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."'"
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"
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.
It's called "Feed the Anyds." Seriously though, I'm hungry!
http://qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=667
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.
Representatives from Ellison's selected charity - the little-known 'Human Fund' - were unavailable for comment.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
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
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.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Why not just exclude his stock from the distribution of the settlement. That way the people he screwed could still benefit from this settlement.
Mr. Ellison's favorite charity: LINUX !!!!!
Larry Ellison's new business plan:
1) Change Oracle's status to "Charity"
2) Donate $100B to the Oracle Charity Fund
3) Change Oracle's status back to "For Profit Corporation"
4) Profit!!!
There's something wrong up there though.... what could it be ??????
Me Ellison recently announced a $400M Dividend to be paid to shareholders
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
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)
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?
I hear most of it is going to Ellison's own Diplomas are for losers campaign.
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_
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.
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.
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
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"...
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.
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.
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!?
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.
As a student in the school of life (and a great follower of the BOFH) I follow the religion called "Order of the Shiny Aura" which requires you to give up all your worldly possessions to achieve the Shiny Aura of happiness! All my wages are directly sent to the church each month.
:)
Its a good thing i founded that religion myself 2 weeks ago. Its great for a slushfund, perfect for taxes and i can always claim religious days off whenever im on a bender from drinkies with suppliers
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
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
Math is hard.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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?
That's what, licenses for a cluster of 2 machines with 4 CPUs each?
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
Ellison's lawyers filed an appeal under the 8th Amendment when it was revealed that Ellison would have to give the $100m to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
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.
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.
She was innocent of insider trading - at least the charges were dropped - but that didn't give her the right to claim it. You see, by denying it, she was revealing information that affected the price of her company's stock, and she didn't go through the right channels to do it, which is a crime.