or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls 'Prop 2' from upcoming proxy vote, says disappointed with court decision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulls 'Prop 2' from upcoming proxy vote, says disappointed with court decision

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
After a U.S. federal judge sided with David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital in a lawsuit seeking the injunction of proposal vote scheduled to be held at Apple's upcoming shareholders meeting, the Cupertino, Calif., company removed the contentious "Prop 2" item from the docket.

iPrefs


Apple announced in a statement on Friday that it will be pulling Prop 2 from its annual meeting slated to take place on Feb. 27, reports AllThingsD. Einhorn sought to block a vote on the proposal as it contained an article which revokes the ability of Apple's board members to issue preferred stock, instead putting that power into the hands of shareholders.

Apple's statement:

We are disappointed with the court?s ruling. Proposal #2 is part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders? best interests. Unfortunately, due to today?s decision, shareholders will not be able to vote on Proposal #2 at our annual meeting next week.


With the announcement, Apple is conforming to Judge Richard Sullivan's decision issued earlier today.

Einhorn wants Apple to issue so-called "iPrefs," or perpetual preferred stock that would pay out a quarterly 50 cents dividend equating to $2 per year. He suggests Apple could extend and enhance the program over time to ultimately offer five iPrefs per share of common stock, doubling the current dividend rate to return some $47 billion of company's swelling $137 billion cash hoard.

While Prop 2 has been removed from next week's annual meeting, Apple is not obligated to issue the iPrefs. It is unclear what the company plans to do regarding Einhorn's pressure, but thus far it has been loath to give in to the hedge fund manager's demands.
post #2 of 63
This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.
post #3 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.

So they wait a year. No big deal.

If iPrefs doesn't benefit ALL shareholders, vote it down.
post #4 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.

You forgot to call for Tim Cook's resignation and that it would never happen under Steve. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 63

I now favor Einhorn's idea although I was against it before as long as all shareholders big and small benefit from some form of iShares.

Apple needs to give shareholders some more incentives with all the cash that they have.  Apple share price should be around $800 now.

They don't need all that cash and the stock price is depressed right now.

 

Apple needs to be first class at maintaining share value.

The board should throw us a bone now.  It does not have to be iShares as described but something.

 

Time will tell.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 2/22/13 at 6:39pm
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

I now favor Einhorn's idea although I was against it before as long as all shareholders big and small benefit from iShares.
Apple needs to give shareholders some more incentives with all the cash that they have.
They don't need all that cash and the stock price is depressed right now.

Time will tell.

It serves no useful purpose. If Apple wants to give more money back to the shareholders, they can do so simply by increasing the dividend. No need for preferred shares.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It serves no useful purpose. If Apple wants to give more money back to the shareholders, they can do so simply by increasing the dividend. No need for preferred shares.

 

The purpose was tax evasion. At least that's what some hedge funds might be doing with the preferred shares. For small shareholders, probably doesn't mean much either way. 

post #8 of 63

I'm a shareholder and I really don't care if Apple issues a dividend or not. Yes, it'd be nice to get some cash from my investment, but there are many other solid dividend issuing companies to invest in. Apple's huge pile of cash gives them purchasing power and a buffer for when their insane popularity starts to wane. Yes, from a quarterly profit, squeeze all the money you can out a company point of view all that cash is "wasted". But truthfully, I trust Apple to take better care of it and invest it more wisely than myself.

 

- Jasen.

post #9 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

 

The purpose was tax evasion. At least that's what some hedge funds might be doing with the preferred shares. For small shareholders, probably doesn't mean much either way. 

Actually it does mean something for small share holders.  We get the bread crumbs after the big hedge funds eat.

As song as hedge funds see value from growth or dividend, they will invest in the shares and keep up the value of  the shares.

post #10 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.

 

This is the age of the Internet, if they want be vote before next year they can find a way.

 

and in the meantime if the board doesn't want to issue any preferred shares there's nothing to force them to do so. So it's not really a lose.

post #11 of 63
Doesn't matter if its the Internet Age or the Stone Age, Apple would have to call a special meeting of shareholders in order to hold a vote. They don't need to flub another technicality.

Einhorn probably believes he has more potential to convince a majority of board members of issuing preferred shares than a majority of shareholders.
post #12 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

But truthfully, I trust Apple to take better care of it and invest it more wisely than myself.

- Jasen.

DRIP. If Apple doesn't have such a plan, your broker will.
post #13 of 63

Apples board should just send a clear message to the Street.

We are not going to be pushed around by you period

If you don't like the way we run the company then sell.

 

Apple doesn't need this bs - constantly having to defend itself from attacks in court or through the media. That's the future right there - we have only a small taste of what will come.

