Opções de stock não vencidas divórcio do texas

Online Rain (Bavaria)
Opções de ações inválidas Divórcio Texas.
Obter link Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+ Outros aplicativos.
UNVESTED STOCK OPCIONAIS ALS MARITAL ODER GEMEINSCHAFTLICHE IMMOBILIEN 1998 National Legal Research Group, Inc. TEXAS: Bodin v. Bodin, 955 SW2d 380 (Tex. Die unbesetzten Aktienoptionen der Ehemänner bildeten ein bedingtes Immobilieninteresse und waren daher ein Gemeinschaftsvermögen. Angesichts einer Frage der offensichtlichen ersten Eindruck in den Staat, morre Tribunal de Apelações do Texas em Bodin v. Bodin, Dass nicht gezahlte Aktienoptionen erhalten von einem Arbeitgeber gemeinschaftseigenschaft, obwohl sie von den Mitarbeitern Ehegatten weiterhin Beschäftigung sind. Das Gericht zog eine Analogie zu den unbezahlten militärischen Altersversorgungsleistungen, die von dem staatlichen Oberlandesgericht em Cearley / Cearley, 544 SW2d 661 (Tex., 1976) e outros assuntos. Interesse e Eigentum und einer Gemeinschaftsanlage angesehen wurden. Unverzinsliche Aktienoptionen stellen ebenfalls ein kontingentes Interesse e Imobilização e Desenvolvimento de Gemeinschaftsvermögen, entschied das Geric O Dr. Diese Schlussfolgerung wird von Mehrheit der Gerichte geteilt, die die Frage geprüft haben, Erklärte das Gericht und zitierte Fälle aus Kalifornien, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nova Jérsei, Novo México, Washington e Wisconsin. Jeder Gemeinschaftseigentumsstaat, der die Frage betrachtet hat, hat mit dem Schluss vereinbart, dass nicht gezahlte Aktienoptionen Gemeinschaftseigentum sind, fügte das Gericht hinzu. Das Bodin-Gericht lehnte es ab, den Fällen, die der Mann zitiert hatte, eine e ainda Schlussfolgerung zu geben: Hall v. Hall, 88 N. C. App. 297, 363 S. E.2d 189 (1987) In re Heirat von Moody, 119 III. Ettinger v. Ettinger, 637 P.2d 63 (Okla. 1981) Hann v. Hann., 655 N. E.2d 566 (Ind. Ctt. App., 1995). Das Gericht stellte jeden dieser Fälle aus irgendeinem anderen Grund für untrennbar oder unbestreitbar fest. Das Gericht no Hall verließ sich auf ein bestimmtes Carolina do Norte Gesetz und die Rechtsprechung, dass die nicht gezahlten Rentenansprüche sind separa Eigentum, das Bodin Gericht festgestellt. Em Moody Schloß das Gericht, daß ein Prozeßgericht einen Ehegatten kein Interesse e nicht gezahlten Aktienoptionen vergeben könne, aber dieses Gericht habe später eine e Schlußfolgerung in der Wiederverheiratung von Isaacs, 260 III. 3d 423, 632 N. E.2d 228 (1994), wies das Bodin-Gericht darauf hin. Em Ettinger waren die Aktienoptionen noch nicht am Tag der Ehescheidung angefallen, während in Bodin die Aktienoptionen an den Ehemann verliehen worden waren, obwohl sie zum Zeitpunkt der Ehescheidung noch nicht bestanden hatten. Foi Hall angeht, então, Wurde Dieser Fall, morreu anderen Staaten, morra morreu Mehrheit abgelehnt haben, em Einer Gerechten Verteilungsgerichtsbarkeit und nicht in einem Gemeinschaftseigentumsstaat beschlossen. Hinweis. Bei der Klassifizierung von Aktienoptionen ist es sinnvoll, zwischen (1) ausübbaren, aber noch nicht ausgeübten Optionen zu unterscheiden, die praktisch alle Jurisdiktionen als Ehegatten klassifizieren (2) Optionen, die einem Ehegatten vor dem Stichtag für Ehegatten gewährt wurden Aber die noch nicht ausübbar e morreu meisten Gerichte als Ehegatten zumindest zum Teil und (3) Optionen, die einem Ehegatten nach dem Stichtag für Eheguthaben gewährt werden, die einige Gerichte als die Arbeitnehmer separieren und andere als Ehegatten einstufen, gewähren Eigentum. Siehe Employee Stock Options, 13 Equitable Distribution J. 109-15 (Okt. 1996). Die Optionen em Bodin v. Bodin scheinen in die zweite Kategorie caído, da sie zum Ehemann zum Zeitpunkt der Scheidung gewährt wurden, waren aber noch nicht ausübbar zu diesem Zeitpunkt. Unzierte Aktienoptionen als nicht-eheliche Eigenschaft 2004 National Legal Research Group, Inc. FLORIDA: Ruberg gegen Ruberg, 858 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct., App. 2003). Unverzinsliche Aktienoptionen sind eheliche Vermögensgegenstände, soweit sie Rückstellungen für eheliche Anstrengungen und nicht-väterliche Vermögensgegenstände sind, soweit sie Rückstellungen für Postdivorce-Bemühungen darstellen. Auf den Tatsachen, in denen die Optionen in monatlichen Beträgen und gewährt wurden, um die künftige Leistung der Mitarbeiter zu fördern, waren sie in erster Linie Entschädigung für Postdivorce Bemühungen, und sie wurden ordnungsgemäß als nonmarital Eigentum behandelt. Nach der Scheidung der Parteien, erhielt das Gericht ein Eheguthaben von 1.126.971 an die Frau. Der Ausschüttungsbefehl sah auch eine gleichberechtigte Teilung von 675.301 Aktien in der Gesellschaft vor, für die der Ehemann während der Ehe gearbeitet hatte. Das Gericht stellte jedoch fest, dass weitere 299.370 Aktien der Aktienoptionen und 170.482 Aktien der eingeschränkten Aktien in der gleichen Gesellschaft nicht ausgeübt wurden. Da diese Leistungen eine Entschädigung für die Postdivorce-Dienstleistung waren und weil sie monatlich, wie sie verdient wurden, gedeckt waren, hielt das Gericht fest, dass es sich um nicht-eheliche Sachen handelte. Die Frau appellierte. Das Berufungsgericht hat bestätigt. Unter Fla. Ann. 61.075 (5) (a) (4) werden die ehelichen Vermögenswerte assim definiert, dass sie alle während der Eheschließung aufgelaufenen Ansprüche, Rechte und Gelder in Vergütungsplänen und Programmen enthalten. Die aufgeschobene Vergütung besteht aus Geldern, morre bereits erworben wurden, für die jedoch die Zahlung aufgeschoben wird. Für einen gerechten Verteilungszweck wird ein aufgeschobenes Entschädigungskonto als Ehegut angesehen, soweit is sich um beiträge von Geldern handelt, die während der Ehe erworben wurden. Todos os quartos de hóspedes do hotel estão equipados com quartos para não fumadores, ar condicionado, jornal diário, visualização de filmes no quarto, jornal diário, visualização de filmes no quarto em todos os quartos. Das Prozessgericht stellte fest, dass die Aktienoptionen und die eingeschränkten Aktien der hierin fraglichen Aktien Anreize Darstellten, die auf die künftige Arbeit und Leistung des Ehemannes schauten. Das Berufungsgericht beruft sich auf die Sprache in den Plandokumenten und die Vereinbarungen, die der Ehemann und sein Arbeitgeber geschlossen haben. In diesen Unterlagen wurde hervorgehoben, dass der Zweck der Ermächtigung zur Ausgabe von Aktienoptionen und beschränkten Aktien an Arbeitnehmer darin bestand, das beste Personal Anzulocken und zu halten und neben den Gehältern einen Anreiz zu schaffen, morrer Mitarbeiter zu ermutigen, ihre größtmöglichen Anstrengungen zum Erfolg des Unternehmens zu üben. Die Optionen sollten in festgelegten monatlichen Schritten ausgeübt werden, und die Gewährleistung würde bei einer Beendigung des Beschäftigungsverhältnisses