Jump to content


Henry Samueli criminal charges dismissed


342 replies to this topic

#1 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE
SEC accuses Broadcom co-founders of fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed civil fraud complaint against Broadcom Corp. co-founders Henry T. Nicholas and Henry Samueli, owner of the NHL Ducks, in an alleged scheme to systematically backdate stock options.... LAT link

Could this be shades of Eddie DeBartolo, former San Francisco 49ers owner, or even Bruce McNall of the you-know-whos?

Not in the ethics aspect, but the legal outcome and effect on the franchise. I am not suggesting that their actions were similar, just the legal ramifications.

Could this be affecting Brian Burke's decision?

hmm.gif

#2 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE (ladiesandgentlemen @ May 14 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Could this be shades of Eddie DeBartolo, former San Francisco 49ers owner, or even Bruce McNall of the you-know-whos?

Not in the ethics aspect, but the legal outcome and effect on the franchise. I am not suggesting that their actions were similar, just the legal ramifications.

Could this be affecting Brian Burke's decision?

hmm.gif


The story was a LITTLE hard to follow. It states that it's a civil suit....vice criminal.....and makes mention that a "previous suit" was settled for $12million. So this is an entirely NEW allegation? Or is this a continuation of that one?

Not to belittle the charges, or the punishment....but it appears that if you have the cash, you can make this go away?



#3 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:57 PM

QUOTE (DuckNewbie @ May 14 2008, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The story was a LITTLE hard to follow. It states that it's a civil suit....vice criminal.....and makes mention that a "previous suit" was settled for $12million. So this is an entirely NEW allegation? Or is this a continuation of that one?

Not to belittle the charges, or the punishment....but it appears that if you have the cash, you can make this go away?

Seems to me that the feds are taking it one step farther by going after individuals.

I'm not sure why the suit wouldn't be a criminal complaint if the SEC is the source. It didn't say it was a class action suit, filed on behalf of shareholders.

Disturbing, either way.

#4 DropThePuck

    Still a rollercoaster ride. Sigh ... Go Ducks!

  • Admin
  • 62,577 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:08 PM

More details available in the OCR article:

QUOTE
Samueli's attorney, Gordon Greenburg, issued a statement denying the SEC's allegations against his client. The statement noted that a Broadcom investigation had cleared Samueli and that the SEC "failed to acknowledge that Dr. Samueli has no accounting training and was never responsible for the processing or accounting of stock options."

<link to OCR article posted in Media Roundup>

#5 DropThePuck

    Still a rollercoaster ride. Sigh ... Go Ducks!

  • Admin
  • 62,577 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:14 PM

The SEC complaint

QUOTE
Washington, D.C., May 14, 2008 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two current and two former top officers of Irvine, Calif.-based Broadcom Corporation for their alleged participation in a five-year systematic scheme to secretly backdate stock options granted to virtually all Broadcom officers and employees.


#6 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:15 PM

QUOTE (DropThePuck @ May 14 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
More details available in the OCR article:


<OCR link>

Much better article than that LAT shorty.



#7 DropThePuck

    Still a rollercoaster ride. Sigh ... Go Ducks!

  • Admin
  • 62,577 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:32 PM

Here's the April judgment against Broadcom ...

QUOTE
"We are pleased that the SEC's investigation of our historical stock option grant and accounting practices has concluded as to the company," Broadcom said, calling the settlement "a major step in the process of closing this chapter" of the firm's past.

<link to WSJ article posted in Media Roundup>

#8 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:33 PM

Well, here's ONE take on how it would affect the Ducks:

QUOTE
Michael Schulman, chief executive officer of the Ducks and chairman of the board of Anaheim Arena Management LLC, said the charges in the 39-page complaint filed today in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California would not have any effect on the Ducks. The team's season ended last month with a first-round loss to the Dallas Stars.

"Not at all," Schulman said. "In terms of the Ducks, nothing is changed there, or in terms of our operation . . . this does not impact the Ducks."


LA Times Story

#9 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE (DropThePuck @ May 14 2008, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if they happened to exercise their options on dates when the stock price was higher, would they be prosecuted for artificially boosting the value of the company?

Looks more like punitive gamesmanship than protecting America.

Buyer beware, not big brother thumb approach.

