I am usually pretty good at looking at both sides, however, in this case I am struggling to understand how shareholders lost value because Apple was attempting to keep employee's salary in check and did not get into a bidding war with every company in the valley to hire people.
If anything keeping wages in check helped shareholders since it kept operating costs down thus a higher return on investments. Unless these people think the dump in the stock value had something to do with what Apple and other companies were doing. But not every companies stock went down.
I personally do not see this getting very far in the court system. I think they will struggle to draw a connection between the anti-poaching and lost shareholder value. I think the judge will toss this is they can make the solid connection.
They would have to show the stock tank because of this news or it could have been this price if the new did not come out. We all know the current trading value of Apple does not really take in to consideration the money they have in the bank. Actually having too much money in the bank has actually hurt them so paying a fine and reducing the amount of money should help things in the investment world.
Some of you seem to be misunderstanding. Apple is not being sued by its shareholders. Apple's shareholders and Apple, are suing the individual executives responsible for the non-poaching agreements.
Some of you seem to be misunderstanding. Apple is not being sued by its shareholders. Apple's shareholders and Apple, are suing the individual executives responsible for the non-poaching agreements.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
As several posters have pointed out, it makes no sense for shareholders to sue a company for making bad decisions, as they are just suing themselves. However -- if [I]some[/I] shareholders are participants in the class-action, while others are not, then the suit makes sense as a way for the participants to fleece the non-participants.
I can see how this anti-poaching law hurts employees and is unethical but I don't see how it hurts shareholders.
I don't agree, especially about the unethical part. I see poaching as being more unethical than anti-poaching. A company spends a lot of time and money training an employee then a competitor "steals" that employee, getting a trained employee with information about the company that trained them. The money the company spends to buy this person is nothing compared to the money the original company spent to train them. The sad thing is people can be bought for so little money compared to the amount that was spent on them just in training. As most professional athletes find out, the grass is not always greener with another team and their short-term financial gain doesn't usually equate to the long-term gain in a championship (equate this to the success of a different company). Apple and the others wouldn't have engaged in this type of behavior if employees had any commitment to the companies that hired them. Employees always had the option of quitting Apple and seeking employment elsewhere, the other companies just couldn't go out and actively recruit employees from the other companies. If the other company didn't hire them, that sucks but this happens to everyone without valid reasons. Companies just can't deny employment based on specific racial, gender, and other things. Previous employment isn't necessarily included.
I agree with you about the lack of damage to stockholders. What these companies were doing was helping their bottom line not endangering it so this lawsuit doesn't make any sense in the first place.
A bunch of greedy lawyers trying to make money. This case should be thrown out.
Yeah, but there's almost always some settlement because it's very expensive to defend this even when it has no merit. But the lawyers get almost all the money and the shareholders get almost nothing. For stocks that I own, I get these class action lawsuit settlement documents in the mail all the time. If you get anything, it usually works out to about 7 cents a share, and 99% of the time, it's not worth my time to fill out the paperwork and provide proof of the stock purchases and sales. I bet I get about 50 of these a year and I'm a relatively small investor.
I bet this was initiated by a lawyer who owns some Apple stock who has too much time on his hands.
You know the thing with this "anti-poaching" is that it only meant that one company couldn't cold-call another to try and steal an employee. It did not mean that employees couldn't apply for jobs (and be accepted) of their own volition. Many employees switched companies during the years that the anti-poaching agreement was in effect. So in the end, this is much ado about almost nothing.
In our current me-myself-and-I culture it’s all about getting whatever you can get by any means. This includes corporations, CEOs, shareholders, customers, users, all of us. Don’t forget that lawyers conjure up these scenarios and then advertise for plaintiffs to “come forward.”
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
And when you get the paperwork in the mail, all you do is notify them back that you don't wish to be included in the class. You don't have to sue anybody. This is common procedure in all class action lawsuits.
And when you get the paperwork in the mail, all you do is notify them back that you don't wish to be included in the class. You don't have to sue anybody. This is common procedure in all class action lawsuits.
You don't have to do anything. Mine go straight to the shredder.
And when you get the paperwork in the mail, all you do is notify them back that you don't wish to be included in the class. You don't have to sue anybody. This is common procedure in all class action lawsuits.
The problem is, I don't want Apple or any of these companies and people to have to spend anymore money defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits. Therefore, I feel a countersuit against the person and lawyers making this frivolous lawsuit makes more sense than simply choosing not to be involved.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
As a nominal defendant Apple is not on the hook, as I understand it, however must be named for this to be a valid complaint. This is about a shareholder saying the board/management didn't act in his best interests. Seeing as he owns a part of the company, certainly seems right that he is able to take action against the board (who is supposed to represent shareholders) and "his" employees. Other shareholders may disagree and of course choose not to participate.
to be clear, the lawsuit demands damages from the individuals named, not from the corporation. that said, its a pointless waste of time and more money.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
Duly chastised; you're right.
However, as only a nominal defendant, Apple isn't directly on the line of fire, this is very much targeted at the executives, so the rest of my point stands. The shareholders aren't suing themselves, they're suing the executives.
Comments
I am usually pretty good at looking at both sides, however, in this case I am struggling to understand how shareholders lost value because Apple was attempting to keep employee's salary in check and did not get into a bidding war with every company in the valley to hire people.
