Backdating stock scandal
There are any number of contexts where this comes up — some legitimate and others not exactly aboveboard — but the logistics of negotiating and signing contracts are such that the issue is unavoidable.
(Jason Mark Anderman illustrates the logistics problem well in this comment to a backdating post on Ken Adams’s blog.) There’s nothing inherently illegal or unethical about backdating contracts, although backdating can certainly be both unethical and illegal, depending on the situation.
By clicking “I agree” below, you consent to the use by us and our third-party partners of cookies and data gathered from your use of our platforms.
We cannot conclude, therefore, that in resolving the inconsistency between the FDIC/Weatherford Agreement and the Termination of Participation Agreements, the trial court erroneously relied on these uncontested facts to find “a lack of mutual assent” with respect to a November 7, 2008 effective date.
Thus, the FDIC and Weatherford could have made their transaction retroactive, but they didn’t document the deal clearly enough to do so.
“The process and paperwork behind this has gotten much more rigorous,” Ms. Backdating litigation was often consolidated into class actions or brought by shareholders on behalf of the company.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed 32 of the cases, including one against William Mc Guire, the former CEO of United Health, that resulted in a 8 million settlement. Mc Guire didn’t admit or deny any wrongdoing in the settlement.
But the language of the FDIC/FH Partners agreements further undermined FH Partners’ arguments because the documents (1) stated that they couldn’t be amended or waived except in a writing signed by the parties, (2) didn’t anticipate that the FDIC could modify what it was conveying to FH Partners after closing, (3) conveyed the FDIC’s interest “as of the Loan Sale Closing Date,” (4) transferred the FDIC’s interest in the loan “as is,” (5) provided that the FDIC would “have no obligation to secure or obtain any missing intervening assignment or any assignment to [the FDIC] that is not contained in the Loan File,” (6) provided a process by which FH Partners could require the FDIC to repurchase a loan if it was determined that the FDIC didn’t own it as of the closing, and (7) transferred the FDIC’s rights “at the time of closing.” The appellate court stated, “We necessarily conclude that the FDIC/FH Loan Sale Documents unambiguously anticipated that the FDIC might very well be conveying to FH Partners less than perfect, and even non-existent, title to Loan A and Loan B.