Legality of backdating
Legality of backdating - garalnude
Further, there is the issue of consideration - what does the employee get for not disclosing?The wages they have had in the past is not good consideration - past consideration is not consideration. your last paragraph, if I were the employee in question I think I would have assumed that an NDA was assumed/implied/normal from day 1, whether or not it was formally documented, and that my wages and benefits were sufficient consideration for that NDA (again, from day 1).
Communications on Law Stack Exchange are not privileged communications and do not create an attorney-client relationship.In the modern business world, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has all but eliminated fraudulent options backdating by requiring companies to report all options issuances within 2 days of the date of issue.Options backdating may still occur under the new reporting regulations, but Sarbanes-Oxley compliant backdating is far less likely to be used for dishonest reasons due to the short time frame that is allowed for reporting.Additionally, companies can use backdating to produce greater executive incomes without having to report higher expenses to their shareholders, which can lower company earnings and/or cause the company to fall short of earnings predictions and public expectations.Corporations, however, have defended the practice of stock option backdating with their legal right to issue options that are already in the money as they see fit, as well as the frequent occurrence in which a lengthy approval process is required.I'm not sure about this site's policies -- is it reasonable/polite to ask you to justify/explain the statement that "it doesn't involve criminality"?
For example I think you're saying it's not fraud, forgery, or anything like that.Or could doing so (backdating such a document) be considered fraud, forgery, or anything illegal, or even for some reason ethically or morally wrong?It seems to me that it might be legal (assuming that I as the employee were willing to sign it) because as an employee I'd assume that some NDA was in place even if haven't signed one (so it's as if the agreement or meeting of minds was in place even before it was documented).The SEC’s opinions regarding backdating and fraud were primarily due to the various tax rules that apply when issuing “in the money” stock options vs.the much different – and more financially beneficial – tax rules that apply when issuing “at the money” or "out of the money" stock options.In 1972, a new revision (APB 25) in accounting rules resulted in the ability of any company to avoid having to report executive incomes as an expense to their shareholders if the income resulted from an issuance of “at the money” stock options.