Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): corporation had the option to acquire all of the remaining stock in Randall’s company. If Randall was not employed by the company at that time, he would not make any more profit on his fair value stock options because he would no longer be a company stockholder. In addition, even if his employment continued after divorce, Randall would not make any more profit on the stock options if the sale did not occur or if his company’s stock did not become publicly traded after 2004. To date, no Texas court has considered how to determine the community property value of stock options at divorce. The cases have only addressed whether stock options are community property. See Kline, 17 S.W.3d at 446; Bodin, 955 S.W.2d at 381; Demler, 836 S.W.2d at 699; see also Charriere, 7 S.W.3d at 220 n. 6 (<HOLDING>). The factors presented here cause us to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unvested stock options subject to the contingency of debtors future employment are property of the bankruptcy estate (B) holding that like pension benefits stock options are a form of deferred compensation for efforts expended during the marriage (C) holding that stock options that could be purchased but not sold without company consent during marriage were community property even though value of options was dependent upon employee spouses postdivorce employment (D) holding that unexercised stock options were not marital property (E) holding that unexercised stock options obtained during the marriage are marital property just like traded options or traded common stock
Output (English): holding that unvested stock options subject to the contingency of debtors future employment are property of the bankruptcy estate