New lawsuit filed to block Apple's bundling of shareholder proposals
A second investor has joined David Einhorn in challenging the vote on Apple's proposals before shareholders later this month.
According to a report by Reuters, Apple investor Brian Gralnick has filed a lawsuit that similarly seeks to change how shareholders are presented with proposals by the company's board of directors.
While the initial lawsuit by Einhorn focused on part of a proposal that intended to remove from the company's charter a provision that would allow the board to issue preferred shares without the approval of shareholders, Gralnick's case focuses on a different issue involving executive compensation.
Both cases take issue with Apple's bundling different issues into a single proposal, alleging violation of a Securities and Exchange Commission rule on the matter.
Following Einhorn's suit, the company released a statement saying it was open to discussing various options related to dividends, and noting that nothing in the shareholder proposal up for vote would actually prevent Einhorn's option from being considered or potentially implemented.
Apple's chief executive Tim Cook went a step further yesterday, describing the lawsuit as a "silly sideshow" and a waste of the company's time and resources.
The new lawsuit seeks to add the issue of shareholder input on employee compensation ("say on pay") into the mix, based on similar legal grounds related to bundled issues within the two Board crafted shareholder proposals up for vote.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the shareholder vote on the proposal, saying that shareholders do not yet have adequate information to make a decision on executive pay.
Apple first initiated an advisory Say on Pay vote on executive compensation in 2009 after a shareholder proposal passed, despite the board's recommendation against the measure on the basis that limitations imposed by shareholder voting could have an adverse impact on the company's ability to recruit and retain top talent.
Apple's next shareholder meeting is scheduled to be held February 27.
According to a report by Reuters, Apple investor Brian Gralnick has filed a lawsuit that similarly seeks to change how shareholders are presented with proposals by the company's board of directors.
While the initial lawsuit by Einhorn focused on part of a proposal that intended to remove from the company's charter a provision that would allow the board to issue preferred shares without the approval of shareholders, Gralnick's case focuses on a different issue involving executive compensation.
Both cases take issue with Apple's bundling different issues into a single proposal, alleging violation of a Securities and Exchange Commission rule on the matter.
Following Einhorn's suit, the company released a statement saying it was open to discussing various options related to dividends, and noting that nothing in the shareholder proposal up for vote would actually prevent Einhorn's option from being considered or potentially implemented.
Apple's chief executive Tim Cook went a step further yesterday, describing the lawsuit as a "silly sideshow" and a waste of the company's time and resources.
The new lawsuit seeks to add the issue of shareholder input on employee compensation ("say on pay") into the mix, based on similar legal grounds related to bundled issues within the two Board crafted shareholder proposals up for vote.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the shareholder vote on the proposal, saying that shareholders do not yet have adequate information to make a decision on executive pay.
Apple first initiated an advisory Say on Pay vote on executive compensation in 2009 after a shareholder proposal passed, despite the board's recommendation against the measure on the basis that limitations imposed by shareholder voting could have an adverse impact on the company's ability to recruit and retain top talent.
Apple's next shareholder meeting is scheduled to be held February 27.
Comments
F*ck the shareholders.
Apple should use the cash to buy the company back (if they can) and wave goodbye to all those idiotic parasites forever.
I own one share of stock, and today someone actually BUMPED into me at the Apple store. I'M GONNA SUE!!!!
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner
As a huge fanboy, I do think this is is a silly response from Apple. You sue us, it's silly, we sue you, totally valid.
So… when has Apple sued shareholders?
Has Apple sued a stockholder?
I wonder how much stock this "investor" has. As for enough info to base executive pay on: how about the most profitable calendar year in human history, one of the profitable qtrs in human history, the #1 selling smartphone, record setting iPads, 70% mobile profits with just three phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
This seems like one of those Mesothilioma ads. "If you have been injured by Apple stock, call the law offices of Ima, Ambulance, Chaser by dialing 1-800-bad-aple. We only get paid if you win".
LOL....I almost choked on my coffee....
