Options backdating cases
Soltes, a university business school professor, began to think about a different type of criminal — the white-collar variety — none of whom lived the harsh lives of the incarcerated who were profiled on “Lockup.” Many of these fraudsters lived extraordinarily comfortable lives, but their crimes adversely affected themselves, their families, employees, investors and companies. Driven by curiosity, Soltes began to write to several former executives who were serving sentences for fraud.
Harvard business professor Eugene Soltes is on a years-long quest to discover why topflight executives become white-collar criminals.The appellate court said that it found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs met their burden with a combination of direct and indirect evidence of market efficiency.The appellate court expressly rejected the Petrobras defendants’ argument that the market efficiency requirement could only be met by direct evidence based on an event study.The appellate court said Judge Rakoff “failed to meaningfully address” this question.The appellate court noted further that on the available record the investigation of domesticity appears to be an individual question requiring putative class member to present evidence that varies from member to member.What were the most significant pressures they faced?
How did the way they were compensated influence their decision making?
His conversations with close to 50 convicted criminals so far have led to insights on hubris and humility — not just in them but in all of us.
Eugene Soltes was flipping through television channels late one night in 2008 when he came across the MSNBC reality show/documentary program, “Lockup,” which featured interviews with felons in prisons across the U. The inmates described their lives and circumstances — such as financial troubles, drug addiction and gang affiliation — that led to their brutal and violent crimes.
The Second Circuit, by its own account taking advantage of the “opportunity to clarify the ascertainability doctrine’s substance and purpose,” joined four other circuits and declined to adopt the “administratively feasible” requirement.
Instead, the Court said, the ascertainability doctrine requires only that a class be defined using “objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries.” The appellate court said that the district court’s certification order met these requirements.
, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether or not the transactions at issue in a particular securities suit were sufficiently “domestic” to bring them under the U. However, as demonstrated in the Second Circuit’s July 7, 2017 decision in the securities case, the “domestic” transactions inquiry is relevant at the class certification stage as well. The case proceeded forward, and the claimants’ filed a motion for class certification. exchange, the noteholders are entitled under to assert their claims only if they can show they acquired their Notes in “domestic transactions.” In certifying two classes, one on behalf of those asserting Section 10b-5 claims and the other on behalf of those asserting Section 11 claims, Judge Rakoff limited both class definitions to “members who purchased Notes in domestic transactions.” The defendants sought to appeal the class certification ruling.