Companies under backdating spotlight shell out massive legal fees for independent investigations
Perhaps no corporate scandal of recent years has created such wide-ranging troubles as the stock option backdating mess. Companies have spent untold millions on legal fees for independent investigations, government negotiations and shareholder and derivative suits. And even if the companies clean house, the disgraced executives can - and do - insist that their former employers keep paying their high-priced lawyers, thanks to indemnification contracts that are a standard perk in executive suites. In the case of Brocade Communications Systems, which cut ties with its convicted former chief executive, Gregory Reyes, legal fees could eventually reach $100m (£48.7m).
October 31, 2007 at 11:10 PM
3 minute read
Perhaps no corporate scandal of recent years has created such wide-ranging troubles as the stock option backdating mess. Companies have spent untold millions on legal fees for independent investigations, government negotiations and shareholder and derivative suits. And even if the companies clean house, the disgraced executives can – and do – insist that their former employers keep paying their high-priced lawyers, thanks to indemnification contracts that are a standard perk in executive suites.
In the case of Brocade Communications Systems, which cut ties with its convicted former chief executive, Gregory Reyes, legal fees could eventually reach $100m (£48.7m).
Brocade's securities filings show that as of 28 July, it had paid about $65m (£32m) in legal fees. That figure is sure to balloon because it does not include Reyes' seven-week criminal trial, which began in June.
The former CEO was defended by a flotilla of lawyers from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Munger Tolles & Olson. On 7 August a federal jury in San Francisco convicted Reyes on all 10 counts sought by prosecutors.
Reyes' conviction has likely not ended Brocade's obligations. His lawyers are working on his appeal, as well as defending him in a civil case filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Brocade's bylaws allow full indemnification to the extent permitted by Delaware law. And the courts of Delaware, where Brocade is incorporated, have been generous to officers and directors.
After a final finding of guilt, a company can attempt to recover the fees, but that is a tough path to follow. Insurance is usually not available, recovering from former executives is rarely easy, and it does not appear that companies have ever gone after the law firms that received the fees.
Reyes' lead lawyer, Richard Marmaro at Skadden Arps, would not say who is paying his client's fees. A Brocade spokesperson likewise declined to say.
Other companies are saddled with eight-figure fee backdating headaches. Mercury Interactive Corp spent an astounding $72m (£35.3m) on legal fees, as of 30 June, 2006 (it has since been bought by Hewlett-Packard).
As of 30 June this year, KLA-Tencor has spent $36.8m (£18m), Monster Worldwide (pictured) has spent $32m (£15.6m), and CNET Networks has spent $21m (£10.3m), according to securities filings – and these figures do not include any fines the companies have paid the SEC.
One former general counsel accused of backdating, Lisa Berry of Juniper Networks, made a special effort to make sure that she would be indemnified. Six months before Berry left Juniper in January 2004, she took the unusual step of setting up an indemnification trust for herself, according to securities filings. That type of trust is generally found only at companies facing bankruptcy or a change in control, said Gillian McPhee, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (Juniper declined to comment). Berry may need it – she was sued by the SEC in August.
Companies with huge backdating legal fees are not getting much relief from insurers, either. "In most stock option cases, insurance companies are not reimbursing [legal expenses] in the ordinary course," said a lawyer whose firm represents a backdating defendant. Insurers are citing policy exclusions, such as when individuals engage in bad acts for personal profit. Some of these coverage disputes are in mediation or arbitration, he added.
By Susan Beck. A version of this article originally appeared in The American Lawyer.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGCs Responsible for Gender Balanced Boardrooms Under New EU Rules
A Dark Future of Deepfakes and Disobedient AI: What GCs Foresee For 2050
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
- 2State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
- 3$5 Million Settlement Reached With Stone Academy
- 4$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
- 5Prepare Your Entries! The California Legal Awards Have a New, February Deadline
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250