WARNING AND DISCLAIMER
This site provides general information for educational purposes, is not intended either to provide legal advice or to be relied upon in any way. There is no substitute for personal legal counsel about your particular situation. This site is not affiliated with any law firm, and merely provides the views of Mark Poerio in his individual capacity.
>>> See Disclaimer for all rules of usage for this site.
New Developments as of 2017.03.14
2017.03.14 Director Compensation - Survey Data and Precautions
The two should be considered hand-in-hand these days: survey data about director compensation, and precautions against litigation alleging it is excessive. This is because the best protection for directors comes from two steps drawn from a recent survey discussed here.
2017.02.07 Stock Award Web Process Works: Non-compete Enforced. As a general matter, employers “win” when they seek to enforce stock plan terms that have been fairly disclosed -- and accepted -- by award recipients. ADP recently had such a victory. In a case decided under New Jersey Law, the 3rd Circuit upheld the granting of a preliminary injunction against two former employees who had joined a competitor in violation of restrictive covenants set forth in their stock awards. The former employees argued that ADP’s web-based system for issuing stock awards did not adequately alert them to the consequences of the stock awards they accepted. They lost because . . . continued at New Jersey Law.
2017.01.21 Equity Awards - When No Good Deed . . . Employers often assume that they will avoid litigation when acting in what they believe will be the best interests of their employees. For instance, shortening a vesting schedule from 4 years to 6 months would seem favorable to stock option holders. Until they sue. That's what Uber faces from a complaint alleging . . . continued at Stock Award Litigation.
2017.01.10 Top Hat Forfeiture Enforced for Executive's Refusal to Sign Non-Compete (WD Penn). As a general matter, employers win when they seek to enforce the unambiguous terms -- and forfeiture provisions - of their top hat and other executive-only ERISA plans. Good faith administration by the employer is ordinarily sufficient. Case in point: a Penn. district court upheld forfeiture of top hat benefits where an executive refused to sign a non-competition agreement that the underlying plan required as a condition for benefits. The court's decisions are worth review because they dig into . . . continued at Vesting and Forfeiture.
|Executive Compensation||Loyalty||Business Issues|
Restrictive Covenants (state-by-state guide)
Shareholder Litigation (vs corp directors)
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.