...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Investment Compliance >Delaware Court of Chancery issues two important decisions on stock options backdating, spring-loading and bullet-dodging
【24h】

Delaware Court of Chancery issues two important decisions on stock options backdating, spring-loading and bullet-dodging

机译：特拉华州法院法院就股票期权回溯，弹簧加载和躲避子弹发布了两个重要决定

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the implications of two recent decisions in Ryan v. Gifford and In Re Tyson Foods, Inc. concerning stock options backdating, “spring-loading,” and “bullet-dodging.” Design/methodology/approach – The paper summarizes the facts of the two cases, defines spring-loading and bullet-dodging, and explains how the court held in both cases that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged demand futility, that directors of the two corporations had shown bad faith and breached their duty of loyalty, and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment took precedence over the statute of limitations. Findings – The paper finds that backdating of options is so egregious that board approval cannot meet the test of business judgment and there is a substantial likelihood of director liability. A director who intentionally uses inside knowledge not available to shareholders in order to enrich employees while avoiding shareholder-imposed requirements cannot be said to be acting loyally and in good faith as a fiduciary. The best practice for companies is only to grant options that are in strict compliance with their shareholder-approved option plans as well as applicable accounting, tax, and disclosure rules, and on either fixed-in-advance dates or when the companies' insiders would be free to trade. Originality/value – The paper provides a thorough explanation of two of the most important court decisions to date on stock options backdating, spring-loading, and bullet-dodging.
机译：目的–本文的目的是描述Ryan诉Gifford和In Re Tyson Foods，Inc.两项最新判决的含义，这些判决涉及股票期权回溯，“回弹”和“弹丸”。设计/方法/方法-该文件总结了这两个案件的事实，定义了弹簧加载和躲闪，并解释了法院在这两个案件中如何认定原告有足够的诉求徒劳，这是两家公司的董事所证明的恶意和违反忠诚义务的行为，以及欺诈性隐瞒的原则优先于时效法规。调查结果–该论文发现，期权的回溯过于苛刻，以致董事会批准无法满足业务判断的标准，而且董事承担责任的可能性很大。董事故意利用股东无法获得的内部知识来丰富员工，同时又避免了股东提出的要求，就不能说他是忠实和真诚地作为受托人。公司的最佳做法是只授予严格遵守其股东批准的期权计划以及适用的会计，税法和披露规则的期权，并在提前确定的日期或公司内部人士将这些期权授予时自由交易。独创性/价值–该文件对迄今为止两个最重要的法院判决做出了详尽的解释，这些判决涉及股票期权回溯，弹簧加载和躲避子弹。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号