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."'"

Comments

Re:why not pay the shareholders?

[sketchkid]

well the long-term investors - those who were damaged at the time of illicit trading and have sustained a drop in shareholder wealth - are compensated with the recapitalization of the company

$17 Billion Dollars?

[el_womble]

So the settlement was for 0.6% of his personal worth? Or bearly equivalent to a speeding ticket to a guy on $30,000 and he gets 5 years to pay it and no criminal record?

That's justice right there.

Great Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just exclude his stock from the distribution of the settlement. That way the people he screwed could still benefit from this settlement.

No wrongdoing?

[sh0dan]

From TFA:

Ellison offered in September to settle the case with $100 million in charitable donations and without admitting wrongdoing.

I'm really puzzled about this. Can someone explain to me, how you can pay yourself out of a wrongdoing?

To - you have either done nothing wrong, and you are free, or you have done something wrong and have to pay for it. Maybe I'm just naiive, but how can it be "nothing wrong" and paying back money?

Re:No wrongdoing?

[vidarh]

It it's not "nothing" wrong and paying back money. It's "you claim I've done something wrong, and I claim I haven't, but I think it's worth it (for whatever reasons) to accept X as punishment right now if it will make the case go away without wasting either of our times with a protracted court case"

Of course you'd stand a better chance getting a settlement accepted if you admit wrongdoing, but often what the other party is after is mainly the punishment, and they couldn't care less if you admit doing anything wrong if you're willing to pay.

One reason for being prepared to take the punishment without accepting wrongdoing may be if you worry that being convicted may leave you open to lawsuits from other parties related to what you'd admit to.

$100 million or $100 million of Oracle software?

[DrXym]

Not the same thing at all, though it doesn't stop the likes of Bill Gates mixing up the two. Seriously though if Ellison has to stump up the cash, he should strategically give it to open source projects where it would be the most benefit to Oracle.

See the Nixon pardon

[mangu]

how can it be "nothing wrong" and paying back money?

He admits nothing, but other people believe he did something wrong. As Gerald Ford said when he granted Nixon's pardon: "I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury", and "To procrastinate, to agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts"

.
For someone like Ellison, paying $100 million is nothing compared to waiting years for a trial, even if he were considered "not guilty" in the end.

Larry Versus Martha

[adsl]

Martha is investiated for "insider trading" and it's judged she did ZNOT do it. But because she lied to a Federal Officer she is now convicted felon and served 6 months in jail. The court here finds Larry is guilty of "insider teading" and he apparently settles w/o a Felony conviction and with no jail time. Doesn't make any sense to me.