Comments on: Apple options mess continues

By: Directory

Directory — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:40:06 +0000

very interesting.

By: Shawn King

Shawn King — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:21:22 +0000

Folks – please get your facts straight.

“It is inconceivable that actions benefiting both the corporation and the CEO occurred without their intimate involvement.”

Both Apple and the SEC said that Jobs did not benefit from the backdating.

“Then what did the CFO plead guilty to if there was no wrongdoing?”

The CFO did not plead to anything. He didn’t have to – he wasn’t *charged* with anything!

All Anderson did was agree to a fine and to pay back whatever monies he may have profited from due to the backdating – approx 3.5 million dollars.

By: Mark McQueen

Mark McQueen — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:49:54 +0000

Then what did the CFO plead guilty to if there was no wrongdoing?

As to credibility, it seems unimaginable that the CFO was so lacking in merit that his testimony about the situation would be thrown out over Jobs’.

After all, had he not been credible enough to, well, be the CFO of Apple?

MRM

By: anon

anon — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:43:15 +0000

Heinen’s emails indicate that the options were *forward* dated. If true, there isn’t even the *appearance* of a crime.

By: dd

dd — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:30:03 +0000

No charges against Apple or Jobs. It is inconceivable that actions benefiting both the corporation and the CEO occurred without their intimate involvement. Cooperation might be a mitigation factor but it is not exculpatory. The SEC has gone the way of the FDA

By: Shawn King

Shawn King — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:06:41 +0000

“When was the last time in recent memory that a corporate scandal led to very serious charges being brought against the CFO and General Counsel, but not against the CEO?”

When, in the course of their investigations, the SEC finds the CEO more credible than the CFO and General Counsel. Is it really *that* hard to comprehend?

“It�s curious that a former Apple CFO pointing fingers isn�t sufficient for the Securities Exchange Commission to proceed against Steve Jobs.”

You don’t think Anderson had already pointed that finger at Jobs while he was being deposed by the SEC? Anderson’s press release did *not* come as a shock to the SEC.

By: AT

AT — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:02:12 +0000

The Apple Board has a unanamous interest in protecting Jobs (pun intended)…

By: douglasrpreston

douglasrpreston — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:37:27 +0000

Black’s bad behavior started at an early age when he was expelled from college for selling copies of exams to fellow students.
Thus did his illustrious business career begin.

The SEC got it right with Conrad Black.

With regards to Mr. Jobs and the SEC, I’m sure Apple’s cooperation and openness (unlike Hollinger) helped the SEC to determine that there are just two bad apples here! (Heinen & Anderson)

The Apple Board unanamously agrees.

By: Mark McQueen

Mark McQueen — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:46:43 +0000

I read Tom Bower’s book, so I feel like I have a handle on all that went on at Hollinger et al (although Black is suing Bower for libel, etc.).

The point isn’t that the stuff swirling around the two men is at all the same; the SEC’s lack of anxiety over the accusations against Jobs is inexplicable based upon their acute interest in Black’s alleged bad behaviour.

Whether the fire is of the one alarm or five alarm type, you still hope the firefighters will care enough to come.

MRM

By: douglasrpreston

douglasrpreston — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:32:39 +0000

“Had Conrad Black been a Silicon Valley icon, and not an English Lord, would he be on trial today in Chicago?”

It seems you are not all that familiar with Lord Black’s antics.
Comparing Black with Steve Jobs is just plain silly.