Aug articles on stock option backdating
New rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have reduced the practice to 10% of the companies granting options.Only 7.7% of companies filing within the new two-day reporting window for options grants show a pattern of backdating, compared to 19.9% of companies that did not meet the requirements.As a result, it is possible that Activision will be required to record additional stock-based compensation expense related to stock-option grants.
New research (July 2006) by Eric Lie and Randall Heron found that 29.2% of companies issuing options to executives and/or directors between 19 have grant date patterns that suggest backdating or other manipulative practices (such as "spring-loading," the announcement of a grant before good news is released), and 23% of options issued to executives appear to have been backdated or spring-loaded.
The Santa Monica, Calif., videogame company said on July 28 that the SEC has asked the company for documents related to its stock-option grants as part of an informal inquiry.
The company also said its board has appointed a special subcommittee of independent directors to conduct an internal review of the companys historical stock-option grant practices. 25 the company said it appears likely that actual measurement dates for certain historical stock-option grants will be found to differ from the recorded grant dates for such awards.
Your browser will take you to a Web page (URL) associated with that DOI name.
Also includes links to selected real-world contract forms. The INCOTERMS® are "a series of pre-defined commercial terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) [that are] widely used in international commercial transactions …. the purpose of corroboration [is] to prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the [witness's] testimony." See Sandt Technology, Ltd. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. 2001) (affirming relevant part of summary judgment; internal quotation marks and citation omitted). (b) Except as otherwise stated below, for information to be considered Confidential Information, the information must: (1) be set forth (or summarized) in tangible form (including for example an electronic storage device); and (2) be marked with a reasonably-prominent, visually-readable notice such as (for example) "Confidential information of [name]" or "Subject to NDA." In assessing whether a disclosing party in fact maintained particular information in confidence, a court very likely will give significant weight to whether the disclosing party caused the information to be marked as confidential. In many situations, these "standard" precautions are likely to satisfy the disclosing party's desires, but for some types of Confidential Information, a disclosing party might want to insist on special precautions — especially in the era of criminal hackers, and even state actors, breaking into insufficiently-secure computer systems and stealing valuable information, such as happened to Sony Pictures Entertainment, allegedly at the hands of North Korea, and to Home Depot, which booked a charge of 1 million after a 2014 theft of customers' credit-card data. (1) will not waive or otherwise affect the Disclosing Party's ability to enforce its other intellectual-property rights (for example, copyrights and patents) against the Receiving Party except to the extent, if any, that the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing; and (2) will not affect any obligation of confidentiality imposed by law.