Backdating Stock Options: A Corporate Scandal Revisited
In the mid-2000s, a corporate scandal rippled through boardrooms and Wall Street alike, revealing an insidious practice known as stock options backdating. Once considered a technical accounting issue, backdating ballooned into a crisis of executive accountability, corporate governance, and regulatory oversight. From Apple to Broadcom, dozens of prominent companies were swept into investigations, triggering resignations, criminal indictments, and billions in restated earnings.
This article offers a comprehensive examination of the stock options backdating scandal—its mechanics, legal implications, regulatory response, and enduring impact—using illustrative case studies from Research In Motion, Broadcom, and other major players. But more importantly, it offers legal insights and guidance for companies, counsel, and compliance professionals who must navigate the complex intersection of compensation practices, financial reporting obligations, and securities law.
Overview
Options backdating involves retroactively assigning a grant date to a stock option, typically choosing a prior date when the company's share price was lower. This creates an "in-the-money" option from the outset, yielding an immediate, undisclosed gain for the recipient.
While not illegal per se, undisclosed or improperly accounted for backdating can constitute securities fraud under the Exchange Act of 1934, violate tax code provisions (including IRC §4709A penalties), and trigger Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 and 404 violations regarding internal controls and executive certifications. Misconduct can result in SEC enforcement, shareholder lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and material restatements.
I offer the following practical legal takeaways for boards, in-house counsel, and executives:
Prompt Grant Reporting: Ensure compliance with SEC Form 4 filing deadlines (within two business days of grant) and confirm SOX Section 403 compliance.
Board Approval Procedures: All equity grants must be approved by a properly constituted compensation or options committee. Meeting minutes should be contemporaneous, detailed, and consistent with board resolutions.
Accurate Financial Reporting: Options must be valued and expensed under ASC 718. Retroactive adjustments or re-pricing require transparent disclosure and careful accounting review.
Internal Controls and Audits: Evaluate internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR). Any deficiencies in tracking, approving, or disclosing grants may require a disclosure committee and independent audit response.
Whistleblower Risk Mitigation: Establish and maintain robust internal whistleblower protocols. Many of the most damaging backdating cases emerged from internal disputes and terminated employees.
Cross-Border Compliance: Companies listed or traded in multiple jurisdictions (e.g., Canada and the U.S.) must coordinate responses to both domestic and foreign regulators. Harmonized legal advice is essential.
Document Retention and Litigation Readiness: Preserve email communications, board materials, and HR files related to all equity grant programs. These often form the basis for SEC subpoenas or civil discovery.
Backdating may seem like a relic of the past, but its legal implications remain highly relevant. Companies must proactively ensure that historical grants are clean, current practices are defensible, and audit trails are complete.
Case Study 1: Research In Motion (BlackBerry)
In 2009, the SEC charged four senior executives at Research In Motion (RIM)—including co-CEOs James Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis—with backdating approximately 1,400 stock option grants. The scheme involved aligning grants with historic low points in the company’s stock to guarantee profitability.
The executives agreed to a settlement without admitting wrongdoing, paying approximately $1.425 million in fines to the SEC. They also faced nearly C$9.05 million in penalties from the Ontario Securities Commission. Despite the absence of criminal charges, the reputational damage and financial penalties underscored that backdating was not a victimless oversight—but a systematic breach of investor trust.
Case Study 2: Broadcom Corporation
The Broadcom case exemplifies backdating at its most brazen. In 2008, a federal grand jury indicted William J. Ruehle, Broadcom's former CFO, and Henry T. Nicholas III, its co-founder and former CEO, for orchestrating a years-long backdating scheme that resulted in a $2.2 billion accounting restatement—the largest of its kind.
According to court filings:
Broadcom fabricated options committee meeting minutes.
Executives misled auditors (Ernst & Young) and filed falsified SEC reports.
The company issued top-up and double-up-and-cancel grants to replace underwater options, skirting expense recognition requirements.
Executives even paid off a whistleblower engineer with $7 million in options to suppress public disclosure.
While Ruehle and Nicholas denied wrongdoing, the indictment painted a picture of deep institutional complicity and aggressive circumvention of accounting principles.
Broader Fallout and Enforcement
The backdating scandal engulfed more than 100 companies across industries. Notable examples include:
Apple Inc.: Though CEO Steve Jobs was not charged, the company faced an internal investigation and public scrutiny after it acknowledged accounting irregularities.
Brocade Communications: Former CEO Gregory Reyes was convicted and sentenced to 21 months in prison for misleading auditors and backdating grants.
Mercury Interactive: Paid a then-record $117.5 million settlement with the SEC.
McAfee Systems: Former general counsel Kent Roberts was indicted over falsified grant dates.
By the SEC’s estimate, over 10% of all stock options issued during the early 2000s may have been backdated. Companies were forced to restate earnings, pay fines, and weather significant reputational harm. A wild statistic, indeed.
The Role of Academics and Journalists
The unraveling of the backdating scandal did not begin with regulators—it began with data. A landmark 1997 academic study using publicly available SEC filings detected a suspicious pattern: option grants were disproportionately timed just before stock price increases.
Follow-up studies reinforced these findings, suggesting grant timing was unlikely to be coincidental. The Wall Street Journal amplified the research, ultimately winning a Pulitzer Prize for its investigative reporting. These efforts triggered formal investigations and encouraged whistleblowers to come forward.
This episode demonstrated that data-driven research and a vigilant press can serve as powerful accountability mechanisms when enforcement agencies lag behind.
Regulatory Response and Reforms
The regulatory response to backdating was swift. Key reforms included:
SOX Section 403: Required executives to report stock option grants within two business days.
FAS 123(R): Mandated companies expense the fair value of all stock options.
SEC Guidance: Provided clarity on disclosure obligations and audit requirements related to equity compensation.
Increased DOJ and SEC coordination: Criminal and civil enforcement became more intertwined in addressing securities fraud.
These reforms significantly curbed the practice of backdating and brought greater transparency to executive compensation.
Lasting Implications
The scandal left an indelible mark on corporate governance and compensation practices. Its key legacies include:
Greater vigilance from boards and compensation committees.
Stronger internal audit and compliance frameworks.
Tighter controls around equity issuance and valuation.
A more skeptical investor base demanding transparency in pay practices.
While equity compensation remains a central feature of executive pay, companies are now far more attuned to the legal, financial, and reputational risks that come with mishandling it.
Conclusion
The stock options backdating scandal stands as a cautionary tale of what happens when financial engineering, weak oversight, and misaligned incentives intersect. Through high-profile enforcement and widespread reform, the scandal prompted a reckoning in corporate America. But its lessons—about transparency, governance, and ethical leadership—are enduring.
Legal and compliance professionals must remember: the existence of a stock option plan is not enough. It must be governed properly, executed with integrity, and defended with strong documentation. Anything less invites scrutiny—and potential liability.
* * *
Attorney Advertising — we provide this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.