Court unseals documents in GT Advanced case, Apple says it 'bent over backwards' to help sapphire su

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 62
    sog35 wrote: »

    It's kind of sad, they got the money and you got a new job, full time negative publicity agent. Save yourself the uncer an take a page from Apples book, be classy about and let the process happen.
  • Reply 42 of 62
    slurpy wrote: »
    Stop being an ass. And stop capitalizing every second word in your posts. Believe it or not, it doesn't enhance your arguments. Just makes you look childish, impetuous, and lacking rationality and reason. 

    Ad hominem/grammar-syntax-forum etiquette police doesn't negate his argument at all. All caps may be annoying to you, but he happens to be correct in what he is saying.

    Back on topic, It's bizarre for GTAT to allege this was an unfair deal for GTAT when a) GTAT executives and their lawyers agreed to the damn thing and b) looks like APPLE may lose a ton of money on this investment.
  • Reply 43 of 62
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Can you kindly STFU with the STFUs? It's juvenile, counter productive, and I have yet to see someone STFU after being told to STFU. Grow up already.

    STFU with the STFU about the STFU. lol
  • Reply 44 of 62
    I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer to this. If public company A is doing major business with company B, and knows a material fact about that business, what onus is there on company A to disclose this?

    To state it bluntly, if *Apple* knew that the GTAT CEO was painting a falsely-bright picture in SEC filings and statements to the press, and Apple only knew this because there were major problems with their agreement with corresponding major financial implications, does Apple also have an obligation to speak up?

    I
  • Reply 45 of 62
    Slurpy wrote: "A shitload of things can happen in 6 whole weeks"

    .... Any one of those "shitload of things" need to be disclosed immediately and certainly before the vesting date of stock-based compensation. The directors must immediately make known any material change in circumstances. I cannot think of a single historical example that would imply the timing of events in this case would be "ok". Yes it is obvious a shitload of shitty things happened to GTAT - we totally agree there. Problem is no disclosure was made about them and statements made painted an exact opposite picture. Can you think of a previous case in Apple's history that is even remotely like this?
  • Reply 46 of 62
    In case anybody wants more information about GTA's side of the argument that is more than a 1 paragraph argument you can read it here:

    http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11/apple-to-gt-advanced-put-on-your-big-boy-pants-and-accept-the-agreement/

    I know this is an Apple site but one sided reporting is not good reporting. That's just pandering to fanboys.
  • Reply 47 of 62
    gatorguy wrote: »
    From page 10, Apple to GT, "Put on your big boy pants and sign the contract" :lol:
    I didn't realize the coerciocn was so heavy-handed! Those bastards!
  • Reply 48 of 62
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

     



    I appreciate you posting that but it backs up what I've been saying. That's not proof. That's merely your hypothesis stated as proof.



    Oh good grief. You and your nonsense are the argument for downvoting. Since I can't give you any real ones, I give you infinity virtual downvotes.

  • Reply 49 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,286member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I agree with this 100%

    Crap happens in business. I understand that. But the main point is the CEO failed to disclose the true condition of the company until they went bankrupt.

    Do you think Apple was blindsided, having no idea what the financial condition of GT was? Reading over the affidavit it appears Apple was for all intents largely in control of and constantly monitoring GT's business. Would you agree?
  • Reply 50 of 62
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    frac wrote: »

    Did you pay her 5¢? :lol:400
    l

    Ha...you got me. :D
    Seems everywhere you walk these days...the ice is thin on top of irony soup.
  • Reply 51 of 62
    frac wrote: »
    Just spoke with my daughter who is a legal for a group of tourism companies and she thinks the fact that Apple does not state in its filing, anything about receiving reassurance(s) from GTAT regarding performance and progress - is telling. Also that Apple comes across as being just a tad 'too' helpful. :rolleyes:
    Then again we haven't read everything yet.
    Just sayin'.

    Astute words.

    I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The impression I get is also that GT are protesting too much at the arduousness of their contract, but that Apple is playing the shocked and surprised innocent party a little too much.

    I think they are probably both to blame to some extent. The devil is in the details.
  • Reply 52 of 62
    Astute words.

    I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The impression I get is also that GT are protesting too much at the arduousness of their contract, but that Apple is playing the shocked and surprised innocent party a little too much.

    I think they are probably both to blame to some extent. The devil is in the details.

    It's possible that both companies were negligent and had big blind spots when this deal was made. GTA may have over promised and Apple may have been too pleased about wringing every concession out of GTA without considering they may have been throwing a Hail Mary pass without realizing the massive downside for failure to perform. Having said that, I blame GTA for signing the agreement. THEY are ultimately responsible for their failures.
  • Reply 53 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Heres my proof for the LAST TIME:

     

    On August 26th the CEO said in a business update:

     

    "Solid balance sheet with proven track record of productively deploying capital"



    "Newly expanded sapphire materials business with Apple is expected to add recurring revenue base to business"



     




     


    The August 26 presentation reiterated some financial data from the Q2 earnings report, such as its $333 million cash balance, and emphasizing GTAT's "strong balance sheet." However, the presentation (page 14) completely misstates GTAT's debt as of Q2. By the end of Q2 GTAT had already received the lion's share of Apple's prepayments, $543 million of the promised $578 million, and its total debt including the prepayment obligation had swollen to $644.8 million, not the $294 million shown in the presentation.


     


    Then 6 weeks later they go BANKRUPT without any warning to investors.


     


    if you don't think that is FRAUD than you are a simpleton clown.


     






    Sadly having you on ignore doesn't ignore you when others quote you. First, as SolipsismY pointed out, that is not proof but rather your stated opinion. For being someone who thinks themselves the uber elite investor you clearly read the bullet points of the presentation you linked and called it a day. There were plenty of red flags in that presentation that you either did not bother to read or ignored when coming up with your fantasy of accusations. Your quotes from the presentation still don't implicate that they were lying to investors. Maybe you should have read the whole presentation including those nice big walls of text at the bottom that include the following guidance.

     




    "These forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors , many of which are outside the Company's control, which could cause actual events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. These factors may include the possibility that the Company is unable to recognize revenue on con tracts in its order backlog (or orders that have been booked), may not recognize any benefits from its arrangement with Apple or receive future installments of the prepayment amount, anticipated recurring revenue opportunities may not be realized (or may not generate meaningful revenue or any revenue at all), and that any technology under development by the Company may not achieve market acceptance or result in meaningful revenue for the Company. Although the Company's backlog is based on signed purchase orders or other written contractual commitments in effect as of March 29, 2014 we can not guarantee that our bookings or order backlog or our arrangement with Apple will result in actual revenue in the originally anticipated period or at all, which could reduce our revenue, profitability and liquidity. Other factors that may cause actual events to differ materially from those expressed or implied byour forward-looking statements include the Company's ability to transition its business to being a sapphire material and equipment provider; Apple purchasing sufficient quantities under its arrangements with the Company; the Company complying with the provisions of its arrangements with Apple;..."




     

    "We define “non-GAAP gross profit” as GAAP gross profit excluding share-based compensation expense, the write-down of inventory, vendor advances and PO cancellation fees, the accelerated depreciation for early retirement of fixed assets and sapphire production ramp up costs. We consider non- GAAP gross profit to be an important indicator of our operational strength and performance of our business because it eliminates the effects of events that are not part of the Company's core operations.

     

    The non-GAAP forward-looking guidance we provide in this presentation excludes certain items such as: possible restructuring-related expenses, possible acquisition-related expenses, amortization of Intangibles, tax-related adjustments, possible impairment of goodwill and certain other charges. Because the amount of these items is not fully known to us at this time, we are unable to provide guidance for, or a reconciliation to, the most directly comparable GAAP forward looking financial measures. The impact of these excluded items may cause the estimated non-GAAP financial measures to differ materially from the comparable GAAP financial measures."

     

    As most of the people who told you to calm down have pointed out, correlation is not equal to causation. The appearance of impropriety does not equate to criminal fraud, especially when that appearance is clearly based on incomplete information.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 54 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

     

     For being someone who thinks themselves the uber elite investor...

     

    -PopinFRESH


     

    Not forgetting, of course, that Mr. Uber Elite Investor burned himself by investing in GTAT, an unproven junior company whose only real claim to fame was a contract with Apple.

  • Reply 55 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    Yes and i made 55% return on Apple this year.



    If an investor never lost big on a specific stock than he taking too few risks to make enough to out perform the market

     

    Keep telling yourself that. lol!

  • Reply 56 of 62
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,376member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Do you think Apple was blindsided, having no idea what the financial condition of GT was? Reading over the affidavit it appears Apple was for all intents largely in control of and constantly monitoring GT's business. Would you agree?

    Blindsided by the filing for bankruptcy, not by GTA's financial condition. They did, after all, work with GTA to renegotiate the contract, but ultimately, GTA did not find that it would work/help them.

     

    That's the context that you left out in your question.

  • Reply 57 of 62

    The question many people are asking is why GTAT is fighting this whole action so strongly? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are a major company that Motley Fool has been promoting since the deal was signed,

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/11/10/meet-the-newest-apple-supplier-play/3478053/

     

    Even now, just go over to the Motley Fool site - they are doing everything they can to prop up the stock and hoodwink other investors into 

     

    http://www.fool.com/quote/nasdaqoth/gt-advanced-technologies-inc/gtatq/content

     

    although they conveniently have killed the archive of articles they wrote when they were trying to promote GTAT.

  • Reply 58 of 62
    elehcdn wrote: »
    The question many people are asking is why GTAT is fighting this whole action so strongly? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are a major company that Motley Fool has been promoting since the deal was signed,
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/11/10/meet-the-newest-apple-supplier-play/3478053/

    Even now, just go over to the Motley Fool site - they are doing everything they can to prop up the stock and hoodwink other investors into 

    http://www.fool.com/quote/nasdaqoth/gt-advanced-technologies-inc/gtatq/content

    although they conveniently have killed the archive of articles they wrote when they were trying to promote GTAT.

    Not yet mentioned in any discussion of this matter...the IRS could potentially classify all of the GT employees as Apple employees due to Apple's crossing the line, in my opinion, with regard to their funding, their micromanaging and their being on site and controlling the actions of the employees. All of these things in combination may have violated the considerable "distance" required by the IRS to avoid having independent contractors be classified as employees of Apple under the law.
  • Reply 59 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Not yet mentioned in any discussion of this matter...the IRS could potentially classify all of the GT employees as Apple employees due to Apple's crossing the line, in my opinion, with regard to their funding, their micromanaging and their being on site and controlling the actions of the employees. All of these things in combination may have violated the considerable "distance" required by the IRS to avoid having independent contractors be classified as employees of Apple under the law.



    That would be a stretch, but I guess not impossible. But only if they were "independent contractors" to start with. On the other hand, if they were actual employees of GTAT then - no way. You could argue that GTAT was not independent (I wouldn't) but not that the employees were functionally employees of another company - by virtue of the "independent contractor" rules.

  • Reply 60 of 62

    Apple says 

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    Yes and i made 55% return on Apple this year.



    If an investor never lost big on a specific stock than he taking too few risks to make enough to out perform the market

     

    Did Sog35 get banned for this post?

Sign In or Register to comment.