Steve's $1 salary gives him a bit of wiggle room on a lot of this... but it is wrong none the less.
Yes, so let them fine Steve 10 year's of his Apple salary, all of it to go to these guys brining the suit and move on can we? I want to see my AAPL stock back above $200 ASAP and we all know we need SJ for that.
Not quite so. The law has to take its course. And pension funds cannot excuse ex ante behavior with ex post outcomes (e.g., he never exercised the options, the stock went up anyway, etc). The whole point is not AAPL or SJ, but the perceived value associated with keeping in line future 'likely offenders'.
As I have said many times before, this will be dragging on for a while. Although this ticks me off as an Apple shareholder, there's no escaping it.
Sarbanes-Oxley was the worst thing to happen recently to US businesses. Laws on the books prior to it already protected investors from fraud. Just because of the abhorrent actions of the executives of one company, Enron, and our sitting president taking a personal interest in matters did this abortion go forth, severely affecting US competitiveness.
I disagree with you (okay, i agree that it's been costly for businesses but good for investors, employees, and anyone who has interest in the company). But as an auditor who's working on his CPA degree, SOX gives me great job security so maybe i'm a bit biased
imo it was needed, even if it did cause many public companies to buy back their stock and go private. The old laws on the books weren't good enough. It wasn't just enron that caused this, but worldcom, pharmor, adelphia, etc.
Simple answer. They want some of that $19+ billion in cash. Nothing about the world of stock traders, investment firms, and pension funds is about the quality, stability, sustainability or future of any company. It's about how much money they can wring out of the company RIGHT NOW. If they can get a few hundred extra million out of Apple that will be just fine with them. And they will dump the stock in a heartbeat if they think they can get more money from somebody else.
So don't take it personally. The pension funds could care less if Apple survives with or without Steve Jobs. They really, really don't care as long as their money is protected. It's vicious circle. A company generally can't raise enough capital unless they go public and sell shares. But once they do that they also usually lose some aspect of control because the stockholders want to see their stocks increase in value and they will do ANYTHING to make that happen. Just look at the Yahoo/Microsoft battle. Yahoo stockholders only care about whether they will get a premium price for their Yahoo stock. They DON'T care about whether this will be good for Yahoo or the industry at large. Another example is that creepy bastard Carl Ichan.
I agree with you 100%. What I can't figure out is why... Say they got a judgment that 105 million has to be paid back to the shareholders. Apple has to take the money out of cash, or let's go further and say that Steve Jobs has to pay it personally. So their share of 105 million will be what? 1 million maybe? But the negative publicity will cost far more even to their own investment. Not to mention the cost and overhead of locating and sending paltry sums of money to a million or so small shareholders. Plus, the board will probably decide to award Steve 200 million in stock a year or so down the road. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that a lawyer is trying to get a huge payment so that he will get his huge percentage. Therefore it won't be good for the pension fund and won't be good for Apple. In fact the only people it will be good for is the lawyers.
Lawyers who did nothing to build this company trying to take money out of it make me a hell of a lot more mad than a person who truly added tremendous value to the company taking money out of it. To me, if a law firm gets huge fees from this, I feel like they are stealing from me, while if Steve Jobs gets money, I feel that he is getting just compensation. Let's be real, if Steve said tomorrow that he wanted a $100 million salary per year or he would leave, Apple would pay it in a heartbeat.
Not quite so. The law has to take its course. And pension funds cannot excuse ex ante behavior with ex post outcomes (e.g., he never exercised the options, the stock went up anyway, etc). The whole point is not AAPL or SJ, but the perceived value associated with keeping in line future 'likely offenders'.
But the law has taken its course and the SEC decided not to press any charges. The issue here is a pension fund claiming damages for a loss, isn't it, and they haven't suffered any loss.
They are looking for a sympathetic Judge to grant them some extra monetary compensation.
Now you know I can just feel the love in this room and it is obvious that we all stand for real ethic standards being maintained, so lets just dip in our pockets and pay the judge whatever it takes to see Steve Jobs right.
It would be so demeaning for Steve to have to pay his own way.
Maybe Fred could be persuaded to come out of retirement and do it for him again?
But the law has taken its course and the SEC decided not to press any charges
...yet. IANAL, but the SEC has not absolved Jobs or other board members of liability either. And a civil suit need not have the certainty of a criminal suit: "more likely than not" is the threshold for guilt in civil matters, compared to "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal.