aufhören. Das Gericht erklärte, dass es mit verschiedenen Fällen aus einer Reihe von Gerichtsbarkeiten vereinbart worden sei, wonach der Status do tempo de jogo. Apoio ao título. Frage der einzelnen Fälle einschalte, ob sie in erster Linie als Ersatz für frühere Leistungen oder als Anreiz für die Zukunft gewährt Würden Dienstleistungen. Em Anerkennung einer Entschädigung für zukünftige Dienst - leistungen in allen Optionsrechten, die von der Weiterbeschäftigung abhängig sind, hat sie erkannt, dass dies nicht bedeutet, dass alle Optionen für zukünftige Leistungen vergeben werden und somit keine aufgeschobene Vergütung sind. Die Frage, stellte das Gericht, ist, ob zum Zeitpunkt der Gewährung des Zuschusses ist der primäre Zweck der Finanzhilfe ist die Entschädigung für vergangene Dienstleistungen oder für künftige Dienstleistungen. Hierbei stützte sich das Protokoll darauf, dass die Aktienoptionen und beschränkten Aktien, die zum Zeitpunkt der Einreichung des Aufhebungsantrags, der der Stichtag für die Festlegung von Ehegütern ist, unverfallbar waren, eine Entschädigung für Künftige Dienstleistungen darstellten, Então, Waren Diese Vermögensgegenstände gesondert und nicht marital und unterliegen nicht der Verteilung als Ehegut. Schließlich stellte das Gericht fest, dass die streitigen Optionen monatlich, wie sie erworben wurden, ausgeübt wurden, anstatt alle am Ende eines Zeitraums von Monaten ou Jahren zu versichern. Então, fand das Gericht keine Notwendigkeit, eine Verdeckung Fraktion ähnlich wie die Fraktion zur Klassifizierung der nicht gezahlten Altersversorgungsleistungen anzuwenden. Dividing Aktienoptionen während der Scheidung em Kalifornien Einige Vermögenswerte sind leicht zu teilen in einer Scheidung - Verkauf eines Autos und die Divisão der Gewinne ist in Regel ein Klacks. Dividieren Aktienoptionen können jedoch eine einzigartige Reihe von Herausforderungen. Aktienoptionen, die nicht an Dritte verkauft werden können ou keinen wirklichen Wert haben (z. B. Aktienoptionen in einem privaten Unternehmen ou outros) Optionen), können schwer zu bewerten und zu teilen sein. Allerdings haben Kalifornien Gerichte bestimmt mehrere Möglichkeiten, um exemplo da Aufteilung der Aktienoptionen em Scheidung befassen. Eine gemeinsame Aktienoption Hypothetische Heres ein typisches Silicon Valley-Szenario: Ein Ehepartner landet einen großartigen Job für ein Start-up-Unternehmen, e outros Teil des Ausgleichs-Paket erhält Aktienoptionen unterliegen einem Vier-Jahres-Vesting-Plan. Das Paar ist unsicher, ob die Inbetriebnahme fortgesetzt werden wird, wie es ist, erworben werden oder zusammenfalten, wie viele andere Unternehmen im Tal. Das Paar entscheidet sich später zu scheiden, und während einer Diskussion über die Aufteilung der Vermögenswerte, morre Aktienoptionen kommen. Sie wollen herausfinden, was mit den Optionen zu tun, aber die Regeln sind undklar. Zuerst müssen sie einige der Grundlagen der Ehelichen Eigentumsrechte in Kalifornien verstehen. Gemeinschaftseigentum Gemäß dem kalifornischen Recht wird davon ausgegangen, dass Vermögenswerte - einschließlich Aktienoptionen - morte de dem Tag der Eheschließung bis zum Zeitpunkt der Trennung der Parteien erworben wurden (als das Datum der Trennung bezeichnet), além de Eigentum der Gemeinschaft betrachtet werden. Diese Vermutung wird als allgemeine gemeinschaftsrechtliche Vermutung bezeichnet. Gemeinschaft Eigentum ist gleichmäßig zwischen den Ehegatten (eine 50/50 Split) em Einer Scheidung aufgeteilt. Eigenschaft separado Eigenschaft ist nicht Teil des kriegerischen Vermögens, foi bedeutet, dass die Ehegatte, die das separe Eigentum besitzt, besitzt es getrennt von ihrem Ehepartner (nicht gemeinsam) und erhält es nach der Scheidung zu halten. Separar Eigenschaft unterliegt nicht der Teilung em Einer Scheidung. Em Kalifornien umfasst separar Eigenschaft alle Eigentum, das von einem Ehepartner erworben wird: vor der Ehe durch Geschenk ou Erbschaft ou nach dem Zeitpunkt der Trennung (siehe unten). Então, allgemein gesprochen, alle Aktienoptionen gewährt, um e Arbeitnehmer Ehepartner vor dem Ehepaar verheiratet ou outros. Paar getrennt werden morre Mitarbeiter Ehegatten getrennt Eigentum, und nicht Gegenstand der Teilung in der Scheidung. Datum der Trennung Das Datum der Trennung ist ein sehr wichtiges Datum, e é separado Eigentumsrechte begründet. Das Datum der Trennung ist das Datum, dass ein Ehegatte subjektiv beschloss, dass die Ehe vorbei war und dann objektiv etwas getan hat, um diese Entscheidung, wie zum Beispiel Auszug. Vieil Scheidungspaare streiten über das genaue Datum der Trennung, weil sie einen großen Einfluss auf die Vermögenswerte als Eigentum der Gemeinschaft (und damit unterliegt der gleichen Teilung) ou separaren Eigentum haben können. Beispielsweise werden Aktienoptionen, die vor dem Zeitpunkt der Trennung eingegangen sind, als gemeinschaftliches Eigentum angesehen und unterliegen einer gleichberechtigten Teilung, aber alle Optionen oder sonsgeer Vermögensgegenstände, die nach diesem Zeitpunkt erhalten werden, gelten als das gesonderte Eigentum des Ehegatten, der sie erhält. Kommen wir zurück zu den hypothetischen oben, können wir davon ausgehen, dass es keine Argumentation über das Datum der Trennung. Allerdings entdeckt das Paar, dass einige der Optionen während der Ehe und vor dem Tag der Trennung. Sie müssen nun feststellen, wie sich dies auf die Teilung auswirken könnte. Ausgeübte Versus Unvested Optionen Sobald Mitarbeiter Aktienoptionen Weste, können die Mitarbeiter ihre Optionen ausüben, Aktien im Unternehmen zu einem Ausübungspreis zu kaufen, das ist der Festpreis, der typischerweise in der ursprünglichen Zuschuss oder Aktienoption Vereinbarung zwischen dem Arbeitgeber und und Arbeitnehmer angegeben. O Aber foi ist mit den Optionen, morreu Während der Ehe gewährt wurden, aber noch nicht vor dem Zeitpunkt der Trennung geglaubt haben Einige Leute denken, dass nicht gezahlte Optionen keinen Wert haben, weil: Mitarbeiter keine Kontrolle über diese Optionen haben, und nicht gezahlte Optionen werden abgeworfen, wenn ein Mitarbeiter das Unternehmen verlässt Sie can nehmen diese Optionen mit ihnen. Allerdings sind die Gerichte in Kalifornien nicht einverstanden mit Dieser, Inc., Ltd., Reino Unido, Reino Unido, Reino Unido e Reino Unido. Dividieren der Optionen Então, com o Stellt das Gericht fest, welcher Teil der Optionen dem Nicht-Mitarbeiter Ehegatte gehören Im Allgemeinen verwenden Gerichte eine von mehreren Formeln (allgemein als Zeitregeln bezeichnet). Zwei der wichtigsten Zeitregelformeln, die verwendet werden, sind die Hug 1-Formel und die Nelson 2-Formel. Inglês: eur-lex. europa. eu / LexUriServ / LexUri. 