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

Probably a standard, overblown scare

[SashaM]

You can see from today's AAPL chart that the average investor thinks this overblown. The dip and the quick recovery occurred when the news about this accusation came out.

jobs probably won't be fired

[k2enemy]

Jobs probably won't be forced to quit by the SEC. From today's WSJ coverage:

"The SEC said it will not pursue any further action against Apple itself, which cooperated fully with the probe"

Maybe ...

[PPH]

...Jobs can just claim that the backdating was the result of a really badly screwed up DST patch.

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?

Re:Apple without Jobs

[JQuick]

CNN is not reporting the whole story.

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.

Re:More Likely than Resignation

[Tickletaint]

"No, Your Honor, I guess I just see things differently."

"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."