Quote:
The issue here is a pension fund claiming damages for a loss, isn't it, and they haven't suffered any loss.
To have a case, the plaintiffs will of course need to show damages. Perhaps the share price fell a bunch due to the SEC investigation and, to stop their losses, the plaintiffs sold at the lower price, or perhaps they had other reason that compelled them to sell at a time when Apple's share price was unduly depressed by the investigation, or perhaps the plaintiffs bought the shares later and feel they have had to pay for the charge correction but didn't reap any of the benefits, or perhaps all of the above.
The latest claim come by way of the Boston Retirement Board, which is seeking to prove the company's directors wasted more than $105 million on the extra value of backdated stock options granted to Jobs, according to FindLaw.com.
The pension fund alleges that it now has specifics to back up its charges, which it reportedly gathered from a records inspection action initiated earlier in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
If ever a company deserved to be sued with a Corporate Oppression lawsuit alleging a massive corporate fraud on the stockholders to the extent of $2 billions awarded over the last 10 and a half years as secretly backdated stock option bonuses to Steve Jobs and his puppet Vice-Presidents, Apple is a prime candidate.
Massive corporate frauds will no longer go unpunished, Al Gore's self-serving work notwithstanding. If a US Vice-President has no better judgment than use his name to cover a $2 billion corporate fraud, he deserves to be punished by law as well. Sorry Al, but if you don't know what you do, you should stay home and bake cookies.
To have a case, the plaintiffs will of course need to show damages. Perhaps the share price fell a bunch due to the SEC investigation and, to stop their losses, the plaintiffs sold at the lower price, or perhaps they had other reason that compelled them to sell at a time when Apple's share price was unduly depressed by the investigation, or perhaps the plaintiffs bought the shares later and feel they have had to pay for the charge correction but didn't reap any of the benefits, or perhaps all of the above.
So, if an analyst makes a pessimistic prediction about AAPL and the stock price falls, I sell my shares at a loss, then it turns out the analyst was wrong and the price picks up again afterwards, can I sue the analyst for my losses?
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and other members of the company's leadership have been summonsed
I can't blame you for using something you didn't create, but God I hate lawyers. How the hell we could end up being saddled with a bullshit concoction like "summonsed" as a short for "issued a summons", when "summoned" would do just fine (and makes the speaker sound much less like an illiterate twit), is beyond me.
I can't blame you for using something you didn't create, but God I hate lawyers. How the hell we could end up being saddled with a bullshit concoction like "summonsed" as a short for "issued a summons", when "summoned" would do just fine (and makes the speaker sound much less like an illiterate twit), is beyond me.
Summon is a verb, while a summons is a noun. While it may not be the smoothest word off mother tongue, it is correct. Using summoned for summonsed would make you sound like an "illiterate twit".
Summon is a verb, while a summons is a noun. While it may not be the smoothest word off mother tongue, it is correct. Using summoned for summonsed would make you sound like an "illiterate twit".
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It's as if a verb was "noun-ed", and then "re-verbed".
It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
So, if an analyst makes a pessimistic prediction about AAPL and the stock price falls, I sell my shares at a loss, then it turns out the analyst was wrong and the price picks up again afterwards, can I sue the analyst for my losses?
I'm almost certain you can file a lawsuit, I doubt you'd get anything out of it.
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
The internets say it's a transitive verb.
It probably was created that way, but since all words and associated definitions are made up you only have two choices, either go with the flow or go your own route and hope enough people start using it that it becomes canon.
Wasted 150 millions, thats like .00001 cents on the value of the stock then multiply it times 15 to really punish them for their dare and round it up to 1 cent per share affected. So likely the fund will be refunded 5 million pennies.
The latest claim come by way of the Boston Retirement Board, which is seeking to prove the company's directors wasted more than $105 million on the extra value of backdated stock options granted to Jobs, according to FindLaw.com.
Could it be that Boston is still pissed off at Apple (Jobs) for moving Apple Mac World Convention out of that city?
On another note- The Boston Retirement Board aught to show up at the next Apple Board meeting (every board meeting for that matter) and give foot massages to all the board members. If Apple board members hadn't "back dated" Steve's option package", then Steve probablly wouldn't had given it up. In which case his option package would be worth well over 3 BILLIONS dollars today (even after deducting the 105 Million dollars of "extra value".). The 750 Million dollars Steve got in exchange for voluntarily giving up his option package, will probablly go down as the century's worst investment decision ever made. No wonder Steve is only worth 1 Dollar a year.