0007: PT: HTML Vor der Entscheidung, welche Formel zu verwenden ist, kann ein Gericht zunächst feststellen, warum die Optionen dem Arbeitnehmer gewährt wurden (z. B. um den Arbeitnehmer als Arbeit für die vergangene Leistung zu gewinnen ou outros Anreiz, Unternehmen) , da morre Auswirkungen auf die Regel angemessener ist. Die Hug-Formel Die Hug-Formel wird em Fällen eingesetzt, em denen die Optionen em erster Linie dazu bestimmt waren, então Arbeitnehmer an den Arbeitsplatz zu locken und vergangene Leistungen zu belohnen. Die in Hug verwendete Formel lautet: DOH DOS ----------------- x Anzahl der ausgegebenen Aktien Gemeinschaftsobjektanteile DOH - DOE (DOH Datum der Miete DOS Datum der Trennung DOE Datum der Ausübungsfähigkeit Oder Vesting ) Die Nelson-Formel Die Nelson-Formel wird dort eingesetzt, wo die Optionen in erster Linie als Entschädigung für die zukünftige Performance e als Anreiz zum Aufenthalt bei der Gesellschaft gedacht waren. Die Formel, morre em Nelson verwendet wird, ist: DOG DOS ----------------- x Anzahl der Aktien ausübbar Gemeinschaftseigentum Aktien DOG - DOE (DOG Datum der Erteilung DOS Datum der Trennung DOE Datum der Ausübbarkeit) Es gibt mehrere andere Zeitregelformeln für andere Arten von Optionen, und die Gerichte haben weite Diskretion bei der Entscheidung, welche Formel (wenn überhaupt) zu verwenden, e wie die Optionen zu teilen. Grundsätzlich dorado: Je länger die Zeit zwischen dem Zeitpunkt der Trennung und dem Zeitpunkt der Optionswahl ist, desto kleiner ist der Gesamtprozentsatz der Optionen, die als Eigentum der Gemeinschaft betrachtet werden. Wenn beispielsweise eine bestimmte Anzahl von Optionen einen Monat nach der Trennung ausgeübt worden wäre, wäre ein erheblicher Teil dieser Anteile gemeinschaftsrechtlich gleichwertig (50/50). Wenn die Optionen jedoch mehrere Jahre nach dem Zeitpunkt der Trennung austengebt wurden, wäre ein viel kleinerer Prozentsatz als Gemeinschaftseigentum anzusehen. Verteilung der Optionen (oder deren Wert) Nach der Anwendung der Zeitregel, weiß das Paar, wie viele Optionen jeder Anspruch haben. Der nächste Schritt wäre dann, um herauszufinden, que morre Optionen oder ihren Wert zu verteilen. Sagen zum Beispiel, ist es bestimmt, dass jeder Ehegatte Anspruch auf 5000 Aktienoptionen in Mitarbeiter-Ehegatten Unternehmen gibt es mehrere Möglichkeiten, um sicherzustellen, dass die nicht-Mitarbeiter-Ehepartner erhält entweder die Optionen selbst oder den Wert Dieser 5000 Aktienoptionen. Mais informações sobre o título: Der nicht-Mitarbeiter Ehegatte kann die Rechte auf the 5000 Aktienoptionen im Austausch für einige andere Vermögenswerte oder Geld (Dies erfordert eine Vereinbarung zwischen den Ehegatten, foi morrido Optionen wert sind - Für Aktiengesellschaften sind die Aktienwerte öffentlich und können die Grundlage für Ihre Vereinbarung bilden, aber für Private Unternehmen könnte Dies etwas schwieriger zu bestimmen sein - das Unternehmen kann eine interne Bewertung haben, die eine gute Schätzung liefern kann). Das Unternehmen könnte damit einverstanden sein, dass morre 5000 Aktienoptionen an den Nicht-Mitarbeiter-Ehegatten-Namen übertragen werden. Der Arbeitnehmer Ehegatte kann weiterhin die Nicht-Mitarbeiter-Ehegatten Anteil der Optionen (5000) em einem konstruktiven Vertrauen zu halten, wenn die Aktien Weste und wenn sie verkauft werden kann, würde die Nicht-Mitarbeiter Ehepartner benachrichtigt werden und könnte dann beantragen, seine oder ihre Anteil Ausgeübt und verkauft werden. Fazit Bevor Sie sich damit einverstanden erklären, irgendwelche Rechte in Ihren Ehegatten Aktienoptionen aufzugeben, können Sie prüfen, die Anwendung einer Zeitregel Formel auf die Optionen, obwohl sie möglicherweise nicht mehr wert sein. Sie können ein Interesse e diesen Aktien und die potenziellen Gewinne behalten, wenn das Unternehmen an die Börse geht und / oder die Aktien aufgrund eines Erwerbs oder sonstiger Umstände wertvoll werden, freuen Sie sich auf Sie. Dieser Bereich des Familienrechts kann sehr komplex sein. Wenn Sie Fragen zur Teilung der Aktienoptionen haben, sollten Sie sich mit einem erfahrenen Familienrechtsanwalt beraten lassen. Quellen und Endnoten Anmerkungen 1. Heirat der Umarmung (1984) 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780. 2. Heirat von Nelson (1986) 177 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 150.

Opções de stock não vencidas divórcio texas
O que saber e fazer.
Muitas vezes, as partes enfrentam problemas difíceis relacionados à divisão de propriedade. Uma das questões de liquidação de propriedade mais vulneráveis ​​é dividir os ativos conjugais que ainda não foram adquiridos.
Os tribunais de apelação de Minnesota têm lutado com este problema com freqüência no passado. Como resultado, já não há dúvida de que mesmo os direitos de propriedade não retomados, sejam opções de ações ou pensões, são considerados conjugais e podem ser divididos como parte de um processo de divórcio.
No caso de Salstrom v. Salstrom em 1987, os tribunais de Minnesota abordaram especificamente a questão das opções de compra não devolvidas. Nesse caso, o Tribunal observou que as opções sobre ações que podem ser exercidas após a data do divórcio são semelhantes aos planos de pensão adquiridos e concluiu que essas opções "são um recurso econômico adquirido durante o casamento constituindo um bem matrimonial". Também é reconhecido que as opções de ações não adotadas têm aspectos conjugais e não matrimoniais que devem ser distribuídos. Existe um valor conjugal para as opções, uma vez que as opções foram concedidas durante o casamento. Há também um elemento não conjugal, uma vez que é provável que eles se apossem depois que o casamento foi dissolvido e são obtidos, em parte, pelo trabalho continuado do cônjuge do empregado após o divórcio.
Para determinar o valor conjugal relativo e os valores não-conjugais das opções de compra de ações, os tribunais de Minnesota buscaram os mesmos métodos que são utilizados para avaliar os juros de pensão não vencidos. O Tribunal Supremo de Minnesota delineou um método de divisão para benefícios adquiridos, mas não vencimentos no caso Taylor v. Taylor, 329 N. W.2d 795 (Minn.1983). Nesse caso, o Tribunal afirmou que as pensões não vencidas não precisam ser tratadas de forma diferente dos direitos ou benefícios de pensão adquiridos, mas não vencidos: ambos contêm contingências sobre o pagamento efetivo de benefícios de pensão.
Olhando para casos em todo o país, existem dois métodos possíveis para dividir ativos não vencidos, incluindo opções de estoque. De acordo com um método, o tribunal de divórcio mantém a jurisdição para repartir o benefício não vencido em algum momento no futuro somente se e quando esse benefício for pago. Esta é a abordagem sugerida no caso da Califórnia In re Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal. Rptr. 633; 544 P.2d 561 (1976), e ecoou em decisões semelhantes em outros estados, como I n re Marriage of Hunt, 397 N. E.2d 511, 519 (1979), uma decisão de Illinois.
