Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Ellison Must Donate $100M to Charity
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."'"
Won't he get a tax break therefore saving money in the long run?
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Sure, he'll get a tax break, but he's only gonna get a little fraction of that back, and undoubtedly the judge in the case was aware of this. He'll still lose tens of millions of dollars/
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Obviously i am no business genius but why does the payment be in a form that will add to the stock value? Can't the judge order Ellison to write out checks to the ones who suffered? :(
Also, the timestamp on the news.com.com site shows that this news is about 2 weeks old. Isn't that like a lifetime in the Internet age or is this a dupe post
"A rising tide lifts all boats".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
The judgement doesn't make sense to me.
Typically, if someone does something bad to someone, the person doing the bad has to compensate the harmed person.
So if Ellison did something bad to the shareholders, he should pay the shareholders.
The fact that Ellison is a shareholder too doesn't matter -- all it means is, in the big scheme of things Ellison did something bad to the minority shareholders.
So Ellison could just as easily compensate only the minority shareholders -- but only as much as he hurt them.
It doesn't make sense for the judge to say, "Oh my! This case is so complex, let's just have Larry flush some money down the toilet or give it to charity, and we'll call it even."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
but I think he won more than 100 million $ doing this insider trade. Small guys which steal 2 TVS get prison, he stole over 100 million and gets nothing.
Donate that $100 million to the Ubuntu folks.
You want the real justice?
The people who lost out on this -- the shareholders who's stock lost extra value because he devalued their stock unfairly -- get nothing other than a mildly warm and fuzzy feeling that a company that they own some very small part of gave a sizable charitable donation somewhere.
The lawyers, on the other hand, get $24 million in cash money.
No one on earth benefits from this lawsuit except the sharks. In the long run, Ellison would have donated the money to someone anyway. He can't and won't spend it all, and will just decrease his future donations by the same amount he was forced to donate.
The stockholders do not benefit, the charities do not benefit, Ellison does not benefit...
What a waste. The problem is that law schools are deliberately over-supplying the market with lawyers (we have several times as many as other nations, per capita). This results in not enough legitimate suits to go around. Stupid suits are the obvious result.
Perhaps we should sue the law schools for creating a "nuisance"...
Court wants Ellison to pay 100m to other Oracle shareholders.
Problem : Ellison owns 25% of Oracle.
Solution : Order him to pay 133m to Oracle.
This whole charity thing does not make sense.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
So to punish Ellison for devaluing Oracle share prices unfairly through insider trading, thus causing financial loss for Oracle share holders, you suggest financing an Oracle competitor. Where would the justice be for the people hurt in this, the Oracle share holders?!
L.E. owns 25% of a company; this means that 25% of every payment to the company will therefore, in effect, go to L.E. The other 75% of the company's owners are supposed to receive $100m a penalty for wrongdoing by L.E. How much money must L.E. pay to the company so that the other 75% of the owners receive their $100m?
Apparently, the court found this little problem too hard to solve.
One for the rich, one for the poor. Steal an TV, and you get locked up. Steal millions of dollars, and you get a fine. Kill some bozo, and you get executed. Kill a million bozos with Apache helicopters and white phosphorus, and you get an unfavourable poll rating.
It's one rule for the rich, and one rule for the poor.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I don't get it. Why doesn't Ellison just pay a higher amount, since he would only get a quarter of that back and the rest would go to the shareholders. So he pays 4/3 times the damages, and gets 25% of that back. Is the settlement stupid or should I read the article?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
All true - but kind of funny that Larry pulls out his change purse and Martha wears the shackles. Is it just me, or do other people think Larry might actually have a man purse?
Not that I'm defending Larry, but Martha wore the shackles for lying to the Feds, not the insider trading. I'm sure if she hadn't been so arrogant and just 'fessed up front, she would have received similar treatment.
Why wouldn't it be fair that he pay Oracle instead of charity? He would only be paying himself to the same extent that he originally stole from himself. This seems to diminish both his original crime and his subsequent punishment by the same amount. This doesn't seem fair to Oracle shareholders other than Mr. Ellison who were victims of the original crime but do not benefit from the resolution.
The logic here is strange and the share holders defrauded by the judge. If the goal is to make ellison 100 million poorer then this is simple:
x-0.25*x = 100 million
x = 133 million
So ellison should pay 133 million, he'll get 25% back in the book value of his stocks, and on paper be out 100 million.
On the otherhand if the idea is that oracle was defrauded 100 million, well then it's simple. He should give 100 million to oracle, regardless of his percent ownership since any injury he caused oracle came out of his pocket book too!.
Stupid decision.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I believe that with lawyers being the only ones who are really "remedied" in a class-action suit, it's almost not worth it to pursue them any more. While you may end up with a judgement against the offending party, you, a member of the class that was harmed, often get nothing. This could be a real problem, as class-action suits can be an effective tool for keeping people like Ellison in line. But then, if I get nothing out of it save to contribute to some greedy law firm's bottom line (in a siginificant way, mind you), why bother?