#10 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:46 PM

QUOTE (DuckNewbie @ May 14 2008, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, here's ONE take on how it would affect the Ducks:



LA Times Story

". . . this does not impact the Ducks." We hope not, Michael.

Just deliver that contract with Burkie's signature on it, and we will overlook the turd in the punchbowl too. whistling.gif

#11 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:48 PM

QUOTE (ladiesandgentlemen @ May 14 2008, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And if they happened to exercise their options on dates when the stock price was higher, would they be prosecuted for artificially boosting the value of the company?

Looks more like punitive gamesmanship than protecting America.

Buyer beware, not big brother thumb approach.


I think you missed the "scam".

- I decide today to grant you, my employee, stock options in my company.
- The price is set by the day the option was given....which should be TODAY.
- But, since I want to give you a little extra, we're going to date this stock option award February 10th, when the stock was selling for $10 less than today.

It's a bit of a head scratcher, (for those of us with no accounting, and little investing knowledge), to figure out exactly who is harmed at this point. Someone must be, or the SEC wouldn't care. blink.gif

Of course, it just gets worse if I'm doing that to stock options granted to ME!!

#12 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:57 PM

QUOTE (DuckNewbie @ May 14 2008, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think you missed the "scam".

- I decide today to grant you, my employee, stock options in my company.
- The price is set by the day the option was given....which should be TODAY.
- But, since I want to give you a little extra, we're going to date this stock option award February 10th, when the stock was selling for $10 less than today.

It's a bit of a head scratcher, (for those of us with no accounting, and little investing, knowledge), to figure out exactly who is harmed at this point. Someone must be, or the SEC wouldn't care. blink.gif

No, I understood the "scam".

My point is that it is possible that the SEC wanted to punish them just to make it look like they have the upper hand. They could haul them into court for just the opposite, too; i.e., taking advantage of high prices, instead of low prices in this case.

wink.gif

#13 *ducks4cup*

    2nd Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 02:01 PM

Damn the SEC

#14 wildcat48

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,914 posts
  • Location:South Portland, Maine

Posted 14 May 2008 - 05:27 PM

The following statement is from Anaheim Ducks Chief Executive Officer Michael Schulman in response to a press release issued earlier today by the Securities and Exchange Commission:

QUOTE
“Henry Samueli will remain active and focused on his interests with the Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club and Anaheim Arena Management as well as his family’s philanthropic activities. There will be no changes in the management or operation of the club or Honda Center. Henry will also continue to serve on the NHL Board of Governors as the Ducks’ representative.”


~ per Ducks PR

#15 Todrick

    Ducks Outsider

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,707 posts
  • Location:Behind the Orange Curtain

Posted 14 May 2008 - 06:24 PM

Henry Samueli has stepped down from his position at Broadcom.

LA Times

in the "glass is half full" department... he now has more time to focus on the Ducks!!!

#16 jiggsawpuzzle35rules

    AllDucks #1 Angels Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,951 posts
  • Location:Section 433

Posted 14 May 2008 - 06:58 PM

dear god i hope he doesnt have to sell the team. just transfer full ownership over to your wife if you go to jail.

#17 ducks4adam98

    ONE MORE YEAR!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,647 posts
  • Location:San Bernardino, CA

Posted 14 May 2008 - 07:24 PM

Wow stepping down from Broadcom, that was suprising. At least more suprising than Ron Wilson "stepping down". I think that Henry S. will be fine, his attorney did say he was cleared right? Or was that for the previous allegation? I'm in an introductory law class and I don't think we're far enough into the quarter for me to understand really what's happening here haha.

#18 EdDucks916

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:The wrong side of the Orange Curtain
  • Interests:Anything but Kings

Posted 15 May 2008 - 07:08 AM

Must be serious, otherwise he wouldn't quit.

This reminds me similarly of the "backdating" allegations surrounding Apple Inc. and Steve Jobs, though Apple came clean and admitted to it. Steve Jobs stayed.

The Kings/McNall situation was different. It was so bad that he had to declare bankruptcy after some bad business deals and in turn, there was a time the Kings can't even pay their players (mid-1990s) when McNall was put in the cell.

