Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Seinfeld v. Bartz

2002 WL 243597 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

Seinfeld v. Bartz

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

2002 WL 243597 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

Play video

Facts

The directors of Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) (defendants) circulated a proxy statement to shareholders with information regarding a proposed amendment to Cisco’s Automatic Option Grant Program that would increase the number of stock options granted to outside directors. The proxy statement did not contain the value of the option grants under the amendment based on the theoretical Black-Scholes pricing model. The amendment was approved by a shareholder vote. The plaintiff brought suit, alleging a violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in that the proxy statement omitted the pricing model and therefore the alleged true value of the options.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership