Here at myStockOptions.com, we keep an eye on major court cases and rulings that involve stock compensation or stock holdings, as these developments can influence both stock plans and the actions of stock plan participants. A few recent lawsuits and court decisions have drawn our interest.
Class-Action Lawsuit Claims Uber Made Unfair Changes In Stock Grants
Uber is facing a lawsuit related to changes it made in its stock grants, according to the complaint in a class action recently filed against the company. The acquisition centers around the technical ISO rule that only grants with an aggregate value of $100,000 can be exercisable in any one calendar year. Any grants that vest in a year with a value over that automatically become NQSOs, and income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes are withheld at exercise. According to the complaint, Uber recruited software engineers with whom it had employment agreements to grant ISOs with a vesting schedule of 25% after the first 12 months and then monthly vesting thereafter (see Exhibit 1). However, the company changed the provision to allow all of the shares to become exercisable after six months, forcing some ISOs to become NQSOs (see Exhibit 2). This situation raises the issue of whether "exercisable" means "vested" in the related tax-code provision, which was adopted before a distinction between exercisability and vesting existed in certain pre-IPO stock options with early-exercise provisions.
Various news publications picked up on this lawsuit, including TechCrunch and Courthouse News Service. TechCrunch reports a statement issued by Uber, which explains that the company gives employees a "real stake" in its success and that it is "proud to offer equity compensation in service of that goal."
State Supreme Court Confirms Nonresidents Cannot Escape Taxation On Options Earned In The State
You cannot escape state taxation of vested stock options by moving to a state without an income tax. In Allen v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, the Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed that Connecticut can tax income from option exercises by a nonresident if the options were granted as compensation for performing services within the state. Connecticut, like many states, has a provision that authorizes the taxation of income "derived from or connected with sources within this state of each nonresident." The court rejected the plaintiff's creative positions, including the argument that it is "unconstitutional" to impose a tax on income derived from the exercise of nonqualified stock options by someone who at exercise is a nonresident. For more about this case, see an article about it at the website of Forbes. The taxation of mobile employees in the US and in other countries shows the eagerness of governments to find tax revenue in stock compensation.
Supreme Court Issues A Major Decision On Insider Trading
Everyone working for or advising a public company needs to know the insider-trading rules. Even if you unintentionally violate the laws of insider trading, you can face a serious punishment. (For details, see the FAQs on insider trading at myStockOptions.com and the Think Twice video series for insider-trading prevention.) It is not hard to imagine a situation in which you casually tell a relative or a friend about upcoming important company news, and that this person then uses that information to make a stock-trading profit. Although the tipoff would probably be a violation of your company's confidentially rules, you might not have miscreant intentions or expect anything in return from the tipped-off person, and therefore might (wrongly) not view this act as insider trading.
The US Supreme Court has issued a major decision on insider trading that involves just that type of situation. In its ruling on Salman v. United States, the Supreme Court makes it very clear that whenever a friend or relative is tipped, insider trading has occurred, regardless of whether the tipster receives a benefit. Prosecutors do not need to show something of value was received for providing the valuable information. In the court's view, "the tipper personally benefits because giving a gift of trading information to a trading relative is the same thing as trading by the tipper followed by a gift of the proceeds." The tipper does not need to receive something of a "pecuniary or similarly valuable nature" in exchange for this gift to a trading relative.
The ruling is seen as a victory for the US government, as it strengthens the position of federal prosecutors and their will to bring insider-trading cases. The case prompted several commentaries, including articles from the law firms Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Goodwin Procter and an analysis in the blog of the Supreme Court itself.