Seagate Technology, Inc., Successor in Interest to Seagate Peripherals, Inc., f.k.a. Conner Peripherals, Inc.. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          not be the basis for a genuine issue as to a material fact so as            
          to preclude the use of summary judgment.                                    
               Petitioner contends that it has shown that stock option                
          costs would not be shared in an arm’s-length transaction.                   
          Petitioner’s proof on this point consists of the experiences of             
          its officers and employees, some of whom have worked for or with            
          unrelated third parties.  Petitioner also relies on the fact that           
          the Federal Acquisition Regulations System (FARS) classifies                
          qualifying employee stock purchase plans as “noncompensatory.”              
          That classification precludes payment by the Federal Government             
          for costs of qualified employee stock options in connection with            
          contracts governed by FARS.  Because FARS governs all civil and             
          military Federal executive branch contracts with private business           
          for goods and services, petitioner reasons that a large number of           
          “arm’s-length transactions” do not include the cost-sharing of              
          employee stock options.                                                     
               Respondent counters that the regulations provide that all              
          costs should be included and that stock option costs are “costs”            
          that may be allocated.  In addition, respondent relies on an                
          expert’s opinion that stock option costs would be accounted for             
          in an arm’s-length business relationship.  Respondent also relies           
          on what he believes are analogous court opinions in which the               
          stock options have been treated as compensation or as part of the           
          consideration for a transaction.  Finally, respondent contends              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011