Wall St doesn't like us - bfd. Then sell.

 

I suspect though the board will want to appear to be conciliatory to all shareholders and the above will not happen. But how to appease the voracious and conniving amongst them ? Doesn't seem to be any answer to that - I don't like Einhorn or his tactics but he has certainly brought attention to an issue that was bound to rear it's head sooner or later.

post #14 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.

Not sure how it was a clear loser as Apple was required to share the proposal with the SEC and it did not object.
post #15 of 63

The SEC doesn't review the proposal's content.  The government leaves disputes between the shareholders and board of directors to the parties.

post #16 of 63

Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Quote:
Apple needs to give shareholders some more incentives with all the cash that they have.

 

Why? Incentives to do what? Not sell their shares? You'd think running an insanely profitable company would do that.

 

Quote:
Apple share price should be around $800 now.

 

Why? Because you want it to be? Not up to you. If you're not satisfied with a stock's gains, the standard protocol, as I recall, is to sell it.

 

Quote:
They don't need all that cash and the stock price is depressed right now.

 

 

Do they not? Say you and what forensic accountants? You sound like a poor person who says the affluent don't "need" their money and should share some.

 

Quote:

Apple needs to be first class at maintaining share value. The board should throw us a bone now.

 

"Throw us a bone"? I like the begging, drooling dog visual. Except the dog is intellectually honest about it.

post #17 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

I now favor Einhorn's idea although I was against it before as long as all shareholders big and small benefit from some form of iShares.

Apple needs to give shareholders some more incentives with all the cash that they have.  Apple share price should be around $800 now.

They don't need all that cash and the stock price is depressed right now.

 

Apple needs to be first class at maintaining share value.

The board should throw us a bone now.  It does not have to be iShares as described but something.

 

Time will tell.

 

And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.

post #18 of 63
You know he wants to get the iPrefs, then dump his common shares. Common share holders after iPrefs get screwed. Apple will have to pay the 4% on the iPrefs and then common shareholders won't get jack unless they happened to be holding when iPrefs are issued. I can't see how iPrefs make the common stock go up. Shareholders now don't deserve Apple's future earnings if they sell. Apple needs to push more for the tax holiday. They are investing in US jobs, two new campuses, green data centers etc.
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post
Apple share price should be around $800 now.

 

 

And it is because of dick head analysts pushing out estimates Apple could never met, making overhyped claims of production issues etc.

 

not because Apple isn't issuing prefers or handling out free iPads to shareholders or $20 a share dividends every quarter 

post #20 of 63
lets worry about what apple is Manufacturing, instead of how much it is making... if I Worry about how much Apple is making I'm going to start Criticizing how much how expensive their products are... But since their products are awesome I don't have to worry about how much they cost...
Apple doesn't have iDIOTS for employees, the only People that want iPREFs are iDIOTS... and David Einhorn wants iPREFS...
post #21 of 63

well, David Einhorn is an iDIOT, because of this iPREF idea, but that would make him a perfect Candidate for the Republican nominee for the next president of United States of America... (my bias against the republican party is showing)

 

oh no... Upon further reading he's a self proclaimed Democrat...

http://touch.valuewalk.com/valuewalk/#!/entry/has-david-einhorn-become-a-rightwing-teabagging-libertarian,5089f5e6d7fc7b567031db32/1

 

he has looks,  ideas, money, all that is needed to be the President... 

But seriously, David Einhorn for President... The US is going to need some serious mojo to get its  financial problems...

 

Of course one problem I wonder if Al Gore likes David Einhorn...  

post #22 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.

I agree that they are performing well, however, they are now a much bigger company now and their growth rate is slower.  They can compensate for that by offering more dividend.

post #23 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

 

Why? Incentives to do what? Not sell their shares? You'd think running an insanely profitable company would do that.

 

     Running a great public company means providing value to share holders.  As growth rate slows, more dividend is needed especially when the company is making a lot of money.

 

 

Why? Because you want it to be? Not up to you. If you're not satisfied with a stock's gains, the standard protocol, as I recall, is to sell it.

 

     No, because Apple can make it so by offering more dividend or growing faster.  If the company is making a lot of money and keeping it all to itself,  then as the company's growth rate slows, investors lose interest.

 

 

Do they not? Say you and what forensic accountants? You sound like a poor person who says the affluent don't "need" their money and should share some.

 

     Not exactly.  When you invest in a public company and the company uses your investment to make more money, you are not asking for charity when you ask for dividend as the company's growth slows.

 

 

"Throw us a bone"? I like the begging, drooling dog visual. Except the dog is intellectually honest about it.

