Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Ellison Must Donate $100M to Charity

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the forced-benevolence dept.

PokeyPenguin writes "As part of a settlement for insider trading allegations, a California judge has ordered that Larry Ellison donate $100 million to charity. CNet reports, 'The charity payments are an unusual way to settle such a case. Typically, settlement payments would go directly to the company, in this case Oracle. "But with Mr. Ellison owning a quarter of Oracle's stock, much of such a direct payment, in effect, would have gone to him."'"

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. JDJ Had This News 6 Weeks Ago by jg21 · · Score: 2, Informative

    September 12 was, erm, over six weeks ago--this news about the ending of the so-called "derivative law suits" was dealt with by Java Developer's Journal (and tens of dozens of other major technology publications) long ago. [from the article] "Unusual Settlement Arrangement Would End Derivative Lawsuits Once and For All, and Avoid a Trial"

    1. Re:JDJ Had This News 6 Weeks Ago by boingyzain · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TFA: ...the terms of which were approved on Tuesday by a California judge. Of course, Tuesday being November 22nd, the day this article was run. So, if you were to RTFA, you would find that this lists the newest developments in this case, not the stuff from six weeks ago.

  2. No Tax Break by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ellison won't get a tax break. Although the payment is being made to a charity, it is not a charitable contribution. He is receiving legal consideration for the payment -- i.e., he is settling and discharing a debt. It would similar to the situation where you bought a used car from the charity, and paid them money in exchange. Your payment would not be a charitable contribution

    More precisely, the charity is a third party beneficiary of a contract between the plaintiff(s) and Ellison to settle the case. It would be more like a case where "Seller" sells a car to you but, feeling charitable, writes the contract so you pay the money to the charity. In that case, if anyone got a deduction it would be "Seller" and not you.

    --
    Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
  3. The Slashdot School of Law has failed you by kajoob · · Score: 4, Informative

    1.) Only $100 million?

    That's because no California court has ever awarded punitive damages in a derivative suit. Derivative suits, like this one, are about equity - not punishment.

    2.) No criminal record?

    Derivative suits are civil, not criminal.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  4. Re:$100 million or $100 million of Oracle software by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has to be money and has to goto charity orginizations, not all non-profit are charity. In addition the board of directors of Oracle has to approve the charity and it will be given in Oracle's name not ellson.

  5. At least the lawyers are happy... by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative
    From TFA, at first the judge didn't approve the settlement because the Oracle company would have to pay $24 million in legal fees. It was only when Ellison agreed to pay an extra $22 million to the lawyers that the settlement was approved.


    From the article: "This provision makes an excellent settlement even better," Joseph Tabacco, the attorney who brought the case, said in a statement. Wow, who would have guessed it, a lawyer is happy to get $22 million!?