 |
| |
Litigation Services > Synopsis of Litigation Cases > Jane Smith* Vs. John Smith (NYS Supreme) |
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
In a high profile divorce case, the husband had been granted 75,000 stock options upon joining a new company. This was prior to announcing his intention to leave his wife of 30+ years. The husband argued that the options had no inherent value because they were based on "events of the future" and therefore should not be included in the marital asset. Important to the case was discovery whereby the expert found that after joining the company subsequent options were in the one hundred to a few hundred shares range. Upon further discovery the husband's performance reviews had been less than competent and the husband's own self-assessment about his job performance was that he was not yet learning the business as fast as thought. This research led to the pattern (and opinion) that the purpose of the original grant of stock options (75,000 shares) was clearly a sign on bonus, within the period of the marital asset and not "for the future" as the husband claimed. This case was a defining use of the pattern of sign on vs. performance based options, and upon issuance of the expert's report, the husband refused the poor performance ratings to be made public and settled for the full value of the options asked for by the former wife.
|
|
|
|
| Please CLICK HERE to take our Organizational Effectiveness Quiz. |
|
|
| If you would like more information on how to affiliate with Nadel Consulting Group, Inc., please CLICK HERE. |
|
|
| If you would like more information on Nadel Consulting Group's Consultant Mentoring Program, please CLICK HERE. |
|
|
|