If anything keeping wages in check helped shareholders since it kept operating costs down thus a higher return on investments. Unless these people think the dump in the stock value had something to do with what Apple and other companies were doing. But not every companies stock went down.
I personally do not see this getting very far in the court system. I think they will struggle to draw a connection between the anti-poaching and lost shareholder value. I think the judge will toss this is they can make the solid connection.
They would have to show the stock tank because of this news or it could have been this price if the new did not come out. We all know the current trading value of Apple does not really take in to consideration the money they have in the bank. Actually having too much money in the bank has actually hurt them so paying a fine and reducing the amount of money should help things in the investment world.
There is a potentially infinite recursion here. If they win, they'll have shown yet further damage to Apple, and can sue again, wash, rinse, repeat.
Sounds like a law firm's wet dream.
Some of you seem to be misunderstanding. Apple is not being sued by its shareholders. Apple's shareholders and Apple, are suing the individual executives responsible for the non-poaching agreements.
What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
The eventual fine will likely be just a week's worth of Apple's profit. Hardly damaging to Apple's finances.
Some of you seem to be misunderstanding. Apple is not being sued by its shareholders. Apple's shareholders and Apple, are suing the individual executives responsible for the non-poaching agreements.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
As Shakespeare said, "kill all the 'layers'"... ??
I can see how this anti-poaching law hurts employees and is unethical but I don't see how it hurts shareholders.
I don't agree, especially about the unethical part. I see poaching as being more unethical than anti-poaching. A company spends a lot of time and money training an employee then a competitor "steals" that employee, getting a trained employee with information about the company that trained them. The money the company spends to buy this person is nothing compared to the money the original company spent to train them. The sad thing is people can be bought for so little money compared to the amount that was spent on them just in training. As most professional athletes find out, the grass is not always greener with another team and their short-term financial gain doesn't usually equate to the long-term gain in a championship (equate this to the success of a different company). Apple and the others wouldn't have engaged in this type of behavior if employees had any commitment to the companies that hired them. Employees always had the option of quitting Apple and seeking employment elsewhere, the other companies just couldn't go out and actively recruit employees from the other companies. If the other company didn't hire them, that sucks but this happens to everyone without valid reasons. Companies just can't deny employment based on specific racial, gender, and other things. Previous employment isn't necessarily included.
I agree with you about the lack of damage to stockholders. What these companies were doing was helping their bottom line not endangering it so this lawsuit doesn't make any sense in the first place.
A bunch of greedy lawyers trying to make money. This case should be thrown out.
Yeah, but there's almost always some settlement because it's very expensive to defend this even when it has no merit. But the lawyers get almost all the money and the shareholders get almost nothing. For stocks that I own, I get these class action lawsuit settlement documents in the mail all the time. If you get anything, it usually works out to about 7 cents a share, and 99% of the time, it's not worth my time to fill out the paperwork and provide proof of the stock purchases and sales. I bet I get about 50 of these a year and I'm a relatively small investor.
I bet this was initiated by a lawyer who owns some Apple stock who has too much time on his hands.
You know the thing with this "anti-poaching" is that it only meant that one company couldn't cold-call another to try and steal an employee. It did not mean that employees couldn't apply for jobs (and be accepted) of their own volition. Many employees switched companies during the years that the anti-poaching agreement was in effect. So in the end, this is much ado about almost nothing.
Wow. This country is heading into the crapper.
In our current me-myself-and-I culture it’s all about getting whatever you can get by any means. This includes corporations, CEOs, shareholders, customers, users, all of us. Don’t forget that lawyers conjure up these scenarios and then advertise for plaintiffs to “come forward.”
Bottom line? “Show me the money!”
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
And when you get the paperwork in the mail, all you do is notify them back that you don't wish to be included in the class. You don't have to sue anybody. This is common procedure in all class action lawsuits.
You don't have to do anything. Mine go straight to the shredder.
This sounds like something cooked up by the lawyers out of work, because of the drop in legal activity against Samsung.
And when you get the paperwork in the mail, all you do is notify them back that you don't wish to be included in the class. You don't have to sue anybody. This is common procedure in all class action lawsuits.
The problem is, I don't want Apple or any of these companies and people to have to spend anymore money defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits. Therefore, I feel a countersuit against the person and lawyers making this frivolous lawsuit makes more sense than simply choosing not to be involved.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
As a nominal defendant Apple is not on the hook, as I understand it, however must be named for this to be a valid complaint. This is about a shareholder saying the board/management didn't act in his best interests. Seeing as he owns a part of the company, certainly seems right that he is able to take action against the board (who is supposed to represent shareholders) and "his" employees. Other shareholders may disagree and of course choose not to participate.
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
Duly chastised; you're right.
However, as only a nominal defendant, Apple isn't directly on the line of fire, this is very much targeted at the executives, so the rest of my point stands. The shareholders aren't suing themselves, they're suing the executives.
This is part of a huge curruption case and unfortunately Steve Jobs and many others was very much at the center of it.
http://pando.com/tag/techtopus/
http://pando.com/2014/07/07/revealed-court-docs-show-role-of-pixar-and-dreamworks-animation-in-silicon-valley-wage-fixing-cartel/