Steve Jobs subpoenaed by SEC for deposition - report

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to give a deposition in a backdating lawsuit against the company's former general counsel, Bloomberg is reporting.



The subpoena isn't part of an SEC investigation, people familiar with the matter say, but rather seeks Jobs's testimony in the Commission's lawsuit against Nancy Heinen, who was sued April 24 for allegedly backdating stock-option grants to Jobs and other members of Apple's executive team.



Heinen is being targeted primarily for her involvement in a December 2001 grant of 7.5 million stock options to Jobs that was backdated to October. The SEC is seeking to prove that Heinen's actions deceived investors because the true cost of the options were hidden by shifting the grant date from Dec. 18, when the stock was $21.01 a share, to Oct. 19, when it stood at $18.30.



The former top Apple legal aid is also charged with self-dealing on a grant to herself, as well as the fabrication of meeting minutes to show the Apple Board of Directors approved the aforementioned grant to Jobs on Oct. 19, 2001, when in fact no such meeting had taken place. In total, Heinen and former Apple chief financial officer Fred Anderson have been accused by the SEC of backdating more than $20 million in stock options in 2001 for Jobs, themselves and other executives.



According to a document filed in a California court last month, Heinen's lawyers are seeking to depose 45 people, including the recipients of the grants. She has denied the charges against her.



Anderson, who like Heinen resigned from his post at Apple ahead of the formal SEC crackdown, settled with the Commission in April. As part of the deal, he agreed to a fine of $150,000 and to repay about $3.5 million in disgorgement of profit, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.



In a statement that followed his settlement with the SEC, Anderson largely shifted the blame for his involvement in a backdated 2001 Executive Team grant back to Jobs. He claimed that Jobs came to him in late January of 2001 and informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant, when in fact no approval had been granted.



Nevertheless, Jobs appears to have been cleared of any wrongdoing by the SEC. This month's subpoena, however, signifies the second time he's been called upon for questioning by federal investigators regarding his company's backdating scandal. In January, he arrived at the San Francisco federal building for an interview with the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission flanked by lawyers, though the subject of the meeting was never made public.



At issue for authorities at the time were over 6,400 additional company stock option grants which were similarly misdated between the years of 1997 and 2002. After cooperating with the SEC, Apple said in December that it would take an $84 million charge for the bulk of the fortuitously granted options, but maintained that its own internal investigation into the matter turned up no wrongdoing by Jobs or any other member of its current management team.



In April, the SEC issued an official statement that effectively wiped the slate clean for Apple as an organization and its problematic stock option grants, saying that the company's eagerness to make amends left little reason to consider punishment.



"Apple's cooperation consisted of, among other things, prompt self-reporting, an independent internal investigation, the sharing of the results of that investigation with the government, and the implementation of new controls designed to prevent the recurrence of fraudulent conduct," the release said.



Following that release, it was believed that the SEC's only remaining beef was with Heinen.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Shit! What a situation for SJ to be put in.
  • Reply 2 of 42
    Uh-oh.



    (Add: A court did recently -- and if I am not mistaken, for the first time -- rule that options backdating was illegal).
  • Reply 3 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Developing...



    Is Matt Drudge writing for AI now?
  • Reply 4 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Uh-oh.



    (Add: A court did recently -- and if I am not mistaken, for the first time -- rule that options backdating was illegal).



    SJ needs to use the 'Reagan' defense ...



    addendum: LOL, I just realized that is an ambiguous suggestion I made, it could mean 'Out spend them' or "I do not recall".. I meant the latter.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    Guys, it's a deposition. This is in regards to a deposition against Nancy Heinen - not a new investigation on Steve Jobs. People are finally understanding this and shares of AAPL have turned back positive for the day as I write.
  • Reply 6 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wscapital View Post


    Guys, it's a deposition. This is in regards to a deposition against Nancy Heinen - not a new investigation on Steve Jobs. People are finally understanding this and shares of AAPL have turned back positive for the day as I write.



    Hence my comment. He will be under oath. He has to be very careful not to say anything in his 'deposition' that can be used against him later.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    His army of lawyers is already typing up what he'll be saying. He'll be fine, my friends
  • Reply 8 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wscapital View Post


    His army of lawyers is already typing up what he'll be saying. He'll be fine, my friends



    lol, I know and I was only kidding about the Reagan defense ...
  • Reply 9 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    lol, I know and I was only kidding about the Reagan defense ...



