DEATH KNELL FOR INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS
- Date: 2007-04-10 - Word Count: 751
Share This!
A federal court in Florida has just ruled that restricted stock (on which most incentive stock options are based) cannot have any value merely because it is restricted. Visit site below for Court Opinion. Williamson v. Moltech Corporation began in New York in 1995. Although now in bankruptcy court, New York law, not bankruptcy law, applies in this case.
Restriction of stock is typically utilized by early-phase companies who want to award employees and/or attract necessary employees. The stock is restricted because when the company goes into an initial public offering (IPO), the underwriters of the offering do not want the company principals selling their stock at the IPO since this would undermine confidence in the company. Usually the restriction is lifted after a period of time following the IPO.
This new ruling would mean that any company can award incentive stock options based on restricted stock and then abrogate its agreement, leaving its employee with no recourse. This would be the case, even if the company value had increased astronomically. Clearly, this does not meet the test of reason.
This ruling destroys as impractical the use of incentive stock options and the restricted stock underlying them for compensation purposes. Companies that desire quality technologists and managers, but with little cash with which to compensate them, will now find the formerly-valuable technique of awarding incentive stock options to be snubbed by knowledgeable employees, who realize that the company can breach its incentive stock option agreement with its employee at any time with impunity. Thus, at any time after helping to build the company, the employee could be left with nothing for their sweat equity efforts. Since companies will no longer be able to compensate their employees with stock options, more cash will be required, leading to a drying up of technological advance.
Additionally, the court failed to observe the previous ruling of the courts of New York denying summary judgment to Moltech on the damage claim related to the incentive stock options, even though the court is bound to give comity to the New York ruling under res judicata. Visit site below for New York Summary Judgment Denial The court gives no apparent reason for its utter disregard for the prior New York ruling.
New York law requires that damages be measured at the time of the breach. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, where there is no market for stock, as is the case with restricted stock, a hypothetical market model is used to establish the value between a buyer and a seller. Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 2004 WL 2334081 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) vacated and remanded as to damages by Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 464 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2006); Boyce is similarly a bankruptcy case. Thus, although the Williamson v. Moltech matter was in bankruptcy court, the ten-year later bankruptcy can have no effect on the value at the time of the breach. The court appears to have struggled with this, both recognizing that the valuation must take place as of the time of the breach under New York law, but also bringing in language related to the cancelling of stock through the bankruptcy plan approval, which is clearly inapplicable.
Of further interest is the earlier hearing before the court. Visit site below for Transcript The reader will find the comments by the court at the top of page 31 very interesting, since this hearing was prior to the court receiving any evidence as to valuation from Williamson. In fact, evidence of the restricted stock value was put before the court by Williamson in the form of un-refuted valuations, among others having been performed by Moltech's own analysts/auditors, including Price-Waterhouse and sales of stock by Moltech (outright common stock sales were made as were preferred instruments convertible to common stock).
Thus, if the ruling this case were to be upheld it would result in a loss of stock options by employees holding them if their company decided to breach their incentive stock option agreements. Companies could breach such agreements pre-IPO leaving the employee high and dry with no high value stock subsequent to the IPO. Naturally, incentive stock options would lose their luster for compensation. New high technology companies would suffer.
The case is currently under appeal in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, Case No. 1:07-cv-00016.
Dr. Thomas R. Williamson III, Plaintiff/Creditor in the case, is a Patent Attorney practicing in Atlanta, Georgia. Documents referenced may be viewed at http//www.atlanta-intellectual-property-law.com
Restriction of stock is typically utilized by early-phase companies who want to award employees and/or attract necessary employees. The stock is restricted because when the company goes into an initial public offering (IPO), the underwriters of the offering do not want the company principals selling their stock at the IPO since this would undermine confidence in the company. Usually the restriction is lifted after a period of time following the IPO.
This new ruling would mean that any company can award incentive stock options based on restricted stock and then abrogate its agreement, leaving its employee with no recourse. This would be the case, even if the company value had increased astronomically. Clearly, this does not meet the test of reason.
This ruling destroys as impractical the use of incentive stock options and the restricted stock underlying them for compensation purposes. Companies that desire quality technologists and managers, but with little cash with which to compensate them, will now find the formerly-valuable technique of awarding incentive stock options to be snubbed by knowledgeable employees, who realize that the company can breach its incentive stock option agreement with its employee at any time with impunity. Thus, at any time after helping to build the company, the employee could be left with nothing for their sweat equity efforts. Since companies will no longer be able to compensate their employees with stock options, more cash will be required, leading to a drying up of technological advance.
Additionally, the court failed to observe the previous ruling of the courts of New York denying summary judgment to Moltech on the damage claim related to the incentive stock options, even though the court is bound to give comity to the New York ruling under res judicata. Visit site below for New York Summary Judgment Denial The court gives no apparent reason for its utter disregard for the prior New York ruling.
New York law requires that damages be measured at the time of the breach. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, where there is no market for stock, as is the case with restricted stock, a hypothetical market model is used to establish the value between a buyer and a seller. Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 2004 WL 2334081 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) vacated and remanded as to damages by Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 464 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2006); Boyce is similarly a bankruptcy case. Thus, although the Williamson v. Moltech matter was in bankruptcy court, the ten-year later bankruptcy can have no effect on the value at the time of the breach. The court appears to have struggled with this, both recognizing that the valuation must take place as of the time of the breach under New York law, but also bringing in language related to the cancelling of stock through the bankruptcy plan approval, which is clearly inapplicable.
Of further interest is the earlier hearing before the court. Visit site below for Transcript The reader will find the comments by the court at the top of page 31 very interesting, since this hearing was prior to the court receiving any evidence as to valuation from Williamson. In fact, evidence of the restricted stock value was put before the court by Williamson in the form of un-refuted valuations, among others having been performed by Moltech's own analysts/auditors, including Price-Waterhouse and sales of stock by Moltech (outright common stock sales were made as were preferred instruments convertible to common stock).
Thus, if the ruling this case were to be upheld it would result in a loss of stock options by employees holding them if their company decided to breach their incentive stock option agreements. Companies could breach such agreements pre-IPO leaving the employee high and dry with no high value stock subsequent to the IPO. Naturally, incentive stock options would lose their luster for compensation. New high technology companies would suffer.
The case is currently under appeal in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, Case No. 1:07-cv-00016.
Dr. Thomas R. Williamson III, Plaintiff/Creditor in the case, is a Patent Attorney practicing in Atlanta, Georgia. Documents referenced may be viewed at http//www.atlanta-intellectual-property-law.com
Related Tags: stock, stock options, incentive stock options, restricted stock, initial public offering
Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles
Recent articles in this category:
- The No. 1 Rule For Projecting Confidence - Speak With Authority
One of the most important characteristics a person can project in a business setting - or any situat - After the Autumn Checkout European Debt Crisis and U.S. Brewing Rebound
In the commotion caused by the Fed on interest rates come to an end, the "disastrous" for the euro a - Advantages Of Arcade Game Rentals
There are many different advantages to arcade game rentals. Most people need something to release th - A General Primer on Truck Cargo Nets
In modern highways it is quite rare to see truck cargo nets in action, this is because they are usua - The United States Will Burst More Severe Financial Crisis
Not long ago, suddenly announced that the central bank to raise interest rates, the interest rate hi - Niche Marketing Profits - 3 Easy Steps to Finding a Profitable Niche Market Income in 10 Minutes
Like most beginners I was having a very difficult time trying to find a niche market to earn extra m - The Importance of Hospitality Management Consulting Firms Toronto
Businesses and the managers that help guide any business are in a constant state of improvement and - New Keynesian Theory Label
2010 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics three theories have been labeled as "New Keynesian" labe - Federal Reserve Pouring Money QE2 Unpredictable Fortune
U.S. economist Milton Friedman proposed a "throw the cash from a helicopter" view, while the practic - Fiscal Consolidation Should no Longer Delay
British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne today announced fiscal consolidation policy, shoc
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Common Financial Problems to Avoid
One must first change their habits and not procrastinate. American Consultants Inc at offers key fi - How a Bad Hire Can Hurt Your Business
What's worse - hiring the wrong person or not hiring anyone at all? Companies can become almost des - Joel Comm Is Dr. Adsense
What is Adsense? If you are new to making money online and net marketing, you may not know what Ads - 5 Steps For A Dynamic Wealth System Online
Recipe: Opportunity + knowledge + Dynamic Wealth System + Your Action = Massive Success!!! Step 1 - How To Stop Foreclosure
Losing your house to a foreclosure can be very scary. There are times when circumstances are ou - How to Always Pitch A Strike
As business owners, we are always working on new ways to convince people to become customers, client - Membrane Diffuser Solutions for Wastewater Treatment Systems
In the aeration basin of a typical wastewater treatment plant there are both organic and inorganic m - Another Year Hating Your Job or Loving Life?
Copyright © 2007 Mary Foley I've come to the conclusion that to be successful - really successf - Dyestuff Industry In India And China
World demand for dyes and organic pigments to touch $10.6 billion in 2008According to a study on dye - Cma-cgm Case : the Series of Lawsuits Continues in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, France, England and the United States
Damietta company case : The series of lawsuits continues in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, France, England a