Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employee stock option compensation, once the darling of the dot-com revolution, retains its popularity as an item of damages in wrongful termination matters. As wrongful termination claims mount, so do claims for economic damages involving stock options plans. Many of these reflect misconceptions over the nature of employee stock options, and questionable assumptions on the method of valuing the loss.
While the dot-com frenzy is over, shares in such industries as pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, home building, banking and finance, and certain electronic sectors continue to trade at relatively high levels. Thus, claims for damages stemming from lost stock options remain common in employment suits brought by employees who have been terminated by companies in these industries.
An employee stock option grants the employee the right, but not the obligation, to purchase common stock of the employer corporation during a specified period of time, for an agreed-upon price. Typically, the duration of an employee stock option is 10 years from the date of grant. As late as the mid-1990s, valuation of damages in claims involving employee stock options was a matter of projecting the price of the underlying stock, then making assumptions as to when the plaintiff would have exercised the options over the remainder of their term. This methodology gave way to the Black-Scholes Option-Pricing Model, as plaintiff economists gradually increased their sophistication. This model of valuation was developed by Fischer Black and Myron Scholes in the early 1970s. While the model enjoys an excellent pedigree ' Myron Scholes was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the theory of option valuation ' it is often misapplied in the employment-litigation setting.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?