Um segundo método, e mais preferível, é dividir o benefício não vencido com base em uma fórmula de porcentagem. Isto é particularmente apropriado quando é difícil colocar um valor presente na pensão ou participação nos lucros devido a incertezas quanto à aquisição ou maturação. De acordo com este método, o tribunal de julgamento, a seu critério, pode atribuir a cada cônjuge uma percentagem adequada da pensão a pagar "se, na medida em que" a pensão se torne exigível. A fórmula utilizada para determinar os respectivos interesses não-marciais e conjugais no benefício, tomando o número total de anos em que o benefício é obtido e usando esse número como o denominador. O numerador é o número de anos em que o benefício se acumulou durante o casamento matrimonial.
Mesmo neste segundo método de divisão, o tribunal de primeira instância mantém a jurisdição sobre a divisão de benefícios não vencidos.
Fácil, rápido e acessível com garantia de 100%.
Minnesota Divorce Resources para ajudá-lo através do processo.
Fácil e conveniente - complete o seu próprio ritmo online.
Mais de 100 títulos dos melhores livros sobre divórcio e custódia.
Baixe instantaneamente, livros, manuais e formulários.
Seu Guia para se organizar e colocar tudo na escrita.
Encontre profissionais.
Comece seu divórcio.
Settle Your Divorce.
Fórum de suporte.
FERRAMENTA DESTINADA - PensionAppraisalDesk TM (Determine o valor atual da sua conta de aposentadoria on-line)
&cópia de; 1996 - 2017 Divorce Source, Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

Opções de estoque de empregado e divórcio.
Saiba como determinar o valor de uma ação antes de decidir se deve ou não comprá-la ou aproveitar o incentivo da opção de compra de seus empregadores. Contabilista explica como o sistema de estoque funciona e fórmulas usadas para prever o futuro.
Atualizado: 25 de fevereiro de 2015.
À medida que o mercado de ações continua a aumentar, os advogados de divórcio estão envolvidos em mais e mais casos envolvendo opções de ações. A concessão de opções de estoque para funcionários-chave agora é comum em empresas de alta tecnologia e está se tornando popular em muitas outras indústrias como parte de uma estratégia global de compensação de capital. As empresas maiores, de capital aberto, como a Pepsico, a Starbucks, o Travelers Group, o Bank of America, a Merck e a Gap, agora oferecem opções de estoque para quase todos os seus funcionários. Muitas empresas de alta tecnologia que não estão de alta tecnologia estão juntando as filas também.
Tradicionalmente, os planos de opção de compra de ações foram utilizados como uma forma de as empresas recompensarem a alta administração e os funcionários "chave" e associarem seus interesses com os da companhia e de outros acionistas. Mais e mais empresas, no entanto, agora consideram todos os seus funcionários como "chave". Como resultado, tem havido um aumento na popularidade de planos de opções de estoque de base ampla, particularmente desde o final da década de 1980. Mais de um terço das grandes empresas dos Estados Unidos agora possuem planos amplos de opções de estoque que cobrem a maioria ou a maioria de seus empregados - mais do dobro da taxa que existia em 1993. Em uma pesquisa de 1997 de 1.100 empresas públicas conduzidas pela Share Data, Inc. e a American Electronics Association, verificou-se que 53% dos inquiridos fornecem opções para todos os funcionários. Em empresas de 500 a 999 funcionários, o estudo descobriu que 51% oferecem opções para todos os funcionários, em comparação com 30% na pesquisa de dados da ação de 1994 e 31% na pesquisa de Share Data & Otilde; s 1991. Quarenta e três por cento das empresas com 2.000 a 4.999 empregados oferecem opções para todos, em comparação com 10% em 1994. Quarenta e cinco por cento das empresas com 5.000 ou mais empregados oferecem opções para todos, em comparação com 10% em 1994.
Uma vez que esta tendência não mostra nenhum sinal aparente de desaceleração, os advogados matrimoniais devem estar prontos para abordar as questões únicas que dela decorrem. Este artigo explicará a natureza básica das opções de ações dos empregados, como eles são valorizados, tributados e, em última análise, distribuídos incidentes de divórcio.
O que é uma opção de estoque de empregado?
Não há dúvida de que "opções de compra de ações" são ativos sujeitos a distribuição equitativa. No entanto, simplesmente dizer que eles são ativos não é suficiente para orientar o litigante matrimonial. Devemos primeiro entender a natureza básica e a definição de uma opção de compra de ações. Basicamente, uma "opção de compra de ações" é "o direito de comprar um número específico de ações de ações por um preço específico em horários especificados, geralmente concedidos a gerentes e funcionários-chave. O preço ao qual a opção é fornecida é denominado" concessão " preço e geralmente é o preço de mercado no momento em que as opções são concedidas.
Geralmente, as opções de ações são um incentivo para estimular os esforços dos principais funcionários e fortalecer o desejo dos funcionários de permanecer no emprego da corporação. Esses incentivos não se aplicam aos aposentados. Os planos de opção de compra de ações podem ser uma maneira flexível para as empresas compartilharem a propriedade com os funcionários, recompensá-los pelo desempenho e atraem e retem uma equipe motivada. Para as pequenas empresas orientadas para o crescimento, as opções são uma ótima maneira de preservar o dinheiro, permitindo aos funcionários um crescimento futuro. Eles também fazem sentido para as empresas públicas cujos planos de benefícios estão bem estabelecidos, mas que desejam incluir empregados na propriedade. (Nota: Ao emitir opções de compra de ações, uma empresa potencialmente dilui o valor das ações existentes).
Se uma opção de compra de ações é concedida por dinheiro, por serviços passados, como incentivo para serviços futuros, ou sem qualquer consideração, um detentor de opção deve exercer a opção dentro de seus termos ou ele está sujeito à perda de seu direito de faça isso. Em um contrato de opção, "o tempo é essencial". Geralmente, as provisões de vencimento e os contratos de opção de compra de ações são rigorosamente aplicados. Os tribunais rejeitam a inevitável violação dos contratos e confisco que os empregados, ex-funcionários e outros detentores de opções de ações pressionam quando não realizam suas opções no momento. Embora isso raramente se torne um problema no litígio de divórcio, é algo para se manter em mente para evitar uma perda econômica severa para qualquer das partes ou uma possível reivindicação de malícia.
Existem diferentes tipos de opções de compra de ações e como eles são tributados?
Geralmente, as opções de compra de ações vêm em duas categorias básicas: (1) opções de ações de incentivo (comumente designadas como ISOs) que são opções qualificadas ou estatutárias e (2) opções de estoque não qualificadas (que são comumente chamadas de NQSOs). Simplificando, a diferença entre um ISO e um NQSO torna a conformidade com os requisitos específicos do Código de Receita Federal no momento da concessão, o que, em última instância, afeta como a opção é tributada.
As opções de ações de incentivo são concedidas a particulares por motivos relacionados ao emprego. Como resultado, eles só podem ser concedidos aos funcionários. Eles também devem ser aprovados pelos acionistas da corporação e concedidos a valor justo de mercado.
NQSOs, por outro lado, podem ser concedidos a empregados e contratados independentes, e seus beneficiários.
Um funcionário não realizará nenhum lucro tributável após a concessão ou exercício de um ISO. Concomitantemente, a empresa não tem direito a uma dedução após o exercício da opção. Se o empregado vender a ação no prazo de dois anos após a outorga da opção e no prazo de um ano após a opção ser exercida, a receita ordinária será realizada em um valor igual ao menor de 1) o excesso do valor justo de mercado das ações em a data de exercício sobre o preço da opção, ou 2) o excesso do valor realizado na disposição sobre o preço da opção. Se o indivíduo possuir as ações por dois anos após a concessão do ISO e um ano após o exercício do ISO, a diferença entre o preço de venda eo preço da opção será tributada como ganho de capital ou perda. Se o estoque for vendido após o período de dois anos / ano, esse ganho também será um item de preferência de imposto mínimo alternativo sujeito à taxa de imposto de 26/28 por cento.
Em relação a uma NQSO, o titular "empregado" de uma opção não estatutária deve reconhecer a renda no momento em que a opção é concedida se a opção tiver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado" no momento da concessão. Se a opção não for transferível e não tiver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado", nenhuma renda resultará para o indivíduo após a concessão da opção. Quando a opção de compra de ações não qualificada é exercida, o indivíduo é tributado nas taxas de renda ordinárias sobre a diferença entre o valor justo de mercado da ação e o preço de exercício da opção. Quando o indivíduo vende o estoque, um ganho ou perda de capital será incorrido com a diferença entre o valor recebido pelo estoque e sua base de imposto. Normalmente, a base de imposto é igual ao valor justo de mercado no momento do exercício da opção. O ganho de capital seria de longo prazo ou curto prazo, dependendo da duração do tempo em que as ações foram realizadas após o exercício.
Se a opção for "negociada ativamente em um mercado estabelecido", o código considera a opção de ter um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado". Se não houver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado" no momento da concessão, o adjudicatário reconhece o rendimento no momento da opção: (1) tornar-se "substancialmente adquirido" ou (2) já não está sujeito a uma "substancial risco de confisco ". Qualquer lucro é um ganho de capital de curto prazo, tributável a taxas de renda ordinárias. O código estabelece quatro condições necessárias para uma opção que não seja "negociada ativamente em um mercado estabelecido" para atender ao padrão de "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado": (1) a opção é transferível pelo adjudicatário (2) a opção pode ser exercida imediatamente na íntegra, quando concedido (3), não pode haver condição ou restrição sobre a opção que tenha um efeito significativo no seu valor justo de mercado e (4) o valor de mercado do privilégio da opção é facilmente verificável. Todas as quatro condições devem ser atendidas. Uma vez que estas condições raramente são satisfeitas, a maioria das opções de ações não qualificadas e não estatutárias não negociadas em um mercado estabelecido, não possuem um valor facilmente verificável.
Há outro fator a considerar que pode ser aplicado a opções de compra de ações de incentivo e não qualificadas. Algumas empresas oferecem opções com um recurso de recarga. Uma opção de recarga oferece concessões automáticas de opções adicionais sempre que um empregado exerce opções anteriormente concedidas.
Se o estoque que é recebido após o exercício da opção é propriedade restrita, a tributação é diferida até as restrições caducarem. Freqüentemente os funcionários recebem estoque restrito por serviços. O estoque não é livremente transferível e está sujeito a um risco de caducidade com base no desempenho ou no emprego contínuo de um indivíduo por um período de tempo. De acordo com a Seção 83 (b) do Código da Receita Federal, um indivíduo pode optar por reconhecer o valor justo de mercado das ações, ignorando as restrições, como renda no momento do prêmio; se uma eleição da Seção 83 (b) for feita, o período de detenção para fins de ganhos de capital começa no momento da eleição, caso contrário o período de retenção começa a correr na conclusão da restrição.
Com base no que precede, pode ser apropriado taxar as opções de ações executivas de efeito para fins de distribuição equitativa. This is because executive stock options have a fixed expiration date and therefore must be exercised and sold. The resulting tax is inevitable and therefore should be considered.
How are Stock Options Valued?
There are various methods to arrive at a present value for stock options. The two most popular are the "intrinsic value" and the "Black-Scholes" method. In 1995 the accounting profession formally recognized that executive stock options have value beyond their intrinsic value. In addition, the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model was recognized as an appropriate method to calculate the value of executive stock options by the accounting profession. Interestingly, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) specifically stated that, "an employee's stock option has value when it is granted regardless of whether, ultimately (a) the employee exercises the option and purchases stock worth more than the employee pays for it or (b) if the option expires worthless at the end of the option period.
In the intrinsic value method, the value of the stock option is equal to the difference between the option exercise price and the fair market value of the stock. For example, if you had an option to purchase stock "x" for $5, and the stock was currently trading for $27 per share, the intrinsic value of the option would be $22 ($27 - $5 = $22). However, the intrinsic value method does not consider the value to the holder of having the right to buy the stock at some point into the future at a predetermined price. It also does not consider the volatility of the underlying stock as well as the incumbent advantages and disadvantages of same. Moreover, it does not consider the advantages and disadvantages of the option holder not receiving the stock's dividends as well as the opportunity cost of purchasing the stock and forgoing the lost interest on the acquisition funds.
One method that considers the above-referenced items is the Black-Scholes Method. You can see the Black-Scholes formula by clicking here.
The explanations of the letter designations for the other variables in the Black-Scholes formula are:
C = SN (ln(S/K) C = theoretical call premium N = cumulative standard normal distribution e = exponential function log = natural logarithm.
The first part of the calculation determines the expected benefit of purchasing the stock outright. The second part of the calculation determines the present value benefit of paying the exercise price in the future. The difference is the fair market value of the option.
However, an underlying problem with the Black-Scholes Method is that it makes assumptions concerning the volatility of the stock, future dividend rates, and lost interest. A change in these underlying assumptions can affect the value of the option calculated pursuant to this method.
The following table provides a summary of how a change in one of these assumptions will affect the value of the stock options calculated under the Black-Scholes Method.
Increase in Variable.
Decrease in Variable.
Comércio livre de risco.
A common misconception in the valuation of long term options is that an option value is best represented by its intrinsic value. In fact, based on the various Black-Scholes factors, stock options which are "out of the money," i. e., the strike price exceeds the current fair market value, are actually traded with various dollar values. For example, a Dell Computer stock option with a strike price of $50.00 and a market value of $37.3125 as of May 24, 1999 traded for $8.75. This is so even though the option was almost $13.00 out of the money when the option was valued. The disparity in the value is due to investor optimism that the Dell shares would rise and be worth more than $58.75 before the expiration of the option.
How Are Stock Options Distributed In Matrimonial Matters?
Generally, the methods to distribute stock options usually fall into two categories:
Deferred Distribution Upon Exercise of Options (Constructive Trust); Present Valuation with off-set against other assets.
(Where one party argues that a portion of the stock options are non-marital, then an issue arises as to what portion of the stock options whether distributed through method 1 or 2 above, should be granted to the non-employee spouse. This is dealt with in more detail under the next section of this article.)
Deferred Distribution Method.
The Deferred Distribution Method is likely the most common manner in which options are distributed and was utilized in one of the earliest New Jersey cases dealing with stock options incident to divorce, to wit: Callahan v. Callahan. In that case, the trial court ruled that stock options acquired by a husband during the course of the marriage were subject to equitable distribution notwithstanding the fact that the options would terminate if the husband left the company within a certain period of time and the fact that they were subject to various SEC regulations. The court impressed a constructive trust on the husband in favor of the wife for a portion of the stock options owned by him in order to best effect the distribution of property between the parties without creating undue financial and business liabilities. It should be noted that all of the options were granted during the course of the marriage. However, although not specifically stated, it appears that some or all of the options were not fully vested since they were subject to divestiture under certain circumstances. This may have been why the wife was awarded only 25% of the options when they matured." (See section below regarding determining distributive shares.)
The second mode of distribution is the Present Valuation Method. In this method, the stock options must be valued with the non-employed spouse receiving her share of the marital portion in cash or cash equivalent. Such a method should use discounts for mortality, interest, inflation and any applicable taxes. The downside of this "off-set method" is that it may become inequitable in the event that the employee spouse is either unable to exercise the options or, on the date they become exercisable, they are "worthless" (i. e., the cost of the option exceeds the fair market value.)
A review of out-of-state authority indicates that matrimonial courts differ on the method of distribution of stock options depending upon the nature of the options themselves, whether they are vested or unvested, transferable or salable. If the options are able to be transferred to the non-employee spouse, that is the preferred method of distribution, since it effects a clean break between the parties; there is no need for further communication between the parties and there is no need to use valuation methodologies. However, transfer of stock options is rarely permitted by employee stock option plans. Some courts have devised other methods, including but not limited to allowing the parties to be tenants-in-common, or allowing the non-employee spouse to order the employee spouse to exercise his or her respective portion of the options, upon furnishing the capital to do so. This is similar to the constructive trust solution devised in the Callahan case previously discussed. Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in fashioning an approach to fit the facts of the individual case. (Caveat: all of these methods still assume that there is no exclusion of options based upon the argument that they are unvested or were otherwise not earned during the marriage.)
As a practice point, please note that when distributing options in kind, consideration should be given that neither party violates any insider trading rules. For example, it may be a violation if the participating spouse advises the non-participating spouse that he or she intends to exercise his options in the near future. Another concern about the distribution of options in kind is that they can lapse if the individual's employment with the company is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Determining the non-employed spouse's distributive share.
What happens when the employed spouse argues that some of the options are unvested or were otherwise "not acquired during the marriage" and therefore not distributable to the other spouse?
New Jersey courts have made it clear that it is necessary to balance the need for definitiveness embodied in the date of complaint rule (i. e., the cutoff date for determining which assets are subject to distribution) with the need for flexibility inherent in equitable distribution when addressing stock options incident to divorce. Whereas courts of many other states have employed the "time-rule formula" approach to determine what portion of stock options should be subject to distribution (see below), New Jersey courts have laid the groundwork in a more general fashion. Basically, assets or property acquired after the termination of the marriage, but as a reward for or result of efforts expended during the marriage, normally will be includable in the marital estate and thus, subject to equitable distribution. The law in New Jersey recognizes that assets acquired by gainful labor during the marriage or as a reward for such labor are distributable while assets acquired after dissolution due solely to the earner's post-complaint efforts constitutes the employed spouse's separate property.
The seminal case in the State of New Jersey regarding the distribution of stock options is the Supreme Court case of Pascale. In that case, the parties were married on June 19, 1977. A complaint for divorce was filed on October 28, 1990. The wife began her employment with the Liposome Company on April 14, 1987 at which time she was immediately granted the option to purchase 5,000 shares of stock in said company. As of the date of trial, the wife owned 20,069 stock options awarded between April 14, 1987 and November 15, 1991. 7,300 of the stock options were granted after the complaint for divorce was filed.
There were two blocks of stock options in dispute (i. e., 4,000 and 1,800), both granted on November 7, 1990. These were granted approximately ten days after the wife filed for divorce. (There was no indication of whether the options were vested in whole or in part, however, it is assumed that these options were "unvested".) Her position was that these options were not subject to distribution because the 1,800 were issued in recognition of past performance and the 4,000 options were awarded in recognition of a job promotion that imposed increased responsibility on her in the future. The wife relied on the transmittal letters from her company to support her arguments. The trial court found that neither of the two blocks of options granted on November 7, 1990 could be excluded from equitable distribution and were to be divided equally.
However, the Appellate Division found that one of the two sets of options awarded on November 7, 1990 should have been included in the marital estate while the other should have been excluded. The Appellate Division based that decision on its interpretation of the facts, finding that the block of 4,000 options granted in recognition of a promotion in job responsibility and an increase in salary was "more appropriately . designed to enhance future employment efforts" and should not have been included in the marital estate. However, as to the block of 1,800 options, the Appellate Division found that these options were granted in recognition of past employment performance. Therefore, these options were properly includable in the marital estate notwithstanding the date of complaint rule.
In reversing the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court in Pascale concentrated on N. J.S. A. 2A:34-23 and the guiding principles enunciated in Painter v. Painter, that "property clearly qualifies for distribution when it is attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse during the marriage." The Supreme Court in Pascale made it clear that the focus in these cases becomes whether the nature of the asset is one that is the result of efforts put forth "during the marriage" by the spouse jointly, making it subject to equitable distribution. To refute such a presumption, the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear "the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset."
The Pascale court concluded that "stock options awarded after the marriage is terminated but obtained as a result of efforts expended during the marriage should be subject to equitable distribution. The inequity that would result from applying inflexibility to the date of complaint rule is obvious." Note that no distinctions were made as to vested or unvested options. Therefore, it appears that the Supreme Court agreed with the goals sought to be achieved by the Appellate Division, but did not agree with their conclusions based on the record below. The Supreme Court gave greater weight to the "credible finding" made by the trial court after listening to many days of testimony that the promotion came about as a result of the excellent service that the wife had provided to the company during the marriage.
Query, what would the NJ Supreme Court have done if it determined that a block of options were awarded for a mix of pre and post marital efforts? What if there is no clear indication as to why the options are granted? What if the options are unvested and require future work effort to fully vest? These circumstances often exist and are where things get murky. New Jersey has not adopted a clear and precise method to determine what portion of options which have yet to be fully earned should be distributed. New Jersey's approach provides for a much more subjective analysis (and room for advocacy) than in other states which utilize various formulaic approaches including a coverture factor or time-rule usually taking into account vesting schedules.
Like New Jersey, the majority of states in this country do consider unvested stock options to be property subject to distribution in marital dissolution proceedings. Such was the recent ruling of the appellate court in Pennsylvania in the case of MacAleer. The Pennsylvania Appellate Court addressed the issue of whether stock options granted to a spouse during the marriage, but not exercisable until after the date of separation, constitutes marital property to be divided during the divorce. That court's reasoning parallels, to a large degree, the majority of the other states which hold that unvested stock options are marital property. Analogizing their prior decisions determining that unvested pensions were subject to distribution, the court noted that benefits resulting from employment during marriage are marital, since these benefits are received in lieu of higher compensation which would have been utilized during the marriage to acquire other assets or to raise the marital standard of living. Only a handful of states have specifically held otherwise. These states are Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma. North Carolina and Indiana do not divide unvested stock options on the basis of the state's statutory definition of "property." Oklahoma does not consider unvested stock options to be marital property based on the common law foundation of the stateÕs statutory scheme. These states award the unvested stock options to the employee spouse as separate property not to be considered for equitable distribution. These decisions are distinguished upon the fact that they are heavily influenced by statutes which define property in those jurisdictions. However, the remaining states which have addressed the issue, do find unvested stock options to be marital property and generally follow the same procedure for determining how much, if any, of the options constitute marital property.
Many jurisdictions, like New Jersey, view the first consideration to be a determination of whether the options were granted for past, present or future services. However, most courts have learned that employee stock options are not usually granted for any one reason, and could be compensation for past, present and future services. As a result, these courts sought some structure to determining the distributable share.
Remember: The options that are clearly given to the employee spouse as compensation or incentive for future services are wholly non-marital property. The options clearly granted exclusively for past or present services are fully marital property. There is no need for the court to utilize a coverture factor or time rule fraction for either category in order to determine the marital interest since they are wholly marital or non-marital property as the case may be. The problems arise when the reasons are unclear, where the options are unvested or include an indiscernable mix of pre and post marital efforts.
"Coverture Factor" or "Time-Rule Fractions"
Most out-of-state courts which have addressed distribution of unvested stock options use a "coverture factor" or "time rule fraction" to determine how much, if any, of the unvested stock options constitute marital property. The most prevalent time rule fraction has evolved from that which was used by the California Court of Appeals in Hug. The trial court in Hug found that the number of options that were community property were a product of a fraction; the numerator was the period in months between the commencement of the spouse's employment by the employer and the date of separation of the parties, and the denominator was the period in months between commencement of employment and the date when the first option is exercisable, multiplied by the number of shares that can be purchased on the date that the option is first exercisable. The remaining options were found to be the separate property of the husband.
The husband in Hug agreed that the options were subject to division according to the time rule; however, he contended that the trial court used an erroneous formula. He argued that the proper time rule should begin as of the date of granting the option, not the date of commencement of employment, since the options were not granted as an incentive to become employed. He argued further that each annual option was a separate and distinct option which is compensation for services rendered during that year, and as it was to accrue after the date of separation, it was totally his separate property. The court examined the various reasons why corporations confer stock options to employees, and found that no single characterization could be given to employee stock options. Whether they can be characterized as compensation for past, present, or future services, or all three, depends upon the circumstances involved in the grant of the employee stock option. By including the two years of employment prior to the granting of the options in question, the trial court implicitly found that period of service contributed to earning the option rights at issue. The appellate court found that this was supported by ample evidence in the record.
