Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (165429)	5/28/2002 5:46:48 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Ten, good question, because only an officer could sign for the debt they acquired. Banks don't give out loans without officer signatures. Financial legal documents require officer signature (e.g. ceo, cfo, corp sec, vp that's also an officer) and corporate codes say materially significant financial documents require board approval because boards have a fiduciary role. So, Employee Options have nothing to do with bank debt in an offshore location, but everything to do with Enron's Officers. Intel's suggestion about expensing options for Officers gets at this issue, but AG's proposal that penalizes innocent employees doesn't. Regards, Amy J