Apple options backdating 2016

6854933580_2c8b688306_z

Thanks to a loyal reader for links regarding the Monster decision.

apple options backdating 2016-72apple options backdating 2016-34apple options backdating 2016-63apple options backdating 2016-18

Judge Fogel then went on to analyze the plaintiff’s purported claim for fraudulent proxy solicitation under Section 14(a).

It is as if he is saying, here’s my decision, but don’t quote me on it. The inferential suggestion that Judge Fogel is deciding cases on other than universally applicable principles ought to be a concern both to the immediate litigants and to litigants everywhere.

The practice of issuing opinions, particularly on matters of great interest and obvious significance for similar pending matters, as “not for citation” is inconsistent with our common law traditions and notions of public justice and rightly deserves the strongest disapprobation.

Reportedly, however, a separate options backdating derivative suit remains pending.

In addition, on November 14, 2007, the federal court in Manhattan denied the motion of Monster Worldwide founder Andrew J.

It always seemed probable that the SEC would not ultimately pursue all of the companies it was investigating for options backdating.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!