Backdating mail Shy chat tube
Since so many people think this is an important point, I thought I'd do a post addressing just that contention. What I assume people mean is that granting in-the-money options is not illegal, so long as you account for it properly. But the whole point of backdating is to pretend that you're not granting in-the-money options when in fact you are.
And to say it's up to the bean-counters to catch this situation is silly, because the whole reason you're using phony dates is so that the bean-counters won't know what you really did.
The Court of Appeal has recommended a general test which the council should apply when considering good cause: "some fact which, having regard to all the circumstances (including the claimant's health and the information which he had received and that which he might have obtained) would probably have caused a reasonable person of his age and experience to act (or fail to act) as the claimant did." Some factors which the council will take into account when applying this test are: These are only a few of the more common factors the council will look at when deciding if good cause is shown.
Remember you must show good cause for the whole period you wish your benefit backdated for.
Those negotiations are on hold as the company and an investor spar in court over the allegations.
Whenever I write about backdating, many people write in to tell me that backdating's not illegal; you just have to account for it correctly.
But if someone asks you to write down a date from a month ago on a legal document, rather than today's date, doesn't it give you pause?