Apple directors must now win a majority vote before appointment to board

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited January 2014


At its annual shareholders meeting on Thursday, Apple announced that it has adopted a measure approved by shareholders last year that requires a majority vote for new board members to be approved.



Shareholders initially voted for the non-binding proposal a year ago, but Apple chose not to adopt it. But the company announced on Thursday from its Cupertino, Calif., headquarters that the measure has now been approved, according to Reuters.



Members of Apple's board of directors who cannot obtain a majority vote will now be required to voluntarily resign from their positions. In addition to shareholders, Calpers, the largest U.S. pension fund, has also pushed for the measure.



The most recent changes to the Apple Board of Directors came last November, when Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger joined the board. In addition, Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D., became the new chairman, replacing the late Steve Jobs.



The remaining members of Apple's board are CEO Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al gore, Andrea Jung and Ronald Sugar. All of them received more than 80 percent of the vote on Thursday, leaving their positions intact.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,913member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.



    Why not, and why?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Why not, and why?



    They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.



    And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.
  • robin huberrobin huber Posts: 2,687member
    Majority vote of who? Stockholders or other board members?
  • robin huberrobin huber Posts: 2,687member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.



    And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.



    Agree.
  • bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    And 1985 begins all over again.
  • jumperjumper Posts: 34member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.



    And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.



    Chairman is not a big deal one way or the other. Disney.. give me a break. Maybe you had a bad ride at Disneyland when you were young but their is nothing wrong with Disney. With over 80% approval to have a Disney guy on the board, I think your comments are just that ...."Yours".
  • slurpyslurpy Posts: 4,521member
    All I care about is that the real drivers of Apple and its success within the company, like Jonathan Ive and Scott Forstall, don't have anyone to get in their way or compromise their vision. Apart from Cook, they're the 2 most important people in Apple right now and define the soul of the company. Ive= hardware, Forstall = software.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jumper View Post


    Disney.. give me a break. Maybe you had a bad ride at Disneyland when you were young but their is nothing wrong with Disney. With over 80% approval to have a Disney guy on the board, I think your comments are just that ...."Yours".



    Never been. Never going to be. The deaths, the injuries, the cover-ups, the fact that they have virtual sovereignty over their land and their courts if anyone tries to sue them, the fact that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire it's Disney that pays off the government to extend the term of copyrights?



    Come on. "Mine" nothing. Copyright is virtually permanent thanks to Disney. We'll have less and less fall into the public domain until finally nothing will.
  • cgjcgj Posts: 276member
    Oh dear. I really, really hate it when shareholders think they should run the company. Apple has a strong BoD who know what is best for the company. I'm pretty sure Levinson, Cook and the rest of the board/executive understand the company better than ANY investor who wants control over Apple. Next they'll demand dividend, Cook needs to assert his authority. I'm all in for the Apple Board to threaten company shutdown if shareholders decide they are going to start defying them. Time to start using practical vetoes.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    They operated just fine for nearly fifteen years after Steve's return not having a chairman. I'm sure Steve just wanted the position to be able to say he had had it.



    And no Disney because of their history of unscrupulous behavior. The lies they tell to keep up their wholesome image. Pixar should never have been sold to them.



    Perhaps maybe because Steve Jobs acted as both Apple's Chairman AND CEO? Apple never needed a Chairman (although they did have two board co-leads) because Steve was in full control. Levinson will take some of the weight off of Cook, especially in terms of Board meetings and committees.



    In terms of Disney, Steve put his trust in Bob Iger with Pixar. It worked. Bob and Steve shared a lot of things in common, like the idea of full integration (alas MS Disney Dream). Apple obviously want to keep their bond with Disney strong, which is the reason why they appointed Bob when Steve died.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,410member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    The remaining members of Apple's board are CEO Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Al gore, Andrea Jung and Ronald Sugar.



    Did Bob Costas ghostwrite this article?
  • dcrdcr Posts: 7member
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Corporate structure at AAPL may be a bit unorthodox, but it has been successful to a degree that most would have considered unimaginable a few years ago. As a (minimal) stock holder, I find it concerning that an effort seems to be arising to "fix" problems at apple now that the "overbearing" founder is no longer around. As a company, Apple has performed like few (if any ) in history. Management, the board, and the stockholders should make sure a real problem has been identified before efforts are made to fix things.
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,457member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dcr View Post


    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Corporate structure at AAPL may be a bit unorthodox, but it has been successful to a degree that most would have considered unimaginable a few years ago. As a (minimal) stock holder, I find it concerning that an effort seems to be arising to "fix" problems at apple now that the "overbearing" founder is no longer around. As a company, Apple has performed like few (if any ) in history. Management, the board, and the stockholders should make sure a real problem has been identified before efforts are made to fix things.



    Whatever happens now or in the future, one thing is cerain... People will always act in their interest first, no matter how it is disguised with either threats or flowery language.
  • lmgslmgs Posts: 63member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Never been. Never going to be. The deaths, the injuries, the cover-ups, the fact that they have virtual sovereignty over their land and their courts if anyone tries to sue them, the fact that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire it's Disney that pays off the government to extend the term of copyrights?



    Come on. "Mine" nothing. Copyright is virtually permanent thanks to Disney. We'll have less and less fall into the public domain until finally nothing will.



    So, you are the OWS rep on here??



    Corporations are all evil?? It is THEIR LAND, they should be able to do whatever they want with it it.. No one owns the courts?? That's just your spin because they rule in a way YOU don't agree with.. Disney should own the copyright Mickey Mouse, Walt invented him..



    I have no problem with anyone on the board, except maybe Al Gore?? I know he did invent the internet, but what has he done lately??
  • aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,522member
    Who cares about Iger.... Jung is the real lemon of the board.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LMGS View Post


    It is THEIR LAND, they should be able to do whatever they want with it it.



    Not if it's in violation of actual law or obstructionist to medical help or the proper judicial system.



    Quote:

    Disney should own the copyright Mickey Mouse, Walt invented him..



    Sure, but should copyright be infinite? Should a company have the right to everything forever?



    Should the thousands of books in the Gutenberg Project not be free now? What about old music?
  • gtrgtr Posts: 3,165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Apple doesn't need a chairman of the board and I'd prefer no one from Disney be anywhere near them.



    It always amazes me how frequently this guy gets first post for a thread.



    He must be checking these forums a hell of a lot in order to do that...



    <snigger>



    Is it true that the existing board members have placades labelled either 'Bozo' or 'Genius' depending on which way they want to vote?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    It always amazes me how frequently this guy gets first post for a thread.



    He must be checking these forums a hell of a lot in order to do that? <snigger>



    Your point being?
  • gtrgtr Posts: 3,165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Your point being?



    That was a joke!



    I mean, not surprising for a moderator.



    Was that joke too subtle for this electronic medium?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    That was a joke!



    I mean, not surprising for a moderator.



    Was that joke too subtle for this electronic medium?



    The 'snigger' sort of threw me off. I'd share a REAL hatred if we had a bunch of "FIRST!"-ers here.
Sign In or Register to comment.