close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Antitrust Alert: Beware of HSR Filing Requirements for Option Exercises or Vesting of Restricted Stock

This week the Federal Trade Commission obtained a $250,000 civil penalty against James Dondero, the operator of the Highland Capital hedge fund and a director of Motient Corporation, for making a late Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing in connection with his 2005 exercise of options to acquire 10,000 Motient shares. The acquired shares had a value at the time of less than $300,000. Two factors led to the FTC action, both of which are instructive.

First, between 2002 and 2004, Highland Capital (which Dondero controlled) acquired a total of 3.5 million shares of Motient, which at the time had a total value below the then-applicable $50 million HSR threshold so no filing was necessary. But the value of those shares subsequently appreciated significantly to the point that, at the time of Dondero's option exercise, his cumulative direct and indirect holdings—which is the relevant measure for HSR, not simply the current transaction—significantly exceeded $50 million. Given the appreciation, any acquisition by Dondero would trigger the need to file.

Second, this was Dondero's second offense. Dondero failed to make timely HSR filings in connection with Highland's acquisition of shares of another company in 2003 and 2004. While no penalty was assessed, Dondero had to outline the steps Highland would take to ensure such violations did not occur in the future. As Bill Gates also learned in connection with a missed filing in 2002 after having failed to make a timely filing for an earlier unrelated transaction, the FTC rarely if ever allows a second bite. Significantly, Dondero was fined despite the fact that, due to changes in IRS regulations, Dondero's options, which originally had a 10-year expiration, were later amended to expire one day after vesting, effectively forcing Dondero to exercise when he did, without time to file and observe the HSR waiting period.

While some large shareholders who are otherwise unaffiliated with a company can take advantage of the "solely for purposes of investment" exemption to avoid a filing, officers or directors who directly or indirectly acquire stock in their companies must observe HSR filing requirements if the cumulative value of the officer's or director's shares exceeds the then-applicable HSR threshold (currently $59.8 million). This is the case regardless of when the stock already held was acquired, and regardless of whether the new stock is acquired by direct purchase, as a result of an option exercise, or through vesting of restricted stock. Importantly, an option exercise will not be deemed an acquisition if (i) the officer sells all the shares acquired through the option exercise or sells other shares in an amount not less than the number of shares acquired through the option exercise, and (ii) the sale is the same day as the exercise. Otherwise, a filing must be made and the waiting period observed before any new stock can be acquired.

A filing can be made well in advance of the actual acquisition, but there must be evidence of an intention to acquire the stock before a filing can be made, such as a vesting schedule and a declaration by the officer of his/her intent. The filing is effective for a year after the waiting period is terminated. For example, if an officer were to file June 1 to acquire stock that would result in total holdings of more than $59.8 million, and the waiting period terminated on July 1, then he or she would have until June 30 of the following year to acquire enough shares to exceed that amount (e.g., if current holdings are $50 million, then at least $9.81 million). If not enough shares were acquired during that period, a new filing would have to be made before any new acquisition that would exceed the threshold. Assuming the acquisition did meet the threshold, the HSR rules provide a five-year period during which the officer can acquire more stock up to the next HSR threshold (currently $119.6 million) without having to refile.

A final note: while the filing itself usually can be prepared quickly and efficiently, the FTC filing fee for holdings between $59.8 million and $119.6 million is $45,000, which the officer, as the acquiring person, is obligated to pay (although both the officer and the company have to make filings). If holdings will exceed $119.6 million, the fee is $125,000.


For any questions relating to the above or to HSR requirements generally, please contact:

Mark S. Ostrau, Co-Chair, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Group,
mostrau@fenwick.com, 650.335.7269
or any other member of the Antitrust Group.

©2007 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.​