Court Rules Ellison Must Donate $100M to Charity 191
PokeyPenguin writes "As part of a settlement for insider trading allegations, a California judge has ordered that Larry Ellison donate $100 million to charity. CNet reports, 'The charity payments are an unusual way to settle such a case. Typically, settlement payments would go directly to the company, in this case Oracle. "But with Mr. Ellison owning a quarter of Oracle's stock, much of such a direct payment, in effect, would have gone to him."'"
Re:Tax Break (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why not pay the shareholders? (Score:4, Interesting)
$17 Billion Dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's justice right there.
Great Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
No wrongdoing? (Score:5, Interesting)
To - you have either done nothing wrong, and you are free, or you have done something wrong and have to pay for it. Maybe I'm just naiive, but how can it be "nothing wrong" and paying back money?
If the judge really wanted to penalize him... (Score:2, Interesting)
... Larry Ellison should have to put the $100M into a non-profit foundation that pays developers to improve PostgreSQL. Properly managed, that kind of money would easily fund a team of 50 developers for decades.
$100 million or $100 million of Oracle software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No wrongdoing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you'd stand a better chance getting a settlement accepted if you admit wrongdoing, but often what the other party is after is mainly the punishment, and they couldn't care less if you admit doing anything wrong if you're willing to pay.
One reason for being prepared to take the punishment without accepting wrongdoing may be if you worry that being convicted may leave you open to lawsuits from other parties related to what you'd admit to.
See the Nixon pardon (Score:5, Interesting)
He admits nothing, but other people believe he did something wrong. As Gerald Ford said when he granted Nixon's pardon: "I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury", and "To procrastinate, to agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts"
.
For someone like Ellison, paying $100 million is nothing compared to waiting years for a trial, even if he were considered "not guilty" in the end.
Larry Versus Martha (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Slashdot School of Law has failed you (Score:3, Interesting)
She was innocent of insider trading - at least the charges were dropped - but that didn't give her the right to claim it. You see, by denying it, she was revealing information that affected the price of her company's stock, and she didn't go through the right channels to do it, which is a crime.
Re:$17 Billion Dollars? (Score:3, Interesting)