#19 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 07:29 AM

QUOTE (EdDucks916 @ May 15 2008, 08:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Kings/McNall situation was different. It was so bad that he had to declare bankruptcy after some bad business deals and in turn, there was a time the Kings can't even pay their players (mid-1990s) when McNall was put in the cell.

What's different with the potential big picture?

The team owner gets in legal trouble and it affects the team.

#20 mrmathews

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,244 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:04 AM

I couldn't imagine this not effecting the team.

#21 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:24 AM

QUOTE (mrmathews @ May 15 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I couldn't imagine this not effecting the team.


Oh, please!

I have no idea where you work, but imagine the CEO, (or president, or whatever), of the company gets in trouble. Do you suddenly stop doing your job? Is everyone suddenly in danger of losing their jobs? Does the money immediately stop flowing?

It's not like the guy in the cubical next to Getzlaf was fired. It's a long way from the shop floor to the penthouse. (I ran out of silly comparisons....You get the idea).

Plus, Samueli didn't "quit" Broadcom. He stepped down from the board of directors pending the outcome of the suit. He still owns the majority of the company....and probably always will....and he still works there. Add to that, the Anaheim ducks are only connected to Broadcom by association. They share an owner.

In the end, fines may or may not be paid. Samueli may or may not be allowed to return to the board. Criminal charges may or may not be filed....(get more interesting if they are).

It may be an interesting topic of conversation for the team...like Getzlaf's "ticket fixing" story....But I really doubt anyone is all too concerned at this point.

#22 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:39 AM

QUOTE (DuckNewbie @ May 15 2008, 09:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, please!

I have no idea where you work, but imagine the CEO, (or president, or whatever), of the company gets in trouble. Do you suddenly stop doing your job? Is everyone suddenly in danger of losing their jobs? Does the money immediately stop flowing?

It's not like the guy in the cubical next to Getzlaf was fired. It's a long way from the shop floor to the penthouse. (I ran out of silly comparisons....You get the idea).

Plus, Samueli didn't "quit" Broadcom. He stepped down from the board of directors pending the outcome of the suit. He still owns the majority of the company....and probably always will....and he still works there. Add to that, the Anaheim ducks are only connected to Broadcom by association. They share an owner.

In the end, fines may or may not be paid. Samueli may or may not be allowed to return to the board. Criminal charges may or may not be filed....(get more interesting if they are).

It may be an interesting topic of conversation for the team...like Getzlaf's "ticket fixing" story....But I really doubt anyone is all too concerned at this point.

I see your point, but you can't tell me that Brian Burke will contractually commit himself to work for someone who might not be in charge.

To dismiss offhand that this situation could possibly be affecting Brian Burke's position on signing a contract extension is short-sighted, especially in light of the examples that I gave to open this thread.

#23 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 15 May 2008 - 09:02 AM

QUOTE (ladiesandgentlemen @ May 15 2008, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I see your point, but you can't tell me that Brian Burke will contractually commit himself to work for someone who might not be in charge.

To dismiss offhand that this situation could possibly be affecting Brian Burke's position on signing a contract extension is short-sighted.


Samueli owns the Ducks outright. There's no reason that he won't "be in charge" of the Ducks. The Ducks are an entirely separate entity from Broadcom.

Based on the newspaper stories, Samueli isn't even being accused of profiting from the back-dated options, and I saw no mention of him being asked to pay anything back! Near as I can tell, they're just holding him responsible since he was the "chairman" of the company, and believe he shouldn't be allowed to be on the board of a "publicly held company" based on the failure to prevent them.

He'll still be filthy rich...he'll still own the Ducks...he'll still own a huge chunk of Broadcom....and Broadcom will still be making money. If anything, he'll now have more time to devote to his other ventures...including the Ducks.

I'm actually surprised he stepped down as Chairman. Seems like a very honorable thing to do, pending the outcome of the suit, but it doesn't appear to be a requirement at this point.

Hey, it could all blow up into something else if there's more to the story. There's a small hint of that when they open up the possibility of criminal charges. But that seems pretty remote.

But right now, the "punishment" being sought by the Feds is entirely organizational at Broadcom, and has nothing to do with the Ducks. I don't think it deserves to be anything more than an interesting source of gossip within the Ducks organization.