     

     Again, it's not begging because as a share holder you own part of the company and you should have a say.  Apple understands that and wants to give the share holders voting power.

 

 

Bottom line, it is Apple's responsibility make money for all it's share holders.  It is Apple's responsibility to understand how the market operates and safely position itself to shine.  A company that makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself is not attractive to investors.

post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.

Yes it is.  Again, if a company makes great products and makes a lot of money but keeps all the money to itself while its growth is slowing, then it is not attractive to investors.  Also, your investors are very often your clients and partners.  If you drive your investors away, they will invest else where and eventually buy their products elsewhere.

 

I bet Apple increases dividends soon.

 

Time will tell.

post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Apples board should just send a clear message to the Street.

We are not going to be pushed around by you period

If you don't like the way we run the company then sell.

 

Apple doesn't need this bs - constantly having to defend itself from attacks in court or through the media. That's the future right there - we have only a small taste of what will come.

Wall St doesn't like us - bfd. Then sell.

 

I suspect though the board will want to appear to be conciliatory to all shareholders and the above will not happen. But how to appease the voracious and conniving amongst them ? Doesn't seem to be any answer to that - I don't like Einhorn or his tactics but he has certainly brought attention to an issue that was bound to rear it's head sooner or later.

 

Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.

Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.

Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. 

Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.  

Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover.  Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.

 

They probably will.

 

Time will tell.

post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. 

Some folks
 who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.  
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover.  Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.

They probably will.

Time will tell.
I'm long on Apple since 2005. I haven't demanded a dividend and I doubt a higher dividend would prevent the slide. False rumors and unrealistic guesses caused the slide.
post #27 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I'm long on Apple since 2005. I haven't demanded a dividend and I doubt a higher dividend would prevent the slide. False rumors and unrealistic guesses caused the slide.

Exactly.

As a shareholder, you are entitled to about 1 one billionth of Apple - everything it owns, including cash, profits, IP, and so on - for each share that you hold. Distributing cash doesn't do anything to the true value of your holdings. You simply transferred it from one pocket to another (except that you have to pay taxes on the transfer, so you're actually worse off).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.
Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.
Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. 

Some folks
 who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.  
Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover.  Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.

They probably will.

Time will tell.

Shareholders are only hurting if they sell. If you're holding the stock, the change in value doesn't affect you in any significant way.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

 

Well, the Apple Board works for the share holders and the fact is that the stock is down about $250, so there is no doubt, people have sold.

Some believe this could have been prevented it by keeping the carrot stick in front of the investors.

Can't blame Einhorn for being greedy, he has huge responsibilities for a lot of money and is well paid to be greedy. 

Some folks who are complaining *are* huge Apple share holders, so they have a say.  

Some share holders are hurting right now and are hoping to recover.  Based on what Apple does, they may or may not recover.

 

They probably will.

 

Time will tell.

I agree.

If you take a long term view and accept the facts that the fundamentals look great, the company is exceptionally well run and has just had the best quarter ever - the only cloud on the horizon is how to best manage the money it's making and how to best redistribute some of wealth to shareholders.

 

Thats what all this hoopla is all about.

 

Those shareholders that sold were probably acting prudently - taking profit. Can't blame them for that.

Apple shares are transitioning from something that was providing many multipliers into a steady long term Blue Chip stock. The market is reflecting that.

post #30 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

This was really a clear loser argument for Apple. I think it is time for the general counsel to go, or at least the securities lawyer. Now they have to wait a year (or hold a special shareholder meeting) to split the initiative into three separate shareholder proposals.

 

The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing.  Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes.  As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument.  He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

And? Is it Apple's fault the share price is what it is? Apple just had the most profitable quarter in it's history, and possibly in any company's history. Stock should generally reflect performance. Apple IS doing its job, and PERFORMING. The fact that the stock is so low has to do with other horse-shit that has nothing to do with the metrics of Apple's performance as a company.

I personally think that if you buy shares in a company you already know how they operate before you purchase. If you are not happy with how they operate then you don't buy the shares. No one puts a gun to their head to buy Apple stock. The company is well run and solid. They have no debt and a lot of cash that the spend when they see fit. To buy the stock and then complain that they are not providing enough shareholder value and sue them on top of it is nuts but does seem to be the American way lately. "I'm the victim. I bought the stock of my own free will but I want more in return". Usually a person would sell said stock if it was not performing up to expectations, but such volume would have adverse effects elsewhere as well. I could see complaining if the company was poorly run but not now. Owning Apple stock is not like other companies it seems and Wall Street does not know how to handle it. They do not care much for investors and have not for a long time. However, based on their performance you could argue that their way works and works well.
post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

 

The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing.  Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes.  As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument.  He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.

