Litigating Employee Stock
Option Claims:
Valuation Issues
- How_Employee_Option_Plans_Work
- Common_ESO_Claims_in_Litigation
- How_Courts_Assess_Options_Damages
- How_Forensic_Economists_Value_ESO_Damages_
-
An_Example_of_Options_Valuation_in_Litigation
Employee stock options (ESOs) can represent a significant portion of
damages claims in wrongful-termination litigation and other types of
employment actions.
How Employee Option
Plans Work
Employee stock options (ESOs) are used by companies to reward and retain
key employees. (Note that employee option plans are not regulated by
ERISA.)
An option is a contract giving the option owner the right to purchase
shares of stock at a preset price for a specified period of time.
The company permits the employee to buy (exercise) a
specified number of shares of the company's stock for a preset price
during a specific time period. The preset price is the strike
price.
An employee who has been granted an option must wait until the option
vests before it can be converted into shares of company
stock.
The time period in which the option can be exercised is the option's
duration or exercise period. Most options have a
duration of 10 years -- the option holder has 10 years after the option
has been granted in which to buy the stock.
ESOs vest in accord with the employee stock-option plan. Most ESOs vest
on a staggered schedule (ramp vesting). A new employee may be granted
the right to purchase 1,000 shares of company stock at a set price
(usually, but not always, the market price of the stock on the day the
stock is granted). Of these 1000 shares, 200 might vest after one year,
another 300 after two years and 500 after three years. (Options that
vest all at one time are said to be on a cliff vesting schedule.)
The benefit of options to the employee is the difference between the
market price of the stock at the time the option is exercised and the
option's strike price. If the strike price is greater than the current
market price, the option is "out of the money" or
"under water."
Companies may adjust strike prices of out-of-the-money option grants by
canceling the original option grant and granting new options. This is
perfectly legal.
Typically, if the employee leaves the company, options that have not yet
vested are canceled. The terminated employee may have a limited amount
of time (normally a month) in which to exercise vested options.
Privately held companies may have employee stock-option plans. The
strike price may be based on a future public offering or an internal
determination of value (usually decided by the board of directors). In
this case, the company buys the shares from the employee who is
exercising the options.
Types of Employee Stock Options
There are two main types of ESOs:
1) Non-qualified Stock Options (NSOs)
Under most non-qualified plans, employees owe no tax when the options
are granted, but they are required to pay income tax on the difference
between the strike price and the market value of the stock when the
option is exercised.
2) Incentive Stock Options (ISOs)
Under this type of plan, tax is deferred. The employee (usually an
officer of the corporation or a higher-ranking executive) pays no tax
when the options are granted or exercised -- taxes are owed only when
the stock is sold (although in certain situations the alternative
minimum tax might be triggered on exercising). Stock sold at least one
year after the options are exercised and at least two years from the
date the ISO was granted is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate.
If the stock is sold before this holding period, the gains are taxed as
ordinary income.
Possibilities on Vesting
Once the option vests, the employee has several choices.
1) If the strike price is less than the price of the
company's stock on the open market, the employee may make an immediate
profit by buying the stock at the strike price and then selling it at
the current market price.
2) The employee may choose to hold the option, not
buying the stock, hoping that the market price of the stock will rise
before exercising the option.
3) If the strike price is greater than the market price
at the time of vesting (the option is under water), the employee would
probably choose to hold the option, at least until the market price
exceeds the strike price.
4) The employee may choose to exercise the option and
keep the stock shares, rather than selling them for an immediate profit.
Or, the employee may exercise the option and sell enough shares to cover
taxes and keep the remaining shares.
One thing that the employee cannot do is sell the ESO directly in the
open market. Unlike marketable options, which are traded daily in a
market similar to the stock market, corporate options are not negotiable
or transferable (although some plans transfer options to the estate on
the death of the employee).
Common ESO Claims in
Litigation
1) Lost future options. The employee claims that the
termination (or failure to promote) caused him or her to miss out on
options grants.
2) Forced early exercise of options. The employee
claims that the termination forced him or her to exercise options
prematurely.
3) Fraudulent inducement. An employee may claim he or
she was induced to work for the defendant employer by the offer of
options that were either not granted or that did not vest under the
agreed-upon schedule.
Damages-claim valuation issues:
1) The plaintiff claims as damages the price per share
(minus the strike price) on the option's vesting date. Would have
plaintiff have exercised the option and sold the shares on that day?
2) The plaintiff claims the price per share (minus the
strike price) on a date or time when the stock was at its highest price.
This claim implies that the plaintiff has an amazing prescience.
Accurate market timing is extremely rare. Is the plaintiff that
prescient?
3) The plaintiff claims that he or she was forced to
exercise the option prematurely and thus has lost out on future
price-per-share growth. However, the plaintiff could have held onto the
stock after exercising the option to enjoy future appreciation.
How Courts Assess
Options Damages
Courts generally look at damages involving corporate securities such as
stock and options under two theories: conversion (wrongful taking of the
security) or breach of contract.
In Galigher
v. Jones, 129 U.S. 193, 9 S.Ct. 335 (1889), the U.S. Supreme
Court determined conversion damages to be the "highest intermediate
value of the stock between the time of conversion and a reasonable time
after the owner has received notice to enable him to replace the stock.
Under the breach of contract theory, damages are determined to be the
value of the security at the time of the breach. Hermanowski v.
Action Corporation, 580 F. Supp. 140, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).
Scully v. U.S. WATS
In cases involving the valuation of employee stock options, courts have
stressed that the individual circumstances of each case should be
considered. The Third Circuit has held that neither the conversion
theory nor the breach theory "could properly value stock options in all
situations."
Scully v. U.S. WATS, Inc., 238 F.3d 497 (2001).
The Scully court exhaustively reviewed the various methods of assessing
damages involving employee stock options. The court held that in the
present instance damages should be measured as the difference between
the exercise price of the options and the market price of the stock as
of the date of the breach.
The plaintiff had sought to have the shares valued at the time they
would have vested, one year later, when the stock was substantially
higher than at the time of the breach. The Scully court held that there
was no evidence that the plaintiff would have sold the stock "at a time
that, in hindsight, would have been particularly advantageous." (Id. at
513)
Because a large portion of the options had not vested, the defendant
corporation asked that the stock be discounted by 30% to reflect its
non-marketability as of the date of the breach. The appellate court
agreed that the stock was not marketable at the time of the breach but
declined to order the lower court to apply the discount.
Commenting on the choice of damages theories, the court noted:
"Depending on the circumstances of the case the blurring between the
conversion and breach of contract remedies may be justified." (Id. at
512).
How
Forensic Economists Value ESO Damages
Even though ESOs cannot be traded, they have value. Since 2006, U.S.
corporations have been required to report options grants to employees as
expenses on balance sheets, and, typically, their accountants use one of
two methods to value the options: Black Scholes or the binomial model.
These are both highly technical mathematical models that only estimate
an option's value, since the future price of the underlying stock cannot
be known with certainty. These methods are at present the best tools
available for valuing damages involving employees stock options.
The Black-Scholes Model
The Black-Scholes
options-pricing model was devised in 1973 by Fischer Black and Myron
Scholes, two finance professors. Scholes was later awarded the Nobel
Prize for the model and other work. (Black had passed away). The Black-Scholes
option pricing model is the method of options valuation required by the
Financial Accounting Standards Board in filings seeking approval for
employee stock options plans.
Black-Scholes employs a complex formula that considers the current price
of the stock, the strike price, the risk-free interest rate (e.g., the
current rate on Treasury securities), the amount of time until the
option expires, the company's dividend on the stock, if any, and the
volatility of the stock. All of these variables are known with certainty
except the volatility of the stock, which must be estimated. Usually,
volatility is calculated as the historical standard deviation in the
stock's price. Black-Scholes strictly applies to negotiable options, yet
company-issued employee stock options are not negotiable. When
determining damages in an employment matter, a "lack-of-marketability"
discount should be applied.
The Binomial Model
The
binomial model of options pricing model is considered better than
Black-Scholes in estimating the value of options on a stock over short
periods of time. The binomial model can take into account more variables
(yet depends on more assumptions) than does Black-Scholes. However, it
is not clearly superior to Black-Scholes when valuing options for
litigation purposes. Critics maintain that under the binomial model,
small changes in assumptions as to volatility can produce an
unacceptably wide range of values.
An
Example of Options Valuation in Litigation
An employee terminated in October of 2004 claims as part of his damages
4,000 unexercised company options granted in February 2004 that were
forfeited when he was terminated.
The Black-Scholes options pricing model considers these variables: 1)
the market price of company stock on the date of termination, 2) the
risk-free interest rate, 3) the strike price, 4) the duration of the
options, 5) the stock's current dividend yield and 5) the stock's
volatility.
The company's 2004 annual report includes a statement of options
expenses based on the Black-Scholes model. The annual report lists the
values used as the risk-free rate of interest, dividend yield,
volatility and duration.
Since the Black-Scholes model predicts prices for traded options and the
plaintiff's options were not transferable, a discount has to be made to
reflect this non-marketability. The non-marketability discount is
assumed to be the difference between the value of call options and put
options on the company stock, both valued using Black-Scholes.
Here is a summary of the damages valuation:
Number of options: 4,000
Strike price: $35.26
Market price of stock on date of termination: $36.27
Risk free rate: 3.69%
Volatility: 34.85%
Dividend rate: 0.7%
Duration: 5.3 years
Value of call: $13.19
Value of put: $7.24
Value per option, discounted for non-marketability: $5.95
Loss: $23,800 (4,000 x $5.95)
More information
Anyone needing more information on the valuation of employee stock
options in litigation may contact David Adams, senior analyst at the
Center for Forensic Economic Studies. Phone (800) 966-6099, e-mail
dadams@cfes.com