    What about the Clinton defence..?

    Sorry
  • Reply 10 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wscapital View Post


    His army of lawyers is already typing up what he'll be saying. He'll be fine, my friends



    digitalclips is right: he has to be VERY careful.



    Alberto Gonzales had an army of lawyers too..... an army of lawyers is not necessarily a foolproof wall, esp. when a person has a tendency to be headstrong! \
  • Reply 11 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lostkiwi View Post


    What about the Clinton defence..?

    Sorry



    Oh! That joke sucks!
  • Reply 12 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Oh! That joke sucks!









    (not meant to be a cigar...eeewww...)
  • Reply 13 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Oh! That joke sucks!



    Guilty as charged
  • Reply 14 of 42
    panupanu Posts: 135member
    Some years I was in an automobile accident with spectacular damage, and the other party was ticketed. I came home one day and found a subpoena from the sherrif nailed to my front door! I was shaking as hard as Los Angeles during a 8.0 quake as I took that thing down. It said that the other person had contested the ticket in traffic court, so the case was continued and I was subpoenaed as a witness. They needed my testimony. So I went and testified. My testimony? "She ran a yield sign." The judge said to the policeman, "Was there a yield sign?" The police officer said, "Yes." The judge said to the defendant, "Since you lost your car, I will only fine you $35." The defendant burst out into rage, disparaging my character. I looked at the judge. He smiled and said, "This happens all the time."



    It's scary getting a subpoena, but Steve Jobs was not even subpoenaed to go to court. He only had to give a deposition. He's just a witness. He just has to say the equivalent of "she ran a yield sign."



    Ho-hum, I'm going back to sleep. Er, work.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    digitalclips is right: he has to be VERY careful.



    Alberto Gonzales had an army of lawyers too..... an army of lawyers is not necessarily a foolproof wall, esp. when a person has a tendency to be headstrong! \



    Ok then "I don't recall" maybe the best strategy after all. When was Steve sick ?
  • Reply 16 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Panu View Post


    Some years I was in an automobile accident with spectacular damage, and the other party was ticketed. I came home one day and found a subpoena from the sherrif nailed to my front door! I was shaking as hard as Los Angeles during a 8.0 quake as I took that thing down. It said that the other person had contested the ticket in traffic court, so the case was continued and I was subpoenaed as a witness. They needed my testimony. So I went and testified. My testimony? "She ran a yield sign." The judge said to the policeman, "Was there a yield sign?" The police officer said, "Yes." The judge said to the defendant, "Since you lost your car, I will only fine you $35." The defendant burst out into rage, disparaging my character. I looked at the judge. He smiled and said, "This happens all the time."



    It's scary getting a subpoena, but Steve Jobs was not even subpoenaed to go to court. He only had to give a deposition. He's just a witness. He just has to say the equivalent of "she ran a yield sign."



    Ho-hum, I'm going back to sleep. Er, work.



    So far many comments here have been tongue in cheek but I think you are over simplifying. The SEC are not quite the same as traffic court ...
  • Reply 17 of 42
    In agreement with Panu. I'm going to lunch.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wscapital View Post


    In agreement with Panu. I'm going to lunch.



    Well I really hope he is right too Lunch ... mmm good idea.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    panupanu Posts: 135member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    So far many comments here have been tongue in cheek but I think you are over simplifying. The SEC are not quite the same as traffic court ...



    No this is not oversimplifying. It's the same legal system. The issue before the court is Heinen. Jobs is being subpoenaed as a witness, but he doesn't have to make a personal appearance in court. They are allowing him to give his testimony in a written document, which is called a deposition. This means they need his version of the events but neither the defense nor the prosecution wants to ask him any questions.



    The defendant is never allowed to give a deposition.



    Jobs will go to his attorney's office, make his statement about what happened, the legal aide will type it up, he'll sign it, it will be properly notarized and such, and delivered to the court.



    As I said, a big ho-hum.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lostkiwi View Post


    What about the Clinton defence..?

    Sorry



    That was a lame one, and he did commit perjury in doing so. If he'd just admitted it, his opponents would be upset, but they wouldn't have had anything to prosecute.



    The Jobs situation is different enough.
Sign In or Register to comment.