Comments
Steve's $1 salary gives him a bit of wiggle room on a lot of this... but it is wrong none the less.
Yes, so let them fine Steve 10 year's of his Apple salary, all of it to go to these guys brining the suit and move on can we?
These people are ridiculous.
Not quite so. The law has to take its course. And pension funds cannot excuse ex ante behavior with ex post outcomes (e.g., he never exercised the options, the stock went up anyway, etc). The whole point is not AAPL or SJ, but the perceived value associated with keeping in line future 'likely offenders'.
As I have said many times before, this will be dragging on for a while. Although this ticks me off as an Apple shareholder, there's no escaping it.
Sarbanes-Oxley was the worst thing to happen recently to US businesses. Laws on the books prior to it already protected investors from fraud. Just because of the abhorrent actions of the executives of one company, Enron, and our sitting president taking a personal interest in matters did this abortion go forth, severely affecting US competitiveness.
I disagree with you (okay, i agree that it's been costly for businesses but good for investors, employees, and anyone who has interest in the company). But as an auditor who's working on his CPA degree, SOX gives me great job security so maybe i'm a bit biased
imo it was needed, even if it did cause many public companies to buy back their stock and go private. The old laws on the books weren't good enough. It wasn't just enron that caused this, but worldcom, pharmor, adelphia, etc.
Simple answer. They want some of that $19+ billion in cash. Nothing about the world of stock traders, investment firms, and pension funds is about the quality, stability, sustainability or future of any company. It's about how much money they can wring out of the company RIGHT NOW. If they can get a few hundred extra million out of Apple that will be just fine with them. And they will dump the stock in a heartbeat if they think they can get more money from somebody else.
So don't take it personally. The pension funds could care less if Apple survives with or without Steve Jobs. They really, really don't care as long as their money is protected. It's vicious circle. A company generally can't raise enough capital unless they go public and sell shares. But once they do that they also usually lose some aspect of control because the stockholders want to see their stocks increase in value and they will do ANYTHING to make that happen. Just look at the Yahoo/Microsoft battle. Yahoo stockholders only care about whether they will get a premium price for their Yahoo stock. They DON'T care about whether this will be good for Yahoo or the industry at large. Another example is that creepy bastard Carl Ichan.
I agree with you 100%. What I can't figure out is why... Say they got a judgment that 105 million has to be paid back to the shareholders. Apple has to take the money out of cash, or let's go further and say that Steve Jobs has to pay it personally. So their share of 105 million will be what? 1 million maybe? But the negative publicity will cost far more even to their own investment. Not to mention the cost and overhead of locating and sending paltry sums of money to a million or so small shareholders. Plus, the board will probably decide to award Steve 200 million in stock a year or so down the road. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that a lawyer is trying to get a huge payment so that he will get his huge percentage. Therefore it won't be good for the pension fund and won't be good for Apple. In fact the only people it will be good for is the lawyers.
Lawyers who did nothing to build this company trying to take money out of it make me a hell of a lot more mad than a person who truly added tremendous value to the company taking money out of it. To me, if a law firm gets huge fees from this, I feel like they are stealing from me, while if Steve Jobs gets money, I feel that he is getting just compensation. Let's be real, if Steve said tomorrow that he wanted a $100 million salary per year or he would leave, Apple would pay it in a heartbeat.
As has already been said, the company wasn't "damaged." The ROI we've all received is > 5 times the investment.
They are looking for a sympathetic Judge to grant them some extra monetary compensation.
It's not going to happen.
Not quite so. The law has to take its course. And pension funds cannot excuse ex ante behavior with ex post outcomes (e.g., he never exercised the options, the stock went up anyway, etc). The whole point is not AAPL or SJ, but the perceived value associated with keeping in line future 'likely offenders'.
But the law has taken its course and the SEC decided not to press any charges. The issue here is a pension fund claiming damages for a loss, isn't it, and they haven't suffered any loss.
They are looking for a sympathetic Judge to grant them some extra monetary compensation.
Now you know I can just feel the love in this room and it is obvious that we all stand for real ethic standards being maintained, so lets just dip in our pockets and pay the judge whatever it takes to see Steve Jobs right.
It would be so demeaning for Steve to have to pay his own way.
Maybe Fred could be persuaded to come out of retirement and do it for him again?
