Slashdot Log In
The SEC Is Getting Closer To Jobs
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 24, 2007 05:52 PM
from the bigger-fish dept.
from the bigger-fish dept.
Strudelkugel writes "CNN is reporting that Apple's ex-CFO warned Steve Jobs about backdating options. From the article: 'Apple's former finance chief Fred Anderson blamed Apple CEO Steve Jobs for a 2001 stock option grant that was backdated, according to a statement from Anderson's lawyer released Tuesday. The statement was released by Anderson's lawyer, Jerome Roth, after Anderson settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to Apple's stock option plan without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.' This is serious business. It is quite possible that the SEC could someday require Jobs to resign from Apple."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
More Likely than Resignation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Likely than Resignation (Score:5, Informative)
Right. Here's the ONLY thing Steve Jobs should be saying to Federal Investigators:
Parent
Jobs has nothing to worry about (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:More Likely than Resignation (Score:5, Interesting)
See this article [chron.com] and this other article [law.com] from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is
Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.
In light of this contradiction, why should anyone trust his word now?
Parent
Re:More Likely than Resignation (Score:5, Insightful)
2. A lawyer's prepared statement is designed to give wiggle room while implying certain things that put the client in a favorable light or make the client appear innocent. See my breakdown of the statement:
- Fred didn't play a "day to day" role
-> could mean
- Fred wasn't in charge of that, so he's not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred was in charge of that, but he wasn't involved in the details, so someone else committed misconduct and he's not responsible for it.
- Fred was in charge and is officially responsible for the misconduct, but he didn't know about it because he can't review _everything_ that happens or else he couldn't do his main job-- helping the company make money for shareholders.
-> implies
- Fred is innocent.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred is too important to have committed misconduct.
- Fred couldn't have known about misconduct because he doesn't know all the details.
- Whoever committed misconduct hid it from Fred.
- "in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options."
-> could mean
- Fred doesn't have the authority to grant stock options (true: the Board of Directors may be the only entity that can grant stock options).
- Fred isn't involved in reporting stock options to the SEC or shareholders.
- Fred isn't involved in auditing/accounting.
- Fred has authority to grant stock options but it's not one of his more significant duties.
- Fred is involved in reporting to the SEC, but since reports to the SEC don't come out on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
- Fred is involved in accounting of stock options, but since auditing and accounting isn't done on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
-> implies
- Fred is not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred can manage a public company's finances in the future because he did nothing wrong here.
- Fred knows nothing.
- "he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process"
-> could mean
- Fred manipulated the process unknowingly.
- Fred was involved in manipulating the process but didn't know the extent of his role.
-> implies
- Fred didn't
Parent
Re:More Likely than Resignation (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm a misfit. A rebel. A troublemaker. I admit it."
"I'm not fond of rules. And I have no respect for the status quo."
Parent
Probably a standard, overblown scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably a standard, overblown scare (Score:5, Insightful)
That stock price chart merely reflects that the market hates uncertainty, the announcement of anticipated news always brings an up tick, as uncertainty is removed.
The uncertainty, in this case, was on possible "smoking guns" revealed as part of Fred Anderson's settlement. There were none, his "punishment" was minimal, and as soon as the market processed this information the temporary downturn (during the period of imperfect information when traders are unsure if they have the full story) reversed and Apple's stock went higher than opening.
Parent
And then he'll be right back (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite it all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Despite it all (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone else pointed out, his salary is $1 per year, but of course he owns significant shares of Apple, Pixar, and other stocks where the real money is made.
Since Jobs never exercised the options, his only guilt in this scam is in having been awarded the options by his company (where the options backdating was approved by Anderson himself who's making the accusation now).
It's kind of like your friend giving you a forged check from a rich person's account, and then him getting busted for writing these forged checks. Since he's busted he wants to claim you as an accomplice, even though you never cashed that check.
Parent
Re:Despite it all (Score:4, Interesting)
His salary may only be $1, but he received about $8 million worth of options last year. The $1 salary is purely symbolic now.
And for the record, Jobs is easily worth millions to the company. There's no way Apple would be where it is without him, and he is worth every penny they give him.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Despite it all (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Despite it all (Score:5, Informative)
His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000-2002. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy.
Parent
jobs probably won't be fired (Score:5, Informative)
"The SEC said it will not pursue any further action against Apple itself, which cooperated fully with the probe"
Jobs could always... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)
A disturbance in the force (Score:3, Funny)
PC: "Oh, that was the door to courtroom slamming shut. There are six Mac users out in the hallway singing Jonestown's Classics..... Hey mac, is this Gatorade??"
warning: bad pun ahead (Score:3, Funny)
Would he then change his name to "Steven Pinkslips"?
SEC can require resignation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple without Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Fred Anderson's lawyer did claim that he had warned Job's about the issue in 2001, and implied that Job's had misled Anderson.
However, in a press release today, the SEC made several statements that flatly contradict the CNN story.
The SEC said it isn't bringing enforcement action against Apple "based in part on its swift, extensive, and extraordinary cooperation in the commission's investigation."
They also stated that, "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."
In short, the SEC stance appears to be that Anderson and Apple's former general counsel Nancy Heinen had the direct responsibility to review the board's decisions in this matter and make sure that Apple complied with reporting requirements. The SEC publicly stated that they are not bringing any action against Apple, they have settled with Anderson already, and will continue prosecuting Heinen (since she has chosen to fight the charges against her.
This is poor reporting on CNNs part, not a real story.
Parent
Re:Apple without Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
The story has more info and content than the CNN acticle.
Parent
SEC can ban people from being Officers & Direc (Score:5, Informative)
As background: I'm a forensic accountant, do large financial investigations of public companies, and am currently doing a stock option investigation. I do not have any inside knowledge of the issues at Apple.
In fact, it isn't at all possible that the SEC could require Jobs to resign from Apple.
Not true at all. The SEC has fairly broad powers to permanently ban a person from serving as director or officer of a public registrant.
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act. See: http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/0303/featur es/f031803.htm [nysscpa.org]
I'm free to take questions!
Parent