Apple names Oracle exec new General Counsel

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple said Friday that Daniel Cooperman, general counsel and secretary at Oracle Corporation, will join the company as its new top legal aid reporting directly to Steve Jobs.



Cooperman, who will begin his term on Nov. 1, will become the second individual to assume the role of Apple's general counsel and secretary since long-time legal aid Nancy Heinen departed in May of 2006 amid the company's options backdating fiasco.



"Dan will be an excellent addition to our team and will fit right into Apple's fast paced culture,” said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs. "Dan is a seasoned professional with extensive experience in securities compliance, intellectual property, litigation and corporate governance."



Making way for Cooperman is the departure of Donald J. Rosenberg, who began serving as the Cupertino-based firm's general counsel and secretary several months after Heinen's departure (and ahead of her indictment by the SEC on charges she helped facilitate the company's options backdating mess). Reports at the time suggested that Rosenberg was lured to the company from IBM with the help of an then $18.25 million, 200,000-share options grant.



"We thank Don for his contributions to Apple during the past ten months, and wish him well in his future endeavors," said Jobs.



At Oracle, Cooperman has been responsible for the software maker's legal department, including worldwide legal policies, corporate governance, securities compliance, mergers and acquisitions, commercial licensing, intellectual property, employment law, litigation, patent law and legal support for the firm's various business units.



Cooperman currently serves as chairman of the Board of Directors of the Software & Information Industry Association, the largest trade association in the software industry. He is also a member of the American Bar Association's Committee of Corporate General Counsel and is on the Advisory Council for the Law, Science and Technology Program at Stanford Law School.



Prior to joining Oracle, Cooperman was a partner with the San Francisco-based law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen (now known as Bingham McCutchen), and served as chair of the firm's 65-lawyer Business & Transactions Group and managing partner of the San Jose office.



Cooperman graduated summa cum laude with highest distinction in economics from Dartmouth College in 1972, then attended Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and School of Law, receiving both his M.B.A. and J.D. from Stanford in 1976.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    OMG have Apple never seen Oracle software and support . They are the last company I would want to recruit senior execs from - or maybe it's just the way Oracle support us Brits.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Too bad they didn't hire him sooner. 18 million ain't a bad fee. No wonder he came willingly lol. 200,00 shares is worth 30 million now. If this is what they paid Rosenburg for 9 months work , I wonder what this guy is gonna get and how long he lasts.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    kasperkasper Posts: 941member, administrator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drjjones View Post


    Too bad they didn't hire him sooner. 18 million ain't a bad fee. No wonder he came willingly lol. 200,00 shares is worth 30 million now. If this is what they paid Rosenburg for 9 months work , I wonder what this guy is gonna get and how long he lasts.



    Nah -- there is no word on how much they paid the exec coming from Oracle. It was the soon-to-depart general counsel from IBM that was given the $18M in options (which are now worth $30M....) ....



    Best,



    K
  • Reply 4 of 13
    ksecksec Posts: 1,568member
    Any reason why Don left?
  • Reply 5 of 13
    "Cooperman graduated summa cum laude with highest distinction in economics from Dartmouth College in 1972, then attended Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and School of Law, receiving both his M.B.A. and J.D. from Stanford in 1976."



    And yet the can only job he can get is working for a college dropout!
  • Reply 6 of 13
    Is this Steve Jobs new lawyer, paid for by Apple, in charge of keeping Steve out of jail?



    His credentials are impeccable. Hopefully, he's Apple's lawyer, not Steve Jobs' in-house lawyer for his upcoming testimony before the SEC for the illegal stock option backdating scandal.



  • Reply 7 of 13
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Any reason why Don left?



    Over on macrumors there is a thread related to Apple warning that

    firmware updates might "brick" iphones. Some people were posting

    that Apple would become liable to class actions if this happened,

    due to some deficiency in the EULA for iPhone. I don't know if this

    is true, but if it is and I were SJ, I would not be too happy with the

    head of the legal dept responsible for the EULA. This is my wild

    speculation. What do you all speculate? (maybe he wanted to spend

    more time with his family and his >$10 million windfall)
  • Reply 8 of 13
    Quote:

    "We thank Don for his contributions to Apple during the past ten months, and wish him well in his future endeavors," said Jobs.







    Translation: "Don was not doing his job, and we couldn't get rid of him quick enough."
  • Reply 9 of 13
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    It's not clear that Rosenberg actually got the $18 million. Usually when stock options are granted, you can't cash them in for a while (sometimes several years), and if you leave the company you lose the options. Hopefully this is the case, and Apple didn't pay $18 million dollars (now worth $30 million) to someone for 10 months' work.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    It's not clear that Rosenberg actually got the $18 million. Usually when stock options are granted, you can't cash them in for a while (sometimes several years), and if you leave the company you lose the options. Hopefully this is the case, and Apple didn't pay $18 million dollars (now worth $30 million) to someone for 10 months' work.





    Apple is pathetic. Stock options have a date before which they cannot be levied, but usually are fully vested in the beneficiary, the only possible exceptions being a resignation or the gradual accrual of the options, say 10,000 stock options per year of service, up to a maximum of 100,000 stock options, neither of which applies here.



    Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful, delusional management for decades to come.



  • Reply 11 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    Apple is pathetic. Stock options have a date before which they cannot be levied, but usually are fully vested in the beneficiary, the only possible exceptions being a resignation or the gradual accrual of the options, say 10,000 stock options per year of service, up to a maximum of 100,000 stock options, neither of which applies here.



    Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful, delusional management for decades to come.







    In many respects you are absolutely right. Apple (Steve's) hubris is shocking sometimes. If AAPL wasn't making money right now, Steve would be trotted out into the streets.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    So much misinformation/rumor here.



    Rosenberg received a restricted stock grant of 200,000 shares on December 1, 2006. The terms of the grant provide that 25% vest on each anniversary. You can see for yourself in his SEC filing.



    So Rosenberg may very well leave Apple with nothing, because the first 50,000 shares don't vest until December 1, 2007. But if Rosenberg was pushed (or nudged) out the door, he may have receive some portion of this grant. If that's the case, we'll find out soon because Apple would be required to disclose this. If not, I'm sure that his new employer, Qualcomm, will make up for it to lure him away.



    We don't know why Rosenberg left, but it is probably one of the reasons why someone would leave any other job: They didn't like their job, they got a better offer or they were fired. (Contrary to the post above, Rosenberg wasn't hired to write EULAs--not the sort of thing that usually floats to the top of a 50+ attorney legal department).



    My guess that Rosenberg simply wasn't a good fit for Apple and they both knew it. Rosenberg came from IBM, and if Apple's corporate culture has an opposite, that would be it. And he's very much needed at Qualcomm, for the same type of reasons Apple hired him (Rosenberg has history of dealing well with government regulators).



    Cooperman is a great hire for Apple. He's worked in the Valley his entire career, so he knows the culture. He is, by all accounts, a very fine attorney and manager. And having worked for Larry Ellison for that past 10 years or so, he probably knows how to handle a demanding, high profile CEO.



    Jobs and Ellison are friends, of course. I wonder how Ellison feels about Jobs stealing his GC... It would be interesting to know how the move came about.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spot View Post


    So much misinformation/rumor here.



    Rosenberg received a restricted stock grant of 200,000 shares on December 1, 2006. The terms of the grant provide that 25% vest on each anniversary. You can see for yourself in his SEC filing.



    So Rosenberg may very well leave Apple with nothing, because the first 50,000 shares don't vest until December 1, 2007. But if Rosenberg was pushed (or nudged) out the door, he may have receive some portion of this grant. If that's the case, we'll find out soon because Apple would be required to disclose this. If not, I'm sure that his new employer, Qualcomm, will make up for it to lure him away.



    We don't know why Rosenberg left, but it is probably one of the reasons why someone would leave any other job: They didn't like their job, they got a better offer or they were fired. (Contrary to the post above, Rosenberg wasn't hired to write EULAs--not the sort of thing that usually floats to the top of a 50+ attorney legal department).



    My guess that Rosenberg simply wasn't a good fit for Apple and they both knew it. Rosenberg came from IBM, and if Apple's corporate culture has an opposite, that would be it. And he's very much needed at Qualcomm, for the same type of reasons Apple hired him (Rosenberg has history of dealing well with government regulators).



    Cooperman is a great hire for Apple. He's worked in the Valley his entire career, so he knows the culture. He is, by all accounts, a very fine attorney and manager. And having worked for Larry Ellison for that past 10 years or so, he probably knows how to handle a demanding, high profile CEO.



    Jobs and Ellison are friends, of course. I wonder how Ellison feels about Jobs stealing his GC... It would be interesting to know how the move came about.



    That's the problem. Most people don't do their research and shoot their mouth off about what is legal or illegal options granting.



    Either you know the man's actual granting statement or you don't. Those that didn't see it in their hands should shut up and go work for a company like Apple, Microsoft or more as an Executive and then talk.
Sign In or Register to comment.