Stock option backdating wiki what is the best online dating sight

The California state court action, filed on June 16, 2006, names sixteen defendants, including all defendants in the Delaware action.The judge in the state court action granted a stay in that proceeding.

Additionally, the plan identified the board or a committee designated by the board as administrators of its terms. Ryan alleges that nine specific grants were backdated between 19, as these grants seem too fortuitously timed to be explained as simple coincidence.

After the article appeared in the Journal, Merrill Lynch issued a report demonstrating that officers of numerous companies, including Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., [p346] had benefited from so many fortuitously timed stock option grants that backdating seemed the only logical explanation. Individual defendants move to stay this action in favor of earlier filed federal actions in California ("federal actions").

In the alternative, they move to dismiss this action on its merits.

Ryan is a shareholder of Maxim and has continuously held shares since his Dallas Semiconductor Incorporated shares were converted to Maxim shares upon Maxim's acquisition of Dallas Semiconductor on April 11, 2001. Frank Wazzan, members of the board and compensation committee at all relevant times; Eric Karros, member of the board from 2000 to 2002, and M. All nine grants were dated on unusually low (if not the lowest) trading days of the years in question, or on days immediately before sharp increases in the market price of the company.

He filed this derivative action on June 2, 2006, against Gifford; James Bergman, B. As practices surrounding the timing of options grants for public companies began facing increased scrutiny in early 2006, Merrill Lynch conducted an analysis of the timing of stock option grants from 1997 to 2002 for the semiconductor and semiconductor equipment companies that comprise the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index.

Leave a Reply