But the law has taken its course and the SEC decided not to press any charges
...yet. IANAL, but the SEC has not absolved Jobs or other board members of liability either. And a civil suit need not have the certainty of a criminal suit: "more likely than not" is the threshold for guilt in civil matters, compared to "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal.
The issue here is a pension fund claiming damages for a loss, isn't it, and they haven't suffered any loss.
To have a case, the plaintiffs will of course need to show damages. Perhaps the share price fell a bunch due to the SEC investigation and, to stop their losses, the plaintiffs sold at the lower price, or perhaps they had other reason that compelled them to sell at a time when Apple's share price was unduly depressed by the investigation, or perhaps the plaintiffs bought the shares later and feel they have had to pay for the charge correction but didn't reap any of the benefits, or perhaps all of the above.
The latest claim come by way of the Boston Retirement Board, which is seeking to prove the company's directors wasted more than $105 million on the extra value of backdated stock options granted to Jobs, according to FindLaw.com.
The pension fund alleges that it now has specifics to back up its charges, which it reportedly gathered from a records inspection action initiated earlier in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
If ever a company deserved to be sued with a Corporate Oppression lawsuit alleging a massive corporate fraud on the stockholders to the extent of $2 billions awarded over the last 10 and a half years as secretly backdated stock option bonuses to Steve Jobs and his puppet Vice-Presidents, Apple is a prime candidate.
Massive corporate frauds will no longer go unpunished, Al Gore's self-serving work notwithstanding. If a US Vice-President has no better judgment than use his name to cover a $2 billion corporate fraud, he deserves to be punished by law as well. Sorry Al, but if you don't know what you do, you should stay home and bake cookies.
To have a case, the plaintiffs will of course need to show damages. Perhaps the share price fell a bunch due to the SEC investigation and, to stop their losses, the plaintiffs sold at the lower price, or perhaps they had other reason that compelled them to sell at a time when Apple's share price was unduly depressed by the investigation, or perhaps the plaintiffs bought the shares later and feel they have had to pay for the charge correction but didn't reap any of the benefits, or perhaps all of the above.
So, if an analyst makes a pessimistic prediction about AAPL and the stock price falls, I sell my shares at a loss, then it turns out the analyst was wrong and the price picks up again afterwards, can I sue the analyst for my losses?
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and other members of the company's leadership have been summonsed
I can't blame you for using something you didn't create, but God I hate lawyers. How the hell we could end up being saddled with a bullshit concoction like "summonsed" as a short for "issued a summons", when "summoned" would do just fine (and makes the speaker sound much less like an illiterate twit), is beyond me.
I can't blame you for using something you didn't create, but God I hate lawyers. How the hell we could end up being saddled with a bullshit concoction like "summonsed" as a short for "issued a summons", when "summoned" would do just fine (and makes the speaker sound much less like an illiterate twit), is beyond me.
Summon is a verb, while a summons is a noun. While it may not be the smoothest word off mother tongue, it is correct. Using summoned for summonsed would make you sound like an "illiterate twit".
Summon is a verb, while a summons is a noun. While it may not be the smoothest word off mother tongue, it is correct. Using summoned for summonsed would make you sound like an "illiterate twit".
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It's as if a verb was "noun-ed", and then "re-verbed".
It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
So, if an analyst makes a pessimistic prediction about AAPL and the stock price falls, I sell my shares at a loss, then it turns out the analyst was wrong and the price picks up again afterwards, can I sue the analyst for my losses?
I'm almost certain you can file a lawsuit, I doubt you'd get anything out of it.
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
The internets say it's a transitive verb.
Perks is theft by employers.
The latest claim come by way of the Boston Retirement Board, which is seeking to prove the company's directors wasted more than $105 million on the extra value of backdated stock options granted to Jobs, according to FindLaw.com.
Could it be that Boston is still pissed off at Apple (Jobs) for moving Apple Mac World Convention out of that city?
On another note- The Boston Retirement Board aught to show up at the next Apple Board meeting (every board meeting for that matter) and give foot massages to all the board members. If Apple board members hadn't "back dated" Steve's option package", then Steve probablly wouldn't had given it up. In which case his option package would be worth well over 3 BILLIONS dollars today (even after deducting the 105 Million dollars of "extra value".). The 750 Million dollars Steve got in exchange for voluntarily giving up his option package, will probablly go down as the century's worst investment decision ever made. No wonder Steve is only worth 1 Dollar a year.