Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oracle's Larry Ellison settles for 122 million: Could KK do the same RE: JSDU?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oracle's Larry Ellison settles for 122 million: Could KK do the same RE: JSDU?

    4 years after the shareholder lawsuit was filed...

    100 million to charity, and 22 million to the attorneys, for selling stock before a price plummet...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/...son_settlement


    Oracle CEO to Pay $122M to Settle Lawsuit

    By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

    REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A California judge on Tuesday approved an unusual legal settlement that will require Oracle Corp. CEO Larry Ellison to donate $100 million to charity and pay another $22 million to the attorneys who sued him for alleged stock trading abuses — forcing Ellison to dig deeper into his pockets than he originally wanted.

    Barring an appeal, the $122 million settlement finalized by San Mateo Superior Court Judge John Schwartz closes the books on a shareholder lawsuit filed nearly four years ago on behalf of Oracle, one of the world's largest software makers.

    The civil complaint revolves around a $900 million gain that Ellison generated by selling some of his Oracle stock shortly before the company's shares plummeted in 2001.

    Like many other high-tech companies, Oracle's sales sagged badly that year amid the aftershocks of the dot-com implosion that wiped out hundreds of companies. Oracle's shares plunged by 52 percent in 2001, wiping out about $85 billion in shareholder wealth.

    Oracle's shares fell 5 cents to close at $12.39 in trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The level is about 25 percent below Oracle's market value when the shareholder lawsuit was first filed in late January 2002.

    Although he denied doing anything wrong, Ellison tentatively agreed to settle the suit in September by donating $100 million to charity in Oracle's name.

    At that time, Ellison — one of the world's wealthiest men with an estimated $17 billion fortune — refused to pay the lawyers that accused him of wrongdoing. He wanted to leave that responsibility to Oracle, the Redwood Shores, Calif.-based company he co-founded 28 years ago.

    But Schwartz didn't want to saddle Oracle's shareholders with Ellison's legal bills. He refused to approve the settlement at a September court hearing, forcing the two sides to re-negotiate or take the case to trial.

    Ellison's attorney, Alan Salpeter, told Schwartz during the September hearing that the flamboyant executive didn't want to pay the fees of the suing lawyers because it would make it appear like he was admitting he had done something wrong.

    The about-face reflected Ellison's desire to avoid the risks and distractions of going to trial, according to the revised settlement.

    "Ellison has asserted and continues to assert that at all relevant times, he acted in good faith, and in a manner that was in fact...in the best interests of Oracle and Oracle's shareholders," the court papers said.

    A special committee appointed by Oracle's board of directors to investigate the allegations raised in the lawsuit also concluded Ellison did nothing wrong.

    Salpeter declined to comment about Ellison's decision to pay the attorney fees. Oracle also declined to comment.

    After a flurry of suits were filed against Ellison, Oracle changed its policies governing the stock sales of its top executives.

    Unless Tuesday's settlement is appealed, Oracle will have to identify the recipient of Ellison's donation within the next three months. Ellison will have up to five years to donate the entire $100 million.

    The $22 million in attorney fees and expense will be divided among 13 law firms. The firms had originally requested $22.5 million in fees and another $1.5 million in expenses before lowering their bill as part of the revised settlement.

    Joseph Tabacco, one of the lead attorneys in the case, called the settlement "an extraordinary result and certainly one that is of great benefit to Oracle."

    It remains unclear whether Oracle will be able to claim a tax deduction for Ellison's donations. There is nothing in the settlement that will prevent Ellison from seeking reimbursement from the insurers that cover Oracle's top executives and directors from legal liabilities arising from their jobs.

    Ellison still faces a federal lawsuit similar to the one filed in San Mateo County. The San Mateo settlement requires the lead attorneys in the case to "use their best efforts" to dismiss the federal complaint.

    The San Mateo case still could come back to haunt Ellison and Oracle. Lawyers for the executive and the company wanted to keep some documents sealed, but Schwartz refused and said he planned to sign an order making all the material available for public review.
    OK, legal eagles.. Similarities and differences?
    Rest in Peace, Miles Nelson

    Never forget, 'Mackie' was here.

  • #2
    Probably pretty similar. I don't think a single company i worked for during the boom wasn't fudging numbers. The hype was pretty serious. Everyone was talking up their stocks.

    Comment


    • #3
      $122 million to "settle" a perceived "un-earned" 900 million dollar gain.

      By that comparison KK would dole out about 27 million, giving 20 of it to charity.

      (...and for the nattering nabobs...Yes, I am wildly speculating)
      Rest in Peace, Miles Nelson

      Never forget, 'Mackie' was here.

      Comment


      • #4
        There are law firms out there that make a regular business of filing "shareholder" lawsuits for whatever reason, generating millions in legal fees for themselves.

