According to a December 17, 2009 press release from the lead plaintiff’s attorneys, the parties to the Comverse Technology options backdating related securities lawsuit have agreed to settle the case for $225 million dollars. A particularly noteworthy feature is that the settlement amount includes a $60 million individual contribution from the company’s former CEO, Kobi
“Mr. Ruehle, You Are a Free Man”: Judge Carney’s Dramatic Dismissal of the Broadcom Backdating Criminal Case
There has been widespread news coverage of the dramatic December 15, 2009 decision of Central District of California Judge Cormac Carney to throw out the options backdating related criminal charges against Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III and CFO William Ruehle, based on prosecutorial misconduct.
But even though many of press accounts have reproduced some
Acquitted Options Backdating “Scapegoat” Seeks Revenge
Former McAfee General Counsel Kent Roberts, accused of options backdating-related misconduct, was acquitted following a criminal jury trial and the SEC later dropped its separate enforcement action against him. But that apparently is not enough for Roberts – he wants vengeance.
On September 16, 2009, he filed a lawsuit in the Northern District
D&O Insurers Fund $118 Million Partial Settlement of Broadcom Options Backdating Derivative Suit
In what is one of the largest ever shareholders’ derivative lawsuit settlements, the parties to the consolidated federal options backdating related derivative lawsuit involving Broadcom Corp. have agreed to settle the case for $118 million, to be funded entirely by the company’s D&O insurance carriers. The settlement does not include the company’s co-founders, Henry Samuels
What, Options Backdating? Again?
I found myself talking about options backdating for the first time in months yesterday, and it wasn’t just because of the Ninth Circuit’s blockbuster August 18, 2009 opinion (here) reversing and remanding for retrial the conviction of former Brocade CEO Gregory Reyes – although that certainly is a highly noteworthy development.
What
KPMG Settles Options Backdating Gatekeeper Claim for $22.5 Million
In the latest twist in the long-running options backdating saga, and in what appears to be a significant milestone in the options backdating-related gatekeeper claims, on June 15, 2009, Vitesse Semiconductor announced (here) that it had reached a settlement with its former auditor, KPMG LLP, in connection with the option backdating related allegations.
Blast from the Past: Options Backdating Settlement
Remember options backdating? There is still a raft of unresolved options backdating cases out there, but at least one of the remaining options backdating related securities class action lawsuits has now been settled.
On June 9, 2009, Marvell Technology announced (here) that it has reached an agreement to settle the case for
Got Those Options Backdating Lawsuit Settlement Blues Again, Mama
In a prior post (here), I discussed Judge William Alsup’s rejection of the proposed settlement of the options backdating-related derivative lawsuit involving Zoran Corporation, in which the parties had proposed to resolve the case without any cash payment to the company. A more recent case presents another example of a court’s similar unwillingness
Impac Mortgage Subprime Mortgage Securities Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice
On March 9, 2009, in a short but strongly worded opinion, Judge Andrew Guilford of the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice the third amended complaint in the subprime-related securities class action lawsuit filed against Impac Mortgage Holdings. A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Background
As discussed here
Lawsuits Against Mortgage Securities Issuers: Damages Issues Ahead?
Among the many lawsuits that have flooded in as part of the subprime and credit crisis litigation wave has been a profusion of lawsuits against the mortgage-backed securities issuers and their securities offering underwriters. These lawsuits, typically filed under the ’33 Act and alleging misrepresentations in the offering documents, claim that investors who purchased securities