The SEC Is Getting Closer To Jobs

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."

Comments

Despite it all

[ShooterNeo]

Despite all our criticisms as techno-nerds about Steve Job's "reality distortion field", I think that we can agree that this man is the best person to remain head of Apple. One might argue that he is overpaid, but, with that said, this man can sell their products like no other. I think his fate should be to pay back whatever ill-begotten gains this dirty trick gained him, plus fines, and he should remain in his current position.

Re:More Likely than Resignation

[wass]

It also looks like Fred Anderson is also trying to stab back at Apple after their own internal investigation pointed to him and another former employee Heinen, after these two were let go. Apple claimed these two executives acted improperly, and now that Anderson settled with the SEC (and lost a bunch of time and cash in the process) he's trying to strike back.

See this article and this other article from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is

And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."

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?