Former CFO Fred Anderson resigns from Apple board

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple Computer on Wednesday said former chief financial officer, Fred Anderson, has resigned from its board of directors, effective immediately.



Anderson's departure was made public in a statement from the iPod maker, in which it reported that a 3-month internal probe into its stock option practices turned up multiple instances of backdating.



The Cupertino, Calif.-based company said a special committee of outside directors discovered 15 dates between 1997 and 2002 in which stock option grants to executives or board members listed dates that precede the approval of those grants.



In a few instances, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs was said to have been aware of the favorable grants, but was unaware of the accounting implications. He also did not benefit from the grants.



"The investigation raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers in connection with the accounting, recording and reporting of stock option grants," Apple said.



Anderson, who served as CFO from 1996 until 2004, informed the company that he believes it is "in Apple?s best interests" that he resign from the board at this time.



Anderson is a managing director and co-founder of Elevation Partners, a private equity firm. He also serves as a director on the boards of both eBay and E.piphany.



Former Apple chief financial officer, Fred Anderson
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    I guess he can afford to be the fall guy on this one, and in return maybe won't be sued by Apple? I'm wondering when/if the feds get involved on this one?
  • Reply 2 of 30
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass


    I guess he can afford to be the fall guy on this one, and in return maybe won't be sued by Apple? I'm wondering when/if the feds get involved on this one?



    My thoughts exactly. Former CFO takes the fall for the back-dated stock options "problem".
  • Reply 3 of 30
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    That CFO, he was such a Fomer. (proofread your titles, eh?)



    EDIT: Thanks for clearing that up
  • Reply 4 of 30
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass


    I guess he can afford to be the fall guy on this one, and in return maybe won't be sued by Apple? I'm wondering when/if the feds get involved on this one?



    I doubt if they ever do, the records will be turned over to the SEC and they will review. If there were big problems, the SEC would have said no need for an independent audit. The SEC is the one to watch here and they appear to be not so caring, my thought is that what Apple did was wrong, but not over the line. The SEC will have the final say though, but currently they are not saying much.
  • Reply 5 of 30
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,396member
    "The investigation raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers in connection with the accounting, recording and reporting of stock option grants," Apple said.
    Who are these two former officers? Any clues?
  • Reply 6 of 30
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
    "The investigation raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers in connection with the accounting, recording and reporting of stock option grants," Apple said.
    Who are these two former officers? Any clues?



    Only two big ones that have laft lately are CTO and CFO, but I'm not sure that means anything. At least as far as the CTO is concerned. The CFO could have resigned bacause this happened on their watch and Steve had specific instructions that nothing like Enron would happen at Apple, if you remember that conference call moment. Could be anybody. I think that CTO left due to other concerns, maybe like Steve doing too much of his job.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    bentonbenton Posts: 161member
    Former Apple General Counsel Nancy Heinen will be next to feel the heat.



    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1147338329872
  • Reply 8 of 30
    ladies and gentleman.........



    APPLEGATE!
  • Reply 9 of 30
    Don't upset the Apple-cart!
  • Reply 10 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,876member
    It's too bad. I like Fred. He was considered to be one of the best CFO's around, and was responsible for helping keep the company on solid financial ground.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich


    Who are these two former officers? Any clues?



    Mr. Andersons website says that he is a former CFO.



    But the world is very small and round. Apple - Anderson - Bono - U2 - iPod - MusicStore - Apple.



    How many stock did Bono have/get?
  • Reply 12 of 30
    How much is this going to affect the stock do you think?
  • Reply 13 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akerman


    How much is this going to affect the stock do you think?



    Depends on how far it goes. Though, so far, it doesn't seem to be too bad.
  • Reply 14 of 30
    If an accountant knowingly does something wrong (and you'd think the CFO would know), the client can sue them. If apple doesn't sue, it points to using the "Formers" to protect the current staff. Problems with former CFOs aren't as bad as with current staff. Interesting that Jobssey admitted he knew and authorized the illegal manuevering. I think every major company likes to step a little bit over the line, and then pretend they didn't know. Is Jobs cooperating to draw as little heat as possible?

    In terms of stock, as this situation expands (more people will be fired or "resign") it'll cause a bit of uncertainty, but the bottom line will come when they finally announce the corrected accounting figures. The fact that they were smudging records means it's possible that the current price is inflated by who knows how much.

    If they're smart, they've understated sales for the past 6-9 months, or however long they've known about the accounting lies, so the suprise of higher than expected earning offsets the negatives...
  • Reply 15 of 30
    I think this is a gross and severe crime. Someone buys options after the stock-price skyrocketed and let's them be predated to a date before they skyrocketed, gaining the profit without any risk.



