Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,569,808 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

$1.6 Million U.S.D.C. Verdict for Unvested Stock Options Affirmed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - CAD; Technology Giant Fired Key Employee to Deprive Him of Options.


OXNARD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 2, 1999--

The Law Offices of David M. Karen announced today that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed af·firm  
v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms

v.tr.
1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.

2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.

v.intr.
 the $1.6 million judgment for Plaintiff, Forrest L. Fleming, against his former employer, Defendant, Parametric Technology Corp. of Waltham, Mass.

The jury had found Fleming was terminated in bad faith and was therefore entitled en·ti·tle  
tr.v. en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling, en·ti·tles
1. To give a name or title to.

2. To furnish with a right or claim to something:
 to the value of his stock options, though unvested at time of termination. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding "there was substantial evidence to support the verdict."

While stock options are routinely used by start-up companies start-up company

A new business.
 to lure and reward key employees, the eight-person jury unanimously determined that Fleming was terminated by Parametric Technology senior executives Steve Walske and Dick Harrison, to specifically deprive de·prive
v.
1. To take something from someone or something.

2. To keep from possessing or enjoying something.
 Fleming of his unvested options. U.S. Federal Court Judge, Honorable Robert M. Takasugi, presided over the three-week trial and had denied the Defense motion for new trial.

David M. Karen, lead trial attorney, prosecuted the Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing cause of action for the Plaintiff. Attorney Karen stated that "while the Ninth Circuit opinion will not be published, the decision still is useful as businesses are learning that they can't use people and throw them away when it is financially convenient for them to do so.

"Employees whose compensation is deferred with stock options to be realized in the future cannot be uniformly deprived of unvested options by termination. That Microsoft sought to file an amicus brief in this case, an effort denied by the Court, confirms this decision is particularly relevant.

"Especially in the technology industry, where the custom is to offer stock options as a way to attract and then defer the rewards to key employees, it shows you can't have all schtick schtick  
n.
Variant of shtick.

Noun 1. schtick - (Yiddish) a little; a piece; "give him a shtik cake"; "he's a shtik crazy"; "he played a shtik Beethoven"
schtik, shtick, shtik
 and no carrot carrot, common name for some members of the Umbelliferae, a family (also called the parsley family) of chiefly biennial or perennial herbs of north temperate regions. ."

Attorney David M. Karen practices in Oxnard, specializing in trial of all civil litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.

When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation.
 matters. For more information, call 805/988-4848 or e-mail at DK4law@aol.com.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Business Wire
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Business Wire
Date:Jul 2, 1999
Words:326
Previous Article:IJNT.net Chief Executive Officer Jon H. Marple Interviewed by In-Flight Network.
Next Article:Myers Industries Grows Horticultural Container Business With Addition of Dillen Products Companies.



Related Articles
Eleventh Circuit limits punitive damages awards.
JUDGE OKs EXXON VALDEZ AWARD.
Board v. Farnham.
Board v. Farnham.
Board v. Farnham.
Board v. Farnham.
Fairley v. Luman.
Fairley v. Luman.
Hygiene-prisoner personal.
Privacy.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles