Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Web search giant Google Inc. recently admitted that it may have illegally issued as much as $3.1 billion in shares after its planned initial public offering (IPO), and offered to buy them back at a significant discount.
The potential contretemp, disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this month, precedes Google's highly anticipated IPO, which could raise as much as $3.3 billion and could take place at almost any time (and may even have done so before you read this).
The company said it sold 23.2 million shares to 1105 current and former employees and consultants and granted an additional 5.6 million stock options to 301 people. The transactions took place between September 2001 and June 2004 and were not registered, as required by law, Google said.
The Mountain View, CA-based Google said it will pay $25.9 million, including interest, to buy back the shares and options. There is speculation that some holders of the securities might sue the company rather than accept the buyback.
According to Google, the offer will expire some time in September. Holders who reject or do not respond to the offer will have their shares automatically registered after the IPO is completed.
Google has not commented on whether this event will affect the timing of its much-ballyhooed IPO.
Google plans in its IPO to offer 24.6 million shares at an estimated $108 to $135 each, valuing the company at as much as $36 billion. At the high end of the range, the employee share holdings in question would be worth $3.1 billion.
The company said it may have broken federal securities laws and the securities laws of 18 states and the District of Columbia by failing to register the stock and options or exempt them from registration.
Google is using a “Dutch auction” process for the IPO, and bidders may register at www.ipo.google.com.
The company and its lead underwriters, Credit Suisse First Boston and Morgan Stanley, will determine the highest price at which there is demand for all shares, and price the shares at or below that price.
Google said the 18 states whose securities laws may have been violated are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.
Web search giant
The potential contretemp, disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this month, precedes
The company said it sold 23.2 million shares to 1105 current and former employees and consultants and granted an additional 5.6 million stock options to 301 people. The transactions took place between September 2001 and June 2004 and were not registered, as required by law,
The Mountain View, CA-based
According to
The company said it may have broken federal securities laws and the securities laws of 18 states and the District of Columbia by failing to register the stock and options or exempt them from registration.
The company and its lead underwriters, Credit Suisse First Boston and
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
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.
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.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?