        Didja notice no mention was made of any benefit to the "shareholders"?

        Just sharks circling blood.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rrrr
          There are law firms out there that make a regular business of filing "shareholder" lawsuits for whatever reason, generating millions in legal fees for themselves.

          Didja notice no mention was made of any benefit to the "shareholders"?

          Just sharks circling blood.
          In the case of JDSU it is a state treasurer and a collection of municipal pension funds and individuals filing the suit. Lawyers don't file suits without plantiffs, and plaintiffs don't file suit merely to enrichen law firms.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dreamracer
            4 years after the shareholder lawsuit was filed...

            100 million to charity, and 22 million to the attorneys, for selling stock before a price plummet...

            http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/...son_settlement



            OK, legal eagles.. Similarities and differences?
            Similiarities, a now-departed CEO as co-defendent with his former company. In this case there also did exist a conflict between the company and the former CEO as to financial responsibility. If the current management was unconnected with the stock sales and forecast in question one can appreciate their position, in essence they were looking at Oracle paying the penalty for another's actions.

            Differences? There exist a party of co-defendents since detatched from JDSU, not a single figure. So a joint aggreement between all of them and JDSU would be required to reach a similiar settlement, and the plantiffs will have to be willing to accept such a bizarre settlement. On the face of it I don't think so.

            Disclaimer: I'm not a legal eagle and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SportscarBruce
              ...Lawyers don't file suits without plantiffs....

              Looks like you need a little learnin' on the ways and means of the world of class action lawsuits and those that create/file them.

              It's an industry unto itself.
              "I would really like to go to NASCAR. I really enjoy NASCAR and if I could be there in a couple of years that's where I'd want to be." - Jeff Gordon (after testing a Formula Super Vee)

              Comment


              • #8
                Curiously, it doesn't say who paid Ellison's attorneys in the story. Presumably, he did. And the story, as someone said, doesn't say who gets the charitable tax writeoff, Ellison or Oracle. The $20 million a year for five years allows a balance to be invested and making money for Ellison over a period of time, rather than a lump sum. He might be able to make the balance work to make a lot of it back as it plays out. That takes away Wilke's contention on the other thread about "money made from dirty money" being in play.
                "The lunatic fringes on both sides need to be written off." -- stnky pete

                Comment


                • #9
                  Compare this one too

                  Since we are comparing lawsuits. Here is one for the people that think criminal charges are not possible or too old to file. This took place during the same period 1999-2001.

                  There are more than 10 co-defendants in the JDSU case as well as many upset ex-employees involved as a witness. IF there were illegal activities, one person might want to save their butt and turn on the other defendants.

                  http://finance.myway.com/ht/nw/bus/2...-ho770098.html
                  Being sued for $2.1 BILLION is a serious problem!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "Let this investigation be a warning to those in corporate America or elsewhere who would attempt to defraud shareholders, that these crimes do not pay and we will eventually find you," said Robert Grant, special agent in charge of the Chicago office of the FBI.
                    Wow!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dreamracer
                      By that comparison KK would dole out about 27 million, giving 20 of it to charity.
                      Does he know about Brian's wish?

                      "Let this investigation be a warning to those in corporate America or elsewhere who would attempt to defraud shareholders, that these crimes do not pay and we will eventually find you," said Robert Grant, special agent in charge of the Chicago office of the FBI.
                      I got about 30 letters yesterday form the FBI and the CIA (no joke), but I don't think I defrauded anyone.
                      "Is that my *** that I smell burning?" ... Helmet Stogie from "Death spasms of the Mabuchi"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Doc Austin
                        I got about 30 letters yesterday form the FBI and the CIA (no joke), but I don't think I defrauded anyone.
                        I hope you didn't open any of the attachements...huge virus attack being instigated by the fake FBI/CIA emails.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by akhindallas
                          I hope you didn't open any of the attachements...huge virus attack being instigated by the fake FBI/CIA emails.
                          My fault. I didn't include a smiley. I think we're covered, but thanks.

                          http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68042
                          "Is that my *** that I smell burning?" ... Helmet Stogie from "Death spasms of the Mabuchi"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SportscarBruce
                            In the case of JDSU it is a state treasurer and a collection of municipal pension funds and individuals filing the suit. Lawyers don't file suits without plantiffs, and plaintiffs don't file suit merely to enrichen law firms.
                            I didn't say the JDSU suit met my claim. Do a bit of research. As I said, there was no mention of any plaintiff in the Oracle case. Two or three shareholders colluding with our friends the barristers have made a this a common thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Give me 900 million and I would be more than happy to give back a 122 million.
                              Man to Man is so unjust... there's no Man you can Trust.

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X