I don't know if this is done by any other companies, but I went to an Apple store yesterday to pick something up, and a thought hit me while I was standing in line: Why don't shareholders get a discount on all Apple products? I'm not talking about any huge, ridiculous discount, but a small one at least.
Apple doesn't have to, but discounts are offered for education, government, military etc., so why no discount for shareholders?, the people who are actually putting their money into the company? The number of shareholders is not that large and they should be awarded at least the same benefits as the other groups which gets discounts, if not more.
Like I said, I don't know if this is common or not within other companies, but it seems like a common sense idea that shareholders should get a discount on a company's products. As usual, my post is entirely based on my own selfish reasons, but that's not illegal, last I checked.
A relatively small number of companies offer shareholders a discount. I've only had one (a $5 discount at Olive Garden) out of the dozens of different stocks I own.
It also creates a major problem. How do they verify that you have the stock when you buy something? If it's a $5 off coupon, they don't care. But if it's anything significant, it could be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't know if this is done by any other companies, but I went to an Apple store yesterday to pick something up, and a thought hit me while I was standing in line: Why don't shareholders get a discount on all Apple products? I'm not talking about any huge, ridiculous discount, but a small one at least.
Apple doesn't have to, but discounts are offered for education, government, military etc., so why no discount for shareholders?, the people who are actually putting their money into the company? The number of shareholders is not that large and they should be awarded at least the same benefits as the other groups which gets discounts, if not more.
Like I said, I don't know if this is common or not within other companies, but it seems like a common sense idea that shareholders should get a discount on a company's products. As usual, my post is entirely based on my own selfish reasons, but that's not illegal, last I checked.
I would challenge that your money actually reaches Apple. Apple has made all their money because we bought their products, not because some supposed investors bought stock. That money is in the stock market casino's pool and I doubt much, if any, of it is actually available to Apple. Even if it was they would need to leave most of it in an account to take care of huge stock market swings. Come to think of it, your money has probably already been lost to those hedge fund idiots who want to bring AAPL to its knees.
Erm, because they voluntarily signed an agreement that says they assume the risk of their investment / wager, and agree to be compensated by return and - now - by dividend. They could ask for a discount, they could ask to each be given to a purple unicorn. But that's not why true investors are in it. If you bought Apple for long term gain (10, 20 years, etc. - heck, even AAPL 5-yr quadruples your money...) saving $100 on a MacBook pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars you have gained by being a stockholder. As for day-traders and momentum traders, not sure they care about trading Apple any more than trading Unified Amalgamated Central Limited or Q-tips if it gets them the swing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The new lawsuit seeks to add the issue of shareholder input on employee compensation ("say on pay") into the mix, based on similar legal grounds related to bundled issues within the two Board crafted shareholder proposals up for vote.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the shareholder vote on the proposal, saying that shareholders do not yet have adequate information to make a decision on executive pay.
Apple first initiated an advisory Say on Pay vote on executive compensation in 2009 after a shareholder proposal passed, despite the board's recommendation against the measure on the basis that limitations imposed by shareholder voting could have an adverse impact on the company's ability to recruit and retain top talent.
Strictly from a PR perspective, if investors want to revolt against excessive executive pay, maybe they should start with a company that isn't quite so wildly profitable.
Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop commenting on business things that he clearly doesn't understand?
IBM used to offer discounts on PCs when they actual sold them. I think they might offer something with Lenovo. McDs used to give out a coupon for a new product they were selling. It was attached to the annual report.
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny how TS removes the posts that show that he doesn't have a clue about business matters.
Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop commenting on business things that he clearly doesn't understand?
Which posts would those be? I count 18 posts in this thread and 18 posts visible.
You're right. The posts I was referring to (the ones where you kept insisting that share price swings hurt Apple and that Apple could easily prove the cause of those swings) were actually in a different thread.
My mistake. Sorry.
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're right. The posts I was referring to (the ones where you kept insisting that share price swings hurt Apple and that Apple could easily prove the cause of those swings) were actually in a different thread.
My mistake. Sorry.
Oh, no worries. There weren't any posts deleted there, either.