Various versions of coverture factors have evolved as courts addressed different factual circumstances. The recent Wendt case out of Connecticut entails a voluminous decision in which the court surveys the states which addressed the issue of division of unvested stock options, and notes the competing arguments and the most common numerators and denominators in diverse forms of the coverture factors. A brief summary of the Wendt court's decision as to stock options is helpful to understanding the approach of many courts to the issue of unvested stock options.
According to the December 31, 1996 unaudited financial statement prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, the husband owned 175,000 shares of General Electric Vested Stock Options and Appreciation Rights in the following amounts: 100,000 units granted November 20, 1992 with a $40 per share exercise price, 70,000 units granted September 10, 1993 with an exercise price of $48.3125 and 5,000 units granted June 24, 1994 with an exercise price of $46.25. The unaudited financial statements used the "intrinsic value" method, with a December 31, 1996 New York Stock Exchange price of G. E. common stock at $98 7/8 per share. On May 12, 1997, G. E. common stock split two for one and, thus, the number of options doubled to conform to the stock split. As of the date of separation, December 1, 1995, G. E. was trading at $72 per share. As of October 7, 1997, G. E. was trading at $72 per share in its split status or $144 per share at the pre-May 12, 1997 stock split number of stock options. Based on the facts found, the court divided the 175,000 vested stock options and appreciation rights based on the date of separation, December 1, 1995. In rejecting a Black-Scholes approach in favor of the "intrinsic value" method, the trial court valued the vested options as follows: 175,000 stock options at $3,200,000 for the November 20, 1992 grant; $1,658,125 for the September 10, 1993 grant and $128,750 for the June 24, 1994 grant for a total Ôintrinsic value" of $4,986,875. The court noted that this amount was before taxes. The court additionally noted that the options had no cash value until exercised at which point there would be tax due at short term capital gains tax rates, i. e., ordinary income tax rates. The court assumed maximum rates for the IRS, Medicare and Connecticut tax and calculated the net after tax of the intrinsic value to be $2,804,219. The court distributed one-half of that sum to the wife. The court found that the doubling of the G. E. stock after the date of separation was not due to the efforts of the wife, but that "she should share in the general increase in the investment community."
The Wendt court then proceeded to address the 420,000 unvested stock options differently. The court had already concluded that only a portion of these unvested stock options was marital property. The court had also concluded that the unvested stock options were granted for future services. Therefore, a coverture factor was required. The coverture factor was determined by a fraction as follows:
Number of Months from the Date of Grant to December 1, 1995.
Number of Months from the Date of Grant to the Date of Vesting and are not Subject to Divestment.
Number of Shares to be Vested at that Date of Vesting.
Since there were eight separate dates of vesting, eight separate coverture factors had to be calculated. For example, the coverture factor utilized for the 70,000 units granted on September 10, 1993 which vested on September 10, 1998 was as follows:
27.7 / 60 = 44.5% x 70,000 units = 31,150 units to be divided.
The court then took the price of the G. E. common stock on the date of separation (i. e. $72 per share) to calculate the intrinsic value and thereby determine the dollar amount owed to the wife for the marital portion of the unvested options. This was represented as follows:
$72.0000 -48.3125 (exercise price) = $23.6875 intrinsic value per share x 31,150 units = $737,866.
The "$737,866" represents the pre-tax dollar value of the marital portion of the unvested shares as determined by the coverture factor.
After all eight coverture factors were performed, the total dollar values of the marital portion of the unvested stock options was $1,626,273. The court then explored the various risk factors associated with the unvested stock options. It is helpful to review the various scenarios explored by the Connecticut court concerning what could happen to effect the unvested stock options.
The court had basically rejected the wife's expert's valuation methodologies (which included "Black-Scholes") and opted to use the "intrinsic value" to obtain the appropriate value. Specifically, the court rejected the wife's expert's use of the Black-Scholes model which actually resulted in a value 10% lower than the "intrinsic value" ultimately used by the court. The court then determined the wife's share of the intrinsic value of the unvested stock options (i. e., $1,626,273). The court noted that this amount was before taxes. The court proceeded to assume current maximum rates for the IRS, Medicare and Connecticut and found that the net after tax value of the gross intrinsic value would be $914,486. The court then proceeded to award the wife half of this sum. The court ordered the husband to pay the sum in cash and not in any portion of the options.
A similar approach was taken in the case of In re Marriage of Short. In this case, the court held that the inclusion of the unvested stock options in the pool of distributable assets depended on whether the options were granted to compensate the employee for past, present or future employment. The court held that unvested options awarded for past and present services were marital property regardless of the continuing restriction on transfer or vesting. Unvested options granted for future services were deemed to be acquired periodically in the future as the options vest and are subject to a time rule division to allocate the shares between marital (community) and non-marital (separate) property. A different time rule than in the Hug case was used to differentiate between vested options that are clearly separate property for which no time rule would be applied, and those which include both a community effort and separate effort.
Just recently, New York joined the substantial majority of states holding that "restricted stock and stock option benefit plans provided by a spouse's employer constitute marital property for the purposes of equitable distribution, where the plans come into being during the marriage but are contingent on the spouse's continued employment with the company after the divorce." New York's highest court, in a seven-judge panel, unanimously joined the majority of jurisdictions that use a time rule to divide such contingent resources. The DeJesus court laid out the following four-step procedure to guide courts in dividing such options:
1. Trace shares to past and future services; Determine the portion related to compensation for past services to the extent that the marriage coincides with the period of the titled spouseÕs employment, up until the time of the grant. This would be the marital portion; Determine the portion granted as an incentive for future services; the marital share of that portion will be determined by a time rule; and Calculate the portion found to be marital by adding: i) that portion that is compensated for past services; and ii) that portion of the future services deemed to be marital after application of the time rule.
The sum result will then be divided between the parties using the equitable distribution criteria.
This was the method utilized in Colorado in the case of In re Marriage of Miller. The DeJesus court was persuaded that the Miller type analysis best accommodated the twin tensions between portions of stock plans acquired during the marriage versus those acquired outside of the marriage, and stock plans which are designed to compensate for past services versus those designed to compensate for future services.
However, notwithstanding the complexity of these methods, the danger of rigidity and resulting unfairness from a blind application of a formulaic approach still exists. Such issue was addressed by an Oregon Court which stated that "No one rule will produce a just and proper result in all cases and no one rule will be responsive to many different reasons why stock options are granted." This was, more than likely, the reason that New JerseyÕs Supreme Court ruled as it did in Pascale.
Can stock options be viewed as income to the employee for support purposes?
There is little doubt that stock options constitute a form of compensation earned by the employed spouse during the marriage.
In February of 1999, an Ohio appeals court agreed with Susan Murray, the former spouse of Procter & Gamble Company executive Graeme Murray, that unexercised stock options should be used in calculating the value of child support for the couple's 16-year-old son. This decision was the first by an Appellate Court to say that parents cannot shelter income from their children Ð intentionally or unintentionally, by postponing the exercise of stock options until the kids are grown. Note that options granted in consideration of present services may also be deemed a form of deferred compensation. (See In Re Marriage of Short, 125 Wash.2d 865, 890 P.2d 12,16 (1995).
A Wisconsin Court of Appeals pointed out that a stock option is not a mere gratuity but is an economic resource comparable to pensions and other employee benefits. The Appellate Court of Colorado held that for purposes of determining child support, income includes proceeds received by father from actual exercise of father's stock options. The Supreme Court of Colorado held, in the Miller case already referenced above, that "under the Internal Revenue Code, the optionee of a non-statutory employee stock option must recognize income at the time the option is granted if the option has a "readily ascertainable value" at the time of the grant. If the option does not have a readily ascertainable value at the time of the grant, the optionee recognizes income at the time the option becomes "substantially vested" or no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture," which generally does not occur until the option is exercised.
The Miller Supreme Court found that unlike pension benefits, employee stock options may well be considered compensation for future services as well as for past and for present services.
It is clear that there is a growing trend among the courts of this nation to distribute unvested or non-exercisable stock options that were granted during the marriage. The key factor in such distribution is a determination as to the purpose for which the options were granted, i. e., whether the options were granted for past or future performance. Where an option is granted for a mixed purpose and/or requires continued employment past the termination date of the marriage (as determined by local law), many states are employing a time-rule fraction which may be modified by the trial court based upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Matrimonial practitioners must be aware of the various forms of time-rule fractions that can be used and the factors that can modify the fraction. Such factors include, but certainly are not limited to the following: (1) when the option was granted; (2) whether the option was granted for past or future performance (if "past" how far back); (3) whether or not the option was granted in lieu of other compensation; (4) whether or not the option was a qualified incentive stock option or non-qualified stock option; (5) when the options will expire; (6) the tax effect of the grant of the option; (7) the tax effect of exercising the option; (8) whether or not the option has a "readily ascertainable fair market value;" (9) whether or not the option is transferable; (10) whether or not the option is restricted property; (11) the extent to which the option is subject to risk of forfeiture; and (12) any other factors that the parties or court may deem fair and equitable to consider.
Since the majority of employee stock options are non-transferable and cannot be secured as with qualified pensions under federal laws such as ERISA, matrimonial attorneys should specifically tailor their language when drafting agreements concerning such assets. These agreements should include: (1) a list of all options granted and an explicit description of which options are marital and which are not; (2) if a Deferred Distribution Method is employed, a resortation of whether and under what terms the non-owner can compel the owner to sell options after they are vested; (3) provision for payment of the "strike price" by the non-employed spouse and taxes resulting from the exercise of options; (4) a description of how and when distribution is to be made to the non-owner spouse and (5) precise notification and document exchange provisions.
The matrimonial attorney involved in a case concerning stock options, especially when representing the non-employed spouse, should be sure to obtain the following information and documents: (1) a copy of the stock option plan; (2) copies of any correspondence or internal memorandum which were issued by the company at the time of the grant of any stock options; (3) a schedule of granted options during the employees period with the company; (4) the date of each option granted; (5) the number of options granted at each date; (5) the exercise price of options granted at each date; (6) the expiration date of each set of options granted; (7) the date of vesting for each set of options granted; (8) the date and number of options exercised; (9) all short term or long term employee incentive plans covering the employed spouse; (10) all Employment Agreements between the employed spouse and his or her employer; (11) all company plans, handbooks and option award letters related to stock options granted; (12) copies of the firm's 10K and 8K for the entire period that the employed spouse is with the company; (13) dates of promotions and positions held by the employee; (14) a brief job description of each position; (15) the salary history of the employee indicating all forms of compensation; (16) the grant date of exercised options and (17) copies of any corporate minutes or proxy statements referencing the award of options. The information listed herein provides the core information from which option values can be calculated and agreements intelligently reached concerning their distribution.
As we enter the 21st Century, it is clear that matrimonial attorneys will need to become as knowledgeable as possible regarding this unique kind of asset. Hopefully, this article has given some insight into the complexities involved when dealing with Employee Stock Options and Divorce.
Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. is a family law attorney in New Jersey.
Add A Comment.
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Desculpa! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
me when someone replies to this comment.
Your (optional and not shared)
Your Website (optional)
Username or Password invalid.
Username or .
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Desculpa! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Desculpa! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
Launched simultaneously with Divorce Magazine in 1996, DivorceMagazine was one of the first magazine websites in the world. Today, the website offers thousands of pages of divorce-related articles, FAQs, podcasts, videos, and targeted advertising. We also offer a Professional Directory featuring family lawyers, divorce financial analysts, accountants, therapists, and other divorce-related services.
Direitos autorais e cópia; 2017 Divorce Magazine, Divorce Marketing Group & Segue Esprit Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without prior written permission is prohibited.

Contas de ações.
Quem obtém a percentagem de propriedade?
Aqueles que compram ações em uma empresa estão fazendo isso para apostar em uma porcentagem de uma empresa. Ao ser proprietários parciais, você se beneficia quando o estoque da empresa aumenta e está ferido financeiramente quando é um tanque. Muitos casais optam por contratar um consultor financeiro responsável por proteger investimentos por meio de alocação de ativos. O que esse processo faz é equilibrar o risco versus a recompensa. O objetivo é ver que os acionistas se beneficiam financeiramente tanto quanto possível.
Quando se trata de dividir ativos em um divórcio, pode parecer relativamente fácil dividir carros e casas em comparação com propriedades intangíveis. De acordo com a Constituição do Texas, artigo XVI, Seção 15, todos os bens imóveis e pessoais que um cônjuge possuía antes de um casamento (ou adquiridos como presente após o casamento) são propriedade separada desse cônjuge. Também é possível que ambos os cônjuges possam acordar por escrito que todas as propriedades separadas desse ponto devem ser consideradas como propriedade da comunidade.
Comunidade v. Propriedade separada.
Propriedade separada, como parece, é propriedade que está sob a propriedade exclusiva de um dos cônjuges e não o outro. Embora esta seja a regra geral para propriedade separada, os cônjuges podem, em qualquer momento durante o casamento, fazerem parte de sua propriedade da comunidade, propriedade separada de acordo com a Seção 3.001 do Código de Família do Texas. A propriedade da comunidade é um pouco mais complicada. Esta distinção é basicamente por padrão: qualquer coisa que não seja propriedade separada é propriedade da comunidade (implícita).
Existem três divisões de propriedade comum ou comunitária: gerenciamento exclusivo, gerenciamento conjunto e quase propriedade da comunidade. O gerenciamento único inclui coisas como os ganhos de um cônjuge, seus rendimentos de qualquer propriedade separada e quaisquer aumentos / receitas da propriedade única da administração do cônjuge. A gestão conjunta é qualquer propriedade gerida individualmente que é misturada com a propriedade do outro cônjuge. Propriedade da quase comunidade tem a ver com qualquer propriedade separada que foi adquirida enquanto não estiver no Texas (Secção 7.002 do Código de Família do Texas).
Stocks como propriedade.
As ações, assim como qualquer outro tipo de propriedade, podem ser divididas em divórcio. Se esses estoques fossem propriedade separada de um dos cônjuges, então ele deve permanecer sob sua propriedade em caso de divórcio. Se é propriedade da comunidade (ambos os cônjuges são de propriedade do estoque), então um tribunal de família terá que intervir e decidir quem obtém qual porcentagem das ações com base no que é justo e correto. Tome opções de estoque, por exemplo.
Às vezes, um funcionário receberá estoque na empresa em que eles trabalhem como recompensa. No caso de um divórcio, mesmo que ambos os cônjuges se beneficiem dessas opções de compra de ações, o cônjuge que é o empregado dessa empresa será o que mantém esse estoque. Não existe uma regra dura e rápida quando se trata de dividir ações. Cada caso será diferente dependendo de fatores como a data em que o estoque foi concedido, a data em que foi adquirida e por que a opção de estoque foi obtida em primeiro lugar.
Para obter mais informações sobre como dividir opções de estoque, benefícios e similares, pode ser útil ler o Código da Família do Texas. A seção 3.007 em particular tem muito a dizer sobre opções de estoque. Ele detalha a linha de tempo para ações: concessão, aquisição e expiração, bem como como isso se relaciona com a divisão de propriedades da comunidade no estado do Texas. A melhor maneira de entender completamente seus direitos como um acionista que atravessa um divórcio seria obter um advogado. Nossa empresa está preparada para aconselhá-lo. Contate-Nos!
&cópia de; Copyright 2017 | Todos os direitos reservados Todos os direitos reservados.