Options backdating which companies are at risk Online moms sex cams

Another potential ticking time bomb, is that many of the companies that are caught bending the rules will probably be required to restate their historical financials to reflect the costs associated with previous options grants. In others, the costs may be in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a worst-case scenario, bad press and restatements may be the least of a company's worries.

options backdating which companies are at risk-83options backdating which companies are at risk-79

As a result, the company has been forced to recognize a stock-based expense increase of $723 million between 19. It has also been the subject of a civil and a criminal complaint. According to a 2005 study by Erik Lie at the University of Iowa, more than 2,000 companies used options backdating in some form to reward their senior executives between 19.

In addition to Brocade, several other high profile companies have become embroiled in the backdating scandal as well.

Materials and call-in information will be sent by e-mail on the afternoon of Monday, August 14th.

In order to lock in a profit on day one of an options grant, some executives simply backdate (set the date to an earlier time than the actual grant date) the exercise price of the options to a date when the stock was trading at a lower level. In this article, we'll explore what options backdating is and what it means for companies and their investors. Most businesses or executives avoid options backdating; executives who receive stock options as part of their compensation, are given an exercise price that is equivalent to the closing stock price on the date the options grant is issued.

For example, in early November 2006, United Health reported that it would have to restate earnings for the last 11 years, and that the total amount of restatement (related to improperly booked options expenses) could approach, or even exceed, $300 million. While reports of past indiscretions are likely to continue to surface, the good news is that companies will be less likely to mislead investors in the future. Prior to 2002, when the legislation was adopted, an executive didn't have to disclose their stock option grants until the end of the fiscal year in which the transaction or grant took place.

However, since Sarbanes-Oxley, grants must be filed electronically within two business days of an issue or grant.

Beyond Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC approved changes to the listing standards of the NYSE and the Nasdaq in 2003 that require shareholder approval for compensation plans.

It also approved requirements that mandate that companies outline the specifics of their compensation plans to their shareholders.

On the surface - at least compared to some of the other shenanigans executives have been accused of in the past - the options backdating scandal seems relatively innocuous.

But ultimately, it can prove to be quite costly to shareholders.

The Bottom Line Although more culprits in the options backdating scandal are likely to emerge, because standards such as Sarbanes-Oxley have been instituted, the assumption is that it will be more difficult for public companies and/or their executives to hide the details of equity compensation plans in the future.

Tags: , ,