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: Cogito who wrote (68733)	9/17/2007 2:27:31 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

My understanding is that a very few grants were backdated Hmm what I have read is that in terms of sheer quantity, Apple was the worst of all the current cases. It seems like apple was doing a mass reprice for all employee options, which a lot of companies do, and this amounted to 20% of outstanding options. thats huge, just on that one reprice. I think what you mean "very few grants" were probably very few grants to Jobs and executives. the problem is the Reyes case opened up this claim that the CEO is liable for fraud for all backdated options to anybody in the company. (which is BS and will kill half the companies involved) Note that I think this is total BS and if the DOJ was forced to address these "crimes" with companies that people actually care about, like Apple, instead of trying to nail a bunch of obscure companies/executives and creating some kind of illusion that this is a premeditated criminal act (when anybody can see it isn't)- then we can move on. On Friday, Eisenhofer tried to convince Fogel that the options awards, by diluting shareholders’ stock, effectively lowered its value. As he put it in a court filing, “the issuance of more than 200 million shares as a result of the false and misleading proxy solicitations — amounting to more than 20 percent of the company’s outstanding stock — results in dilution to plaintiffs’ economic interests in their shareholdings and effects a transfer of the same percentage of voting power and wealth from Apple’s public shareholders to the company’s insiders.” legalpad.typepad.com