The point of this review is not to anticipate every litigation issue that might arise under the ACA but rather to discuss particular areas where employer liability related litigation may arise.
Background The ACA’s employer mandate requirements and the challenges the mandates present are discussed in an interesting December 10, 2014 Orange County Register article entitled “Obamacare Year One: D-Day Approaches for Employers” (here).
The prosecution, even by advertising nationally, could find no investor who could assert coherently that the “misstated” information had any impact on their investment decisions. I will offer two answers to that very understandable reaction. ) the backdated options frenzy stirred up, beginning in 2005, by story after story in the Wall Street Journal, stories that only rarely mentioned that backdating options was not illegal and was practiced by hundreds of Silicon Valley companies, but spent paragraph after paragraph talking about corporate greed and describing the homes, cars, vacations, and other luxuries of the wealthy.
In this case, anti-capitalist journalism led and set the pace for Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement and Justice Department prosecutions.
The moment a businessman, a financial firm, is reported to be “under investigation” or about to be indicted, the individual or firm is isolated, instantaneously “on trial.” The repeated pattern of politically and ideologically motivated crusades, energized by reporters hungry for the great expose, seems to matter little.
Each time, the attention of the world is arrested by the new outrage.
The companies involved in the recent scandal were backdating options to a time when the stock price was lower, making them immediately lucrative. stock options by claiming that they’re an incentive for performance: the executives get rich only if they do a good job and the stock goes up.
As it happens, companies are perfectly free to issue options priced below the current market: those are called “in the money” options, and they’re worth something right when they’re issued. But there’s a rule that companies have to follow when they issue “in the money” options: they have to disclose it in their financial statements. Unless executives can time-travel, though, it’s hard to make that case for backdated options.
His ambitions could be good news for the newspaper industry— or another nail in the coffin of serious journalism.No one could find a podium, so four green-and-white boxes of printer paper were pushed together as a platform, and Murdoch stepped up with a microphone in hand to address his mostly appalled new employees.With his thin hair dyed rusty brown and brushed straight back off the wide dome of his forehead, and modish wire-framed glasses over small, heavy-lidded eyes, his face was all too familiar, its deeply creased cheeks sagging in a fine cascade of syncline folds to the crisp knot of his blue silk tie.Lawyers were still putting the final touches on the billion deal that would make Dow Jones & Company and its crown jewel, The Wall Street Journal, the newest subsidiaries of Murdoch’s improbably vast News Corp-oration.The global-media buccaneer, the rapacious philistine from Down Under, had come to personally stake his claim to “the daily diary of the American dream.” Also see: From the archives: The Age of Murdoch (September 2003) Many see him as a power-mad, rapacious right-wing vulgarian.The backdating companies broke this rule: they reported how many options they were issuing, but conveniently omitted the fact that they had been backdated. The bigger reason for choosing to backdate is to get around some bothersome accounting regulations.