautions that a prudent person would take in the same circumstances; and (3) any other particular secrecy precautions stated in the Agreement. 1960) (per curiam, adopting district court opinion).
2016-03.4; last modified Wednesday September 14, 2016 Houston time. Both a contract drafter and a contract reviewer can save some time by first reviewing — together — the Common Draft short-form contract drafts (as well as other clause titles) and discussing just what types of provision they want in their document. The better approach is the one taken by this provision. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained this balancing concept in an analogous context, namely the patent-law requirement that claims of prior invention must be corroborated. 10, 2016) (affirming award of treble damages and trebled attorney fees; internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Washburn & Moen Mfg. Some language in this disclaimer is in all-caps bold-faced type so that the language will be conspicuous. A company's failure to do catch-up marking of confidential information after an oral disclosure to another party can kill the company's claim to trade-secret rights in the information. Compaq, the computer manufacturer Compaq (then part of Hewlett-Packard) defeated Convolve's claim that Compaq had misappropriated Convolve's trade secrets concerning hard-disk technology. A receiving party, though, might well object to this provision because it's necessarily vague, which could later lead to disputres about whether particular information qualified as "clearly" confidential.
According to a study by Erik Lie, a finance professor at the University of Iowa, more than 2,000 companies used options backdating in some form to reward their senior executives between 19.
The SEC’s opinions regarding backdating and fraud were primarily due to the various tax rules that apply when issuing “in the money” stock options vs.
The practice of allowing a mutual fund shareholder to use previous purchases of the fund's shares so as to qualify for reduced commission charges on subsequent purchases.