#24 ladiesandgentlemen

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,124 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 09:56 AM

QUOTE (DuckNewbie @ May 15 2008, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Samueli owns the Ducks outright. There's no reason that he won't "be in charge" of the Ducks. The Ducks are an entirely separate entity from Broadcom.

Based on the newspaper stories, Samueli isn't even being accused of profiting from the back-dated options, and I saw no mention of him being asked to pay anything back! Near as I can tell, they're just holding him responsible since he was the "chairman" of the company, and believe he shouldn't be allowed to be on the board of a "publicly held company" based on the failure to prevent them.

He'll still be filthy rich...he'll still own the Ducks...he'll still own a huge chunk of Broadcom....and Broadcom will still be making money. If anything, he'll now have more time to devote to his other ventures...including the Ducks.

I'm actually surprised he stepped down as Chairman. Seems like a very honorable thing to do, pending the outcome of the suit, but it doesn't appear to be a requirement at this point.

Hey, it could all blow up into something else if there's more to the story. There's a small hint of that when they open up the possibility of criminal charges. But that seems pretty remote.

But right now, the "punishment" being sought by the Feds is entirely organizational at Broadcom, and has nothing to do with the Ducks. I don't think it deserves to be anything more than an interesting source of gossip within the Ducks organization.

I am glad you think this is nothing "more than an interesting source of gossip within the Ducks organization". I wish I felt the same. Did you not notice Henry Samueli's face on the cover of the OC Register with the headline that blazoned "Ducks owner resigns from (who cares) after 'massive' fraud scheme accusations"?

How is the owner of the Ducks being indicted for "massive fraud" by the SEC and publicized by the LAT and the OCR not at least as much of a distraction as the GM being "rumored" to considering taking a job with another franchise?

There is no question that at least in Southern California (population of near 24 million) that the great majority of people are way more interested in "massive corporate fraud" scandals than some potential NHL employee poaching story.

I agree that criminal charges would be a much bigger story than the current civil charges. But I think the view that this situation hasn't already blown into a greatly bigger deal is mistaken. The trouble has grown from fairly impersonal corporate legal haggling with only one "small" scapegoat to hang it on (the poor lower level employee who had to give up some $1.2mil of her holdings) to a separate lawsuit that names most all the top level people as defendants, not only including Henry Samueli but tying him together with people whom most likely (at least a couple) will be found guilty of corporate fraud.

Wait a little while and we'll see if the gossip spreads outside the Ducks water cooler to say... the Toronto media. Once it hits there, you will have a hard time scoffing at the potential side-show distraction effect it has on the hockey end of the franchise.

Add: But I honestly hope you are right. I would hate to see some corporate mistakes made by others taint the good name and the good works the Samueli's have brought this franchise. My gut feeling is that Brian Burke cares a heck of a lot more than I or any of us do since he has pitched in with them, and that he has a lot greater stake in the outcome of this scandal. I hope the two interests don't come to loggerheads.

#25 DuckNewbie

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Location:Fullerton, CA

Posted 15 May 2008 - 10:56 AM

Well, the two of us have probably beaten this to death. If nothing else, we've probably offered the lurking public the two extreme ends of the spectrum. smile.gif

I would say the OC Register story starts out pretty sensationalized, quoting the SEC lawsuit directly. "Massive fraud", etc. is their words.

Hey, I'm no corporate lawyer, so I may have missed some important aspect of the whole thing...but my "don't worry about it" opinion is based on:

If EVERYTHING the government alleges is true, and if ALL damages/relief that they request are awarded...the only thing that happens is Samueli pays a civil fine, and he's not allowed to be a board member at a publicly held company.

-The civil fine seems to be guaranteed to be significantly less than 12 million, since the whole company paid less than that for the same misdeed. I know 12 mil isn't pocket change, but it is payable by someone with deep pockets....and a billionaire qualifies.

-Not serving as a board member for Broadcom is a painful slap in the face, but it doesn't affect his net worth or ownership stake in the company. And he can still work there, (assuming he needs the job smile.gif).

-And not being allowed to serve as a board member of a "public company" doesn't apply to the Ducks. It's solely owned by Samueli, so he can do anything he likes with it. Shulman is the CEO, and looks likely to stay CEO. No worries.

With that, I guess I'll let it all drop until something new comes along. crazy.gif





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users