AAPL Faked Stock Option Documents:

C

capmac

AAPL Apple Computer: Faked documents may be at core of Apple case - Law.com (81.51 ) -Update- *****

Law.com reports according to people with knowledge of Apple's situation, federal prosecutors are looking closely at stock option administration documents that were apparently falsified by co officials to maximize the profitability of option grants to execs. The faked documents were revealed in a three-month internal probe -- conducted by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges -- that concluded in October, said individuals familiar with the case who requested anonymity because it remains the subject of criminal and civil govt investigations. Since the fruits of Apple's internal investigation were disclosed to San Francisco federal prosecutors in October, the U.S. Attorney's Office has shown great interest in the case, said individuals with knowledge of the probe. And while it's not yet clear who the prosecutors' focus is, Apple released a statement in October that "the investigation raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers in connection with the accounting, recording and reporting of stock option grants." Individuals with knowledge of the case said those ex-officers are Nancy Heinen and Fred Anderson, the co's former general counsel and chief financial officer, respectively.
 
what a gift this morning... right back to where we woulda been had this never happened. Since when has a stock options scandal had a lasting effect?:p
 
Quote from tommymoose:

what a gift this morning... right back to where we woulda been had this never happened. Since when has a stock options scandal had a lasting effect?:p
More...

Agreed, it was a nice scoop for the scalp, but to answer your question :Since when has a stock options scandal had a lasting effect?:p

When this is just the beginning.:cool:
 
Quote from infolode:

Agreed, it was a nice scoop for the scalp, but to answer your question :Since when has a stock options scandal had a lasting effect?:p

When this is just the beginning.:cool:
More...

and 'what if' its impact on #s is immaterial and those who got caught have already been fired? most importantly the first point. Apple is doing very well - this is no Enron.
 
Quote from scriabinop23:

and 'what if' its impact on #s is immaterial and those who got caught have already been fired? most importantly the first point. Apple is doing very well - this is no Enron.
More...

lol thanks for the education cupcake.:)
 
I was just joking.....my little buttercup.:p

Aside from all that, I'm waiting for the recalls.

Might be a nice domino affect for the whole industry.

Critical mass,anyone?
 
Apple ‘falsified’ files on Jobs’ options

By Richard Waters in San Francisco

Published: December 28 2006 00:21 | Last updated: December 28 2006 00:21

Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer, was handed 7.5m stock options in 2001 without the required authorisation from the company’s board of directors, according to people familiar with the matter.

Records that purported to show a full board meeting had taken place to approve Mr Jobs’ remuneration, as required by Apple’s procedures, were later falsified. These are now among the pieces of evidence being weighed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as it decides whether to pursue a case against the company or any individuals over the affair, according to these people.

News of the irregularities, which is expected to be revealed in a regulatory filing by Apple before the end of this week, will add to pressure that has been growing on one of Silicon Valley’s most highly-regarded companies since the middle of 2005.

Apple is among more than 160 companies that have owned up to stock option backdating – handing options to executives and other employees at exercise prices that were set in hindsight at favourable levels – a scandal which has led to the departure of a number of chief executives.

The latest revelation is likely to add to questions about Apple’s disclosures about its internal investigation into the backdating issue. In October, the company largely exonerated Mr Jobs over the matter, saying that while he had been “aware” of the backdating “in a few instances”, he “did not receive or otherwise benefit from these grants and was unaware of the accounting implications”.

According to an Apple filing in 2002, the options under review were handed to Mr Jobs in October 2001, at an exercise price of $18.30 a share. However, the purported board authorisation was dated near the end of the year, suggesting that the benefits were both not properly authorised and were backdated. Mr Jobs later surrendered his options before they were exercised, implying that he did not gain any direct benefit from them. He was later given a grant of restricted stock by the company instead.

Apple’s lawyers have briefed people involved in the case on the findings of the company’s internal review of the matter, though it remains unclear how much detail will be included in the filing.

Under Apple’s rules, the chief executive’s remuneration must be set by a compensation committee of independent directors and later authorised by the full board.

An Apple spokesman refused to comment on the matter on Wednesday, but said the company had handed the findings of its internal enquiry to the SEC. The company said in October that it had found “no misconduct by any member of Apple’s current management team” but that its investigation “raised serious concerns regarding the actions of two former officers”. At the same time, it also announced the resignation from its board of Fred Andersen, a former chief financial officer. Mr Andersen had not been a director at the time of the 2001 options grant.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/801e1b82-9605-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html
 
Seems like the backdating news came out months ago when AAPL was trading in the high 50's and was almost delisted. Then, after the cheap shares were purchased, the story was "de-emphasized" and amnesia sed back in ?et in. Sort of like a month long version of what happened in a few hours today. The news seems to be timed carefully. If it was bad news, seems like the intended reaction was to create a downward "knee jerk" which it certainly did.

Anybody care to comment on what was said to cause the gap down, then why it was no longer valid and buyers rushed back in ?



Quote from infolode:

Agreed, it was a nice scoop for the scalp, but to answer your question :Since when has a stock options scandal had a lasting effect?:p

When this is just the beginning.:cool:
More...
:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top