There are various situations where there is a tension between strict compliance with securities laws and business needs (in Google's case, financial statement disclosure). For example, in order to minimize liability in a highly dilutive financing, a company may offer to sell the securities on all existing stockholders in order to avoid claims of unfairness. However, there may be too many stockholders or unaccredited stockholders to fall within an exemption from registration. Thus, a board may face the difficult choice between violating securities laws or failing to make an offer to all stockholders that may decrease the risk of stockholder litigation in connection with a dilutive financing.

"Shares issued and options granted under our 1998 Stock Plan, our 2003 Stock Plan, our 2003 Stock Plan (No. 2) and our 2003 Stock Plan (No. 3) from September 2001 through July 2004 may not have been exempt from registration or qualification under federal securities laws and the securities laws of certain states. Certain of the shares issued during this period may not have been exempt from registration and qualification requirements under Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933 and under those state securities laws that provide an exemption to the extent the requirements under Rule 701 are met. We became aware that we were approaching the numeric limitations prescribed by Rule 701 in September 2002 and thereafter determined that we could not continue to count on being able to rely on Rule 701 to provide an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, continued compliance under Rule 701 would have required broad dissemination of detailed financial information regarding our business, which would have been strategically disadvantageous to our company. In evaluating how to issue stock upon exercise of outstanding options in light of these limitations we determined we would utilize “private placement” exemptions provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 in order to exempt these issuances from federal registration requirements notwithstanding the factual and legal uncertainties inherent in Section 4(2). These uncertainties arise because analyzing whether or not issuances of securities qualify for the exemptions afforded by Section 4(2) involves a number of subjective determinations including whether the number of offerees constitutes a general solicitation, the financial sophistication of offerees and their access to information regarding the issuer, as well as whether the offering was designed to result in a distribution of shares to the general public. We considered various alternatives in determining to rely on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) despite its inherent uncertainties. We considered ceasing granting options and shares to service providers. However, we determined that this would be detrimental to our development, as equity compensation was an essential ingredient to building our company. We also considered becoming a reporting company for the purposes of federal securities laws. We determined that this too would be contrary to the best interests of our stockholders. We therefore concluded that relying on Section 4(2) despite its uncertainties was in the best interest of our security holders. Because of this uncertainty in relying on Section 4(2), the options we granted and the shares issued upon exercise of these options during this period may have been issued in violation of either federal or state securities laws, or both, and may be subject to rescission. In order to address this issue, we are making a rescission offer to the holders of these shares and options. We will be making this rescission offer to 1,362 persons who are or were residents of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington."