What is backdating
FH Partners was unable to cite to any authority “for the proposition that a retroactive effective date in one contract can be construed to have an automatic retroactive effect on a separate contract,” which would probably have been fatal to its case.But the language of the FDIC/FH Partners agreements further undermined FH Partners’ arguments because the documents (1) stated that they couldn’t be amended or waived except in a writing signed by the parties, (2) didn’t anticipate that the FDIC could modify what it was conveying to FH Partners after closing, (3) conveyed the FDIC’s interest “as of the Loan Sale Closing Date,” (4) transferred the FDIC’s interest in the loan “as is,” (5) provided that the FDIC would “have no obligation to secure or obtain any missing intervening assignment or any assignment to [the FDIC] that is not contained in the Loan File,” (6) provided a process by which FH Partners could require the FDIC to repurchase a loan if it was determined that the FDIC didn’t own it as of the closing, and (7) transferred the FDIC’s rights “at the time of closing.” The appellate court stated, “We necessarily conclude that the FDIC/FH Loan Sale Documents unambiguously anticipated that the FDIC might very well be conveying to FH Partners less than perfect, and even non-existent, title to Loan A and Loan B.Companies would simply wait for a period in which the company's stock price fell to a low and then moved higher within a two-month period.
The appellate court then considered whether, assuming that the FDIC/Weatherford transaction was retroactively effective (which it wasn’t), the retroactivity of that transaction had any legal effect on the transaction between the FDIC and FH Partners.
Due to this ambiguity in the contract documents, the trial court was permitted to look at the evidence of the parties’ intent outside of the documents, and it found that the FDIC didn’t acquire an interest in the loan until June 2009, regardless of the stated effective date in the main agreement.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court and stated: The law does not support the blanket conclusion that a retroactive effective date in a contract is only enforceable when the evidence demonstrates that the parties had agreed to the material terms of their contract as of the retroactive date.
This process makes the granted option "in the money" and of value to the holder.
This process occurred when companies were only required to report the issuance of stock options to the SEC within two months of the grant date.