    Hello? This puts the sense of the whole stockmarket in question, not only that, even making it absurd.



    100 firms are being investigated because of it, and I think Apple will become number 101, and I hope that those who are responsible for the fraud get drawn to court and I hope they will receive hard penalties.



    Nightcrawler
  • Reply 16 of 30
    get used to those bars, fred (pic)
  • Reply 17 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler


    I think this is a gross and severe crime. Someone buys options after the stock-price skyrocketed and let's them be predated to a date before they skyrocketed, gaining the profit without any risk.



    Hello? This puts the sense of the whole stockmarket in question, not only that, even making it absurd.



    100 firms are being investigated because of it, and I think Apple will become number 101, and I hope that those who are responsible for the fraud get drawn to court and I hope they will receive hard penalties.



    Nightcrawler



    Backdating Share options wasn't (or isn't?) illegal. It's only when it is not fully disclosed to the shareholders/factored into the accounts. Companies can give money/or stock to their employees (or who ever they want) period. Would you include Mr Jobs as a possible candidate for your thirsted hard penalties?
  • Reply 18 of 30
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass


    If an accountant knowingly does something wrong (and you'd think the CFO would know), the client can sue them. If apple doesn't sue, it points to using the "Formers" to protect the current staff.



    One problem with your commentary. Apple wasn't Fred's client. He worked for the company. And its rare that any employee, current or former, gets sued by said company on actions they took. And if they did, they be prepared for ALL the dirty laundry to come spilling out. Unless everyone else is clean, you don't start slinging mud.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OfficerDigby


    Backdating Share options wasn't (or isn't?) illegal. It's only when it is not fully disclosed to the shareholders/factored into the accounts. Companies can give money/or stock to their employees (or who ever they want) period. Would you include Mr Jobs as a possible candidate for your thirsted hard penalties?



    Since it wasn't fully disclosed (if it was, there wouldn't be investigations, you know), then what took place was illegal or against SEC rules or whatever you want to call it. Ergo, those responsible should feel the heat on the matter (as it also causes financial harm to investors who both have had their stocks devalued because of the back-dating, and then hurt because of the potential scandal). This is why they're all suing (I know, I know, they're all out for money before anything was proven - oh, wait, Apple just admitted the issue. Time for more suits!).



    Why shouldn't Steve Jobs be subject to the same rules and regs all other people in all other companies would be subject to? Just because he's steve jobs?
  • Reply 19 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler


    I think this is a gross and severe crime. Someone buys options after the stock-price skyrocketed and let's them be predated to a date before they skyrocketed, gaining the profit without any risk.



    Hello? This puts the sense of the whole stockmarket in question, not only that, even making it absurd.



    100 firms are being investigated because of it, and I think Apple will become number 101, and I hope that those who are responsible for the fraud get drawn to court and I hope they will receive hard penalties.



    Nightcrawler



    It would be nice if people made some effort to learn the relevant law before posting.



    This took place between 1997 and 2002. It was not illegal to backdate options until recently. That isn't the problem.



    The problem is how they did it, how they reported it on the companies books, whether they informed stockholders, and how (and whether) they corrected the taxes.



    Oh. One doesn't BUY options. They are given to you.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer


    Since it wasn't fully disclosed (if it was, there wouldn't be investigations, you know), then what took place was illegal or against SEC rules or whatever you want to call it. Ergo, those responsible should feel the heat on the matter (as it also causes financial harm to investors who both have had their stocks devalued because of the back-dating, and then hurt because of the potential scandal). This is why they're all suing (I know, I know, they're all out for money before anything was proven - oh, wait, Apple just admitted the issue. Time for more suits!).



    Why shouldn't Steve Jobs be subject to the same rules and regs all other people in all other companies would be subject to? Just because he's steve jobs?



    So far, the government isn't investigating Apple. They might decide to do so if Apple's findings look as though it rose to a company level criminal act.



    Otherwise they could just investigate the actions of those who participated. The "two employees" mentioned.



    As far as Jobs goes, it could be different.



    As I, and others, have mentioned, backdating was not wrong during that period. If Jobs agreed to the backdating, but left the financial aspect to the Attorney and the CFO, as expected, he would be in the clear, as taking care of the work surrounding the backdating is their job, not the Chairman, or the CEO's.The statement released said that he did not know the implications, and that certainly is believable. If true, he will have no problem.



    The question is: What happened at Pixar?
Sign In or Register to comment.