As I said in a different discussion on this matter Nancy Heinin is NOT plea bargaining and is fighting the SEC in court.She says the CEO ( Jobs) TOLD her to do it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anderson Blames Jobs In Backdating
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought it was a bit strange when MR reported that he was found to be not connected to this mix-up. I always thought he'd be found guilty.
"Well, on one hand, Steve Jobs is guilty. On the other hand, he just released MacBook Pro updates, so........we'll let him go this time."
"Well, on one hand, Steve Jobs is guilty. On the other hand, he just released MacBook Pro updates, so........we'll let him go this time."
I'm so sick of you stupid, warped drones. You worship a piece of plastic and silicon as if it's the monolith from 2001 and refuse to believe anything your sainted Steve Jobs does could ever be wrong. If this charge is true, Steve Jobs ought to be thrown in jail. You children who have never owned a share of stock or owned underwater options (I still have 1000 of them from IBM issued in 1999 ... anyone want 1000 IBM shares at 148? Didn't think so.) you obviously don't understand the pure greedy criminality of this act. Anyone guilty of options backdating ought to be dragged through the streets for his pathetic, borderless greed.
I own AAPL stock and it's done just fine for me, thanks. And frankly, I'm not looking forward to the big hit on my stock if Jobs is officially implicated/prosecuted. Can you honestly say the shareholders have been negatively affected by this options grant that was never exercised, or that we've suffered financially with Jobs at the helm? Please.
BTW, options backdating is NOT a criminal act.
Yes and that's why America is a rapidly declining empire, Rome in fast forward. All greed is fine, just as long as it doesn't personally affect me. Sooner or later someone's illegal or unethical or just plain sleezy act will personally affect you, but please don't whine to the government or anyone's social conscience because when the time came for noble souls to put their ethics over their bank accounts, you've already made your choice.
Really? Interesting take, I suppose. There's no real evidence of that, but sure whatever... We can ignore the profit-taking that came after him, the lack of focus, the Copland fiasco, Scully's and Amelio's admitted mistakes.
But yeah, like I said... whatever. Lately, the truth seems to take a back seat to personal opinion.
Oh, and the America in decline thing... hm, such a solidly researched and supported assertion. How profound.
I'm so glad I came here today. I learned that thinking is still in the hands of a privileged few. Yay for realizations.
I figured this was going to happen in order to get a lower punishment for pointing the finger a Jobs. However I figure it was going to be Nancy the one doing it.
This sounds bad.
This sounds bad.
Not really; this is how it always goes. The guilty parties keep their lips zipped until after they've figured out their strategy and secured a deal from the prosecutor. The SEC will now have access to whatever material the CFO has in order to go after the lawyer, or the CEO, or whomever else is implicated.
And I believe her. She didn't make the whole thing up on her own. But her problem is going to be that #1