backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by wildmannz.. on Apr 29 at 9:12 AM

Even though the Apple board supports him, the SEC may take another look at Jobs' involvement with a stock options backdating scandal

Former Apple chief financial officer Fred Anderson's comments against CEO Steve Jobs may have given further life to the Securities and Exchange Commission's probe of Apple’s option backdating in 2001.  Anderson stated that he warned Jobs of the possible legalities of backdating Apple stock options, which may lead to federal investigators and the SEC to take a second look at the case.  

While Jobs will most likely still be clear of any charges, another SEC investigation will keep the attention on an issue that Apple quickly wants to move past.  The SEC has unofficially cleared Apple as a company, but declined to mention anything specifically about Jobs.

The Apple board officially said that it will continue to support Jobs throughout the scandal.  

"Steve Jobs co-operated fully with Apple's independent investigation and with the government's investigation of stock option grants at Apple," the board said in a statement.  "We have complete confidence in the conclusions of Apple's independent investigation, and in Steve's integrity and his ability to lead Apple."

Anderson and one other former Apple executive had legal action filed upon them earlier in the week.  Anderson has already filed settlement with the SEC, agreeing to turn over $3.5 million in fines.  In doing so, he neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing in the 2001 options grant.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

To be or not to be ?
By crystal clear on 4/27/2007 7:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In doing so, he neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing in the 2001 options grant.


Then Why is he not taking a decision "I am GUILTY or I am NOT GUILTY- simple as that.
How can you at the same time be both or neither of the both.




RE: To be or not to be ?
By Terrin on 4/27/2007 9:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well let me run a scenario by you. The government tells you we are going to charge you with murder. You could go to jail the rest of your life. You know you didn't kill anybody, but who knows what the jury will think. The government tells you hey plead guilty and you will only get probation. Lots of people whether guilty or not would take that deal. My example is extreme but this type of thing goes on all the time.

In this case, the government told Anderson look we can sue you and if we win you will never be able to run a company again and you will have to pay us millions of dollars. Or you can pay a fine, and plead no contest (which is the same thing as not admitting or denying guilty).

Anderson is probably making millions of dollars a year sitting on the boards of various companies. As such, he is not going to risk going to court over what essentially is a slap on the risk when he could lose much more if he fought it.

He also didn't admit to anything, because he is being sued by Apple shareholders. If you admit guilt to the government, the shareholders will use that against Anderson.


RE: To be or not to be ?
By crystal clear on 4/28/2007 12:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
ok got it-thanks


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki