What’s more, the Do J asserts that to facilitate the alleged scheme, the Brocade executives falsified documents — including employment offer letters and compensation-committee minutes — to make it appear that the paperwork supported the earlier options-grant dates. Those executives usually wind up being the top five executives.The civil suit filed by the SEC also charges securities fraud, citing specific securities-law provisions, including those having to do with books and records, internal controls, misrepresentation to auditors, and Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires CEOs and CFOs to certify the accuracy of financial statements. Recall that in-the-money options are not considered performance-based compensation by the IRS.More often than not, in our experience, when parties type the date in ahead of signature, one or both parties fails to sign on the typed date.

Contracts drafted by English lawyers typically include a date in the first line.

This is usually introduced by wording such as: to type this date in the agreement prior to signature, but rather to write the date in by hand once all parties have signed.

There is no statute that explicitly outlaws backdating stock-option grants, but it seems virtually impossible to backdate options and achieve the ultimate goal of putting grants “in the money” without first deliberately falsifying documents and then covering up the sham.

At least that seems to be the conclusion reached by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding their first case against executives charged with fraud related to backdating.

In the end, if the Do J proves that the Brocade executives deliberately orchestrated a scheme to mislead investors and regulators by falsifying documents and forging financial statements, it could amount to criminal securities fraud, contends Kenneth Lee, a securities litigator in the New York office of Thacher Proffitt and Wood.

But the prosecutors would have to show that the backdating process was a deliberate attempt to mislead investors, rather than neglect on the part of the executives to properly understand and implement backdating.

(In 2004, FAS 123 was revised to require that all stock-option grants be expensed.) Brocade’s crime, charges the Do J, is that between 20, company executives “routinely backdated stock option grants to give employees favorably priced options without recording necessary compensation expenses.” Ultimately, the alleged criminal fraud is a disclosure and accounting issue that violates Section 10 (Manipulative and Deceptive Devices) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Do J claims that by not properly accounting for the options expenses, the company’s financial condition was misrepresented to investors. Tax Code, a company can take up to a

But the prosecutors would have to show that the backdating process was a deliberate attempt to mislead investors, rather than neglect on the part of the executives to properly understand and implement backdating.(In 2004, FAS 123 was revised to require that all stock-option grants be expensed.) Brocade’s crime, charges the Do J, is that between 20, company executives “routinely backdated stock option grants to give employees favorably priced options without recording necessary compensation expenses.” Ultimately, the alleged criminal fraud is a disclosure and accounting issue that violates Section 10 (Manipulative and Deceptive Devices) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The Do J claims that by not properly accounting for the options expenses, the company’s financial condition was misrepresented to investors. Tax Code, a company can take up to a $1 million deduction for performance-based compensation awarded to “covered” executives.In 1999, he resigned as France’s minister of economy and finance, to focus on his defence against an accusation that he backdated documents to justify his consultancy fees for work on a student health insurance fund. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.Accordingly, mis-dating a contract could amount to an offence under this Act.Legally speaking, this is something that you should not do – or more accurately, there will only ever rarely be occasions when this is appropriate to do.

||

But the prosecutors would have to show that the backdating process was a deliberate attempt to mislead investors, rather than neglect on the part of the executives to properly understand and implement backdating.

(In 2004, FAS 123 was revised to require that all stock-option grants be expensed.) Brocade’s crime, charges the Do J, is that between 20, company executives “routinely backdated stock option grants to give employees favorably priced options without recording necessary compensation expenses.” Ultimately, the alleged criminal fraud is a disclosure and accounting issue that violates Section 10 (Manipulative and Deceptive Devices) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Do J claims that by not properly accounting for the options expenses, the company’s financial condition was misrepresented to investors. Tax Code, a company can take up to a $1 million deduction for performance-based compensation awarded to “covered” executives.

In 1999, he resigned as France’s minister of economy and finance, to focus on his defence against an accusation that he backdated documents to justify his consultancy fees for work on a student health insurance fund. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

Accordingly, mis-dating a contract could amount to an offence under this Act.

Legally speaking, this is something that you should not do – or more accurately, there will only ever rarely be occasions when this is appropriate to do.

||

But the prosecutors would have to show that the backdating process was a deliberate attempt to mislead investors, rather than neglect on the part of the executives to properly understand and implement backdating.

(In 2004, FAS 123 was revised to require that all stock-option grants be expensed.) Brocade’s crime, charges the Do J, is that between 20, company executives “routinely backdated stock option grants to give employees favorably priced options without recording necessary compensation expenses.” Ultimately, the alleged criminal fraud is a disclosure and accounting issue that violates Section 10 (Manipulative and Deceptive Devices) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Do J claims that by not properly accounting for the options expenses, the company’s financial condition was misrepresented to investors. Tax Code, a company can take up to a $1 million deduction for performance-based compensation awarded to “covered” executives.

In 1999, he resigned as France’s minister of economy and finance, to focus on his defence against an accusation that he backdated documents to justify his consultancy fees for work on a student health insurance fund. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

million deduction for performance-based compensation awarded to “covered” executives.

In 1999, he resigned as France’s minister of economy and finance, to focus on his defence against an accusation that he backdated documents to justify his consultancy fees for work on a student health insurance fund. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.