SI
SI
discoversearch

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: inaflash who wrote (68699)9/17/2007 10:54:59 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 213177
 
actually, that piece of evidence was from 2004, and the period in question was 2000-2002, and I am pretty certain by 2004 everybody knew there were issues with this, but in 2000-2002 *nobody knew it*. And what Reyes said in that email is wrong anyway which just shows he didn't understand the issue of expensing in the money grants. it actually bolsters the defense case putting up an email like that but juries are offbase and biased against executives and silicon valley so it doesn't matter.

As I say, I think the whole thing is a witch hunt. But people who openly own apple stock have no business applauding this sorry legal affair. Apple is actually one of the most egregious cases of backdating because they repriced 20% of their outstanding options with backdating after the market fall (an action I applaud because it motivates employees), and there is boucoup evidence including a testament from the CFO that Jobs knew there needed to be an accounting charge, and he signed the docs anyway. With Reyes, the feds lied in their closing arguments that the CFO was "in the dark" and the CEO was hiding the practice - and then the next week they indicted the CFO. The reality in the Reyes case is that the CFO was probably negligent and didn't tell Reyes. (btw any lawyers here, is it legal for the DOJ to lie in their closing arguments?)

My interest in this is not Brocade, I own stock in tons of other companies that have this going on, I had to sell Monster due to it, and I'm pretty fed up.

Here you can contrast Brocade with apple from these 2 pieces:

The Executive Team grant, which was nominally dated January 17, 2001, worked like this, according to the SEC complaint. On January 30 Heinen emailed CEO Jobs and CFO Anderson spreadsheets laying out Apple’s stock prices for every day in the month of January, and recommending possible dates on which to retroactively date the grant. In her email to Jobs she wrote, “To avoid any perception that the Board was acting in appropriately [sic] for insiders prior to Macworld announcements, I suggest we use Jan. 10, the day after your Macworld keynote, at $16.563. That was one of the lowest closes of the month, after the $14.875 price on Jan 2. I don’t think the [Executive Team] would object to the $1.688 difference to avoid claims of inappropriate conduct.”

The conversation Anderson says he had with Jobs — in which he explained the accounting ramifications of choosing any date prior to when the board had actually given its approval — would have had to occur early in the process of awarding the grant, at a time when Jobs was planning to use the Jan. 2 date for the grant (the date Heinen thought would look too much like springloading). Anderson’s attorney says that Anderson “was told by Mr. Jobs that the Board had given its prior approval and the Board would verify it.” When asked about this account by the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Jobs referred the question to an Apple spokesperson, who declined comment.
legalpad.blogs.fortune.com

Brocade:

For starters, Reyes—unlike executives such as Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs and former United Healthcare (UNH) CEO Bill McGuire—did not receive backdated options himself. "This will set a tone that an executive can have mens rea—"a guilty mind"—even if he didn't personally line his own pockets," says George Stamboulidis, head of Baker Hostetler's white-collar defense practice. That's important, as an element of the securities fraud, false statement and records falsification charges on which Reyes was convicted requires that the defendant understand that his or her actions were illegal.

What's more, the case against Reyes included no blockbuster smoking guns to prove that he knowingly broke the law. For example, the government had no overheard conversations or e-mails in which Reyes admitted his involvement in the alleged scheme with former Brocade human resources chief Stephanie Jensen. The pair, prosecutors say, routinely falsified paperwork so that Brocade's finance department would process it without incurring accounting charges required for options grants given at below the market price.
businessweek.com