Yeah - the whole court case thing seems to have been a vehicle to gain publicity so that he could push his scheme squarely in front of the boards faces.

I personally would take that as an attack and a challenge. I doubt the board will see any merit in his wizard scheme. As we know there are plenty here who do see merit in it - and to a certain extent he and they have a point.

That being, how to redistribute wealth in the most equitable manner possible.

The difference being, shareholders only have their position to consider - Apples board has to consider all shareholders and what is best for the company.

 

I fear that this type of attack may become more frequent as the stockpile grows and hinders the company in doing what it does best. Apple has to in someway clearly separate the expectations of the market from affecting its operations.

post #33 of 63
They should buy back this creep's stock. He wants to play the speculation game, not invest in Apple. This public ownership thing is so out of whack. There's just game playing and speculation. Not investment. Long term nothing. All short term. That's why the market crashed. Greed and impatience.
post #34 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

They should buy back this creep's stock. He wants to play the speculation game, not invest in Apple. This public ownership thing is so out of whack. There's just game playing and speculation. Not investment. Long term nothing. All short term. That's why the market crashed. Greed and impatience.

Actually, he's more of a symptom than the problem itself. Apple has far too much institutional ownership and should be encouraging individual investors. Individual investors tend to buy and hold and have a long term horizon. Institutional investors don't mind jumping in and out of a stock with a very short time horizon.

Split the stock, please.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post


DRIP. If Apple doesn't have such a plan, your broker will.

 

Yes! And the day we get broker start running the companies, we are heading in the same direction as we have given politicians to run this country - DRIP down the toilet!

post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

 

The only thing Greenhorn has managed to do is to get the votes separate outside of that he has accomplished nothing.  Apple was in the wrong on a legal technicality and they have complied with the courts wishes.  As far as this idiot getting his wet dream money from apple we will see how the stock holders vote but the sentiment i'm getting is that there not super impressed with Tinhorns argument.  He is just trying to get money back for his funds poor performance this last year, pure and simple trying to cover his backside.

 

Well, Einhorn has huge investments in Apple, wrong or right, he has a say and Apple at least listened.

Apple will probably increase dividends or have a special dividend unless they have some new insanely great products that will make them grow at the fast rate that they use to grow.

post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Yes! And the day we get broker start running the companies, we are heading in the same direction as we have given politicians to run this country - DRIP down the toilet!

Ummmm...... look up 'DRIP' wrt stock ownership. It has nothing to do with brokers running the companies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 63
I'm not sure what I think about Einhorn's proposal, but it could potentially be a good thing, as long as there isn't some aspect that could be exploited. I'm a little unclear on the details though, such as value of iPrefs if Apple were liquidated or sold to another company in the future (theoretically of course).

In general, it does add value to use capital efficiently. Right now, Apple isn't using much of their capital at all (essentially). If they see a potential need for it that cash flows won't cover, then I agree they should keep it. Otherwise, investors must account for the risk of them doing something dumb with it. Which I agree, is not likely at all, besides doing nothing with it and losing value to inflation. However, with such a large market cap, many investors have sizable positions in it, and so are probably cautious about having so many eggs in one basket (AAPL).

Using cash for buybacks or dividends would reduce investors' capital at risk, which would likely help its multiple grow. Personally, I would prefer a large buyback if there are no drawbacks I am not aware of. Makes the most sense while shares are so undervalued right now.
post #39 of 63
Oh, one more thing I'm considering but not sure of. I have read that a large problem AAPL has right now is that it has fallen out of favor with aggressive growth investors as its growth has slowed, yet is not stable and boring enough for true value investors. Einhorn's proposal MAY help bring in value investors via the prefs, essentially raising demand for AAPL (aggregate of common and prefs), which could help raise the value compared to not doing the prefs. I'm not an expert though, so I'm skeptical that I have the full picture.
post #40 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrob View Post

I'm not sure what I think about Einhorn's proposal, but it could potentially be a good thing, as long as there isn't some aspect that could be exploited. I'm a little unclear on the details though, such as value of iPrefs if Apple were liquidated or sold to another company in the future (theoretically of course).

In general, it does add value to use capital efficiently. .

Wrong. It doesn't really add anything. Apple can increase dividends to whatever level they want even without Einhorn's proposal. Heck, Apple can even borrow money to pay dividends if they wish without issuing preferred stock (even though that's a ridiculous idea). It doesn't free up one penny of value.

Einhorn's proposal adds nothing - except a way to take advantage of uninformed investors.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls 'Prop 2' from upcoming proxy vote, says disappointed with court decision