Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/16/2007 1:10:29 AM
From: Doren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

So Lizzie I take it you expect Jobs to be indicted? Or not? Since they haven't yet is it because of their case load? If Jobs is indicted Apple Stock will undoubtedly take a pretty large hit. I'm assuming that there is a fair degree of career opportunism and politics going on in the bureaucracies that oversee such activity. I'm also speculating that there are agencies who would not like to knock down a considerable portion of the stock market during a time when the Fed may be pressured into lowering rates when they would rather not lower rates. Indicting another CEO and especially one of Jobs' fame would shake the markets. I'm speculating these agencies may be applying a large amount of pressure. What do you think?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/16/2007 2:33:58 PM
From: HerbVic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

Feel better? While wanting equal justice for equal infraction is noble, in practice it is quite impossible. Each prosecution takes on a life of its own and evolves through the facts of each case. Prosecutors can't punish companies. It's up to the SEC to do that. So, they go after people. While all parties involved share in the guilt, the persons remaining in power have the resources to deflect the assault of prosecution. In these cases, it's the people who have given up their power that get burned. I agree that the whole thing ought to be dropped, dismissed, thrown out of court. It is apparent the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 took care of the corporate excess in this regard anyway.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/16/2007 9:42:18 PM
From: Dinesh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213177

Ad Hominem. Cute, very cute. BTW, have you ever been pulled for speeding? The next time you are apprehended thus, try telling the cop that unless ALL speeders are caught, you HAVE TO BE LET GO. Do pay attention to what the officer says in reply. Personally I have no issues with Jobs or Backdating. Nor have I ever equated enforcement of law as tantamount to delivery of justice. But if you still want to pin an opinion on me, it'll be your little business. Enjoy!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/17/2007 10:30:02 AM
From: inaflash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

As far as I know, most other companies investigations didn't reveal this type of evidence: The prosecutor reeled off 10 reasons why the jury should find Reyes guilty of securities fraud, including a seemingly damning e-mail that Reyes wrote in 2004 to another Silicon Valley executive, former VeriSign chairman Jim Bidzos, exclaiming that "IT IS ILLEGAL TO BACK DATE OPTION GRANTS." usatoday.com If anyone has more on the actual evidence to put try to put it in context, please fill us in. Ignorance doesn't excuse anyone, but intent is hard to prove, and such evidence helps the prosecution case that there was intent to commit fraud and any conspiracy type charges. Without this, it's hard to disprove it was simply an honest mistake, and usually people aren't thrown in jail for just that.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/17/2007 12:56:57 PM
From: Stock Puppy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

OT MORAL of the story: Once you start applauding "zero tolerance" you better make DAMN SURE your kid doesn't go to school with cough medicine in his pocket. The only thing I have zero tolerance for is zero tolerance. [rant] Zero tolerance laws are guilty of hurting innocent people and exist to assist mediocre and inept administrators and to pacify the people that they deal with so they can go home at 4:55 PM sharp. [/rant]

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (68661)	9/17/2007 2:13:23 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

>>1. Somebody in the company chooses a date (usually the lowest in the quarter) to backdate all the new employee hire signon options. This person then either creates documents or uses a 10-yr old options software program that prints out SEC filing forms (kind of like turbotax) dated on the date of the low price stock grant date and NOT the actual date the document was created. This is fraud #1.<< Lizzie - To the best of my knowledge, this isn't what happened at Apple. My understanding is that a very few grants were backdated. It wasn't a standard practice for all new hire sign-on options, as it was at many other companies. - Allen