quotes dating younger men - Backdating derivative
It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice.
Online phone sex chating - Backdating derivative
The Pfizer settlement is discussed in greater detail here.
After receipt of comments from readers, I have removed the $110 milllion El Paso settlemetn from the list as it was originally published.
(2013) $137.5 million Freeport-Mc Mo Ran (2015) $122 million Oracle (2005) $118 million Broadcom Corp.
(Options Backdating) (2009) $115 million AIG (2002 lawsuit) (2008) $89.4 million Del Monte Foods (2011) $75 million Pfizer (2010) UPDATED $62.5 million Bank of America (Merrill Lynch Acquisition) (2012) I suspect strongly that there have been settlements with values between the $62.5 Bank of America settlement and the $110 million El Paso-Kinder Morgan settlement.
My purposes in posting this list are two-fold: first, in response to several requests, to share the information I have; and two, to encourage others who may have different or additional information to share the information so that I can update or supplement the list as appropriate.
Here is my list of the nine largest derivative lawsuit settlements of which I am aware: 5 million Activision Blizzard (2014) 9 million News Corp.In particular, the Court did not find an inference of backdating where: The Court ultimately found that plaintiffs adequately alleged that three grants were backdated.In each instance, specific facts suggested that the grant was so fortuitously timed as to raise doubts about its propriety, and defendants were unable to provide a legitimate, judicially-noticeable explanation for the timing.In light of this fact, the Court would not infer that fraud occurred "absent other facts" to the contrary.Because only one director (who received an allegedly backdated grant) was arguably "interested," plaintiffs were not entitled to usurp the Board's authority to decide whether or not to pursue litigation.Nonetheless, the Court made clear that the existence of backdated grants was not sufficient to render the directors incapable of determining whether litigation was in the company's best interest.