As various options backdating lawsuit settlements and dismissals have accumulated in recent days, I have received a variety of inquiries from readers about comparisons with prior dispositions or about the outcomes of various other specific cases. The absence of a single, all-inclusive resource to address these questions led me to put together a compiled list
More (and More) Options Backdating Dismissals
For those keeping track, the options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit filed against Hansen Natural can be added to the list of options backdating-related securities class action dismissals. (Refer here regarding prior dismissals.) Hansen announced in its 8-K dated October 23, 3007 (here) that the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
Court Dismisses Options Backdating Securities Lawsuit
On September 27, 2007, Amkor Technology announced (here) that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and several of its directors and officers. As noted in a prior post (here), the initial
More Options Backdating Settlements and Other Web Notes
Rambus Settles Securities Lawsuit: In a September 7, 2007 press release (here), Rambus announced that it had settled the July 2006 options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against the company and certain of its directors and officers. Rambus has agreed to pay $18 million in exchange for a dismissal
Special Litigation Committee Terminates Options Backdating Derivative Action
On August 24, 2007, Rambus announced (here) that a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) of its board of directors had completed its review of “claims related to stock options practices that are asserted in derivative actions against a number of present and former directors and officers of the Company.”
Rambus had previously announced (
Delaware Chancery Court Reexamines, Allows Springloading Claim to Proceed
In an August 15, 2007 opinion (here), Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor William B. Chandler III reexamined his February 6, 2007 refusal to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim involving stock option springloading against directors and officers of Tyson Foods, Inc. In his earlier opinion (here), Chandler had held, in response to the defendants’
Options Backdating: Sue the Auditors
In prior posts (most recently here), I described various attempts to shift the blame for alleged option grant manipulations to company gatekeepers. In the latest development, Vitesse Semiconductor announced on June 13, 2007 (here) that it has sued KPMG, its former auditing firm, seeking $100 million in damages and alleging that the
A Closer Look at the Mercury Interactive SEC Settlement
The SEC’s settlements of options backdating civil enforcement actions against Brocade Communications and Mercury Interactive received extensive coverage in the financial press last week (refer here and here). But there are several features of these settlements and the underlying civil actions that merit closer attention, particularly with respect to the Mercury Interactive action and
Options Backdating: It’s “Blame the Gatekeeper” Time
In an earlier post (here) entitled “Options Backdating: Sue the Gatekeeper,” I discussed a recent case where a company had sued its former accountant for the accountant’s options timing advice. It now appears, in addition to “sue the gatekeeper,” that “blame the gatekeeper” has emerged as a part of options backdating litigation.
Backdating Case Last Rites Prove Premature
In an earlier post (here), I reported on the voluntary dismissal of the options backdating related derivative lawsuit that had been filed against Novellus Systems (as nominal defendant) and certain of its directors and offices. The May 7, 2007 press release (here) issued by Novellus’ defense firm, Morrison Foerster, referring