p2pnet - rss feed: Steve Jobs in new securities fraud case
p2pnet news | Crime:- Apple boss Steve Jobs, master marketeer and creator of the Jobs reality distortion field, is again in trouble over securities fraud allegations.
He and ex-financial officer Fred D. Anderson, ex-general counsel Nancy R. Heinen and, “several members of the company’s board of directors were sued Friday for securities fraud in a class-action lawsuit,” says InformationWeek.
“It would appear Apple supremo Steve Jobs hasn’t heard the last of the options back-dating scandal,” p2pnet said last September.
“When it was suggested the doctored docs could mean the SEC would de-list Apple, Who’d be served?” - Associated Press and Bloomberg had Jahan Raissi, a partner in a law firm which represents companies in Securities and Exchange Commission matters, asking.
“If it was Joe’s Shlock and Poultry Farm, then sure, get them out of there,” he went on.
“But not Apple.”
Now, Martin Vogel and Kenneth Mahoney say Apple, the ex-execs and board members William V. Campbell, Millard S. Drexler, Arthur D. Levinson, and Jerome B. York) were all involved in a scheme to, “file false financial statements, thereby concealing millions of dollars in executive compensation though the backdating of stock option grants,” says the story.
It continues that in June 2006, “Apple acknowledged that an internal investigation had revealed irregularities in its stock option grants between 1997 and 2001. It also said that one of the grants in question was to Jobs but that “it was subsequently canceled and resulted in no financial gain to the CEO.”
According to the complaint, Apple’s share price dropped after Apple’s admission, “erasing more than $7 billion in share value and it’s this loss the plaintiffs hope to recover,” says InformationWeek.
The 105-page complaint claims Jobs, et al, knew what was going on and that, “Jobs and the Individual Defendants clearly appreciated the fraudulent nature of their conduct”.
It says Jobs, “made an ‘instant paper profit’ of $20,325,000 when, on Dec. 18, 2001, he received 7.5 million Apple shares in a stock option grant dated back to Oct. 19, 2001. And Apple’s books did not show a $20,325,000 expense,” says the story, adding:
“The complaint also cites a 10 million-share option grant in January 2000 that, through backdating, resulted in ‘instant paper profit’ of $83,762,000 for Jobs, an amount that at the time was not disclosed to shareholders.”
.
.Stumble It!
InformationWeek - Apple, Steve Jobs, Executives, Board, Sued For Securities Fraud , July 1, 2008
p2pnet - SEC subpoenas Steve Jobs, September 21, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I don’t suppose anyone cares that the backdating of share options is not illegal.
I don’t suppose anyone cares that shareholders, at the time those back dated shares were granted, have received a 400 times return on their shares since then.
I don’t suppose anyone cares that, in a civil suit, the plaintives must prove financial loss and there is now way any of those shareholders lost money.
I don’t suppose anyone cares that the plaintives in this civil suit had their previous, almost identical, civil suit thrown out by the same judge.
I don’t suppose anyone cares that ex-financial officer Fred D. Anderson and ex-general counsel Nancy R. Heinen are on trial for their illegal activities with regards to the financial reporting of the backdating and that those two bare the responsibilities for the financial reporting irregularities.
It’s one thing to hate Apple and Steve Jobs, it’s quite another to cheer on these ambulance chasing sharks as they attack another big target.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
There is no securities fraud “case”. (As in, a “case”, as in, a criminal or judicial “case”).
A lawsuit being filed; frivolous, or otherwise; does not make a “case”.
“In trouble”? With who? Not with the law, or the Securities and Exchange commission. Someone filing a lawsuit doesn’t constitute “being in trouble”. It’s a -lawsuit-.
By a group that has not only not been damaged; but which has seen it’s shares of AAPL appreciate greatly in price.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The stockholders own the company. If your employee decided to secretly help himself to the company’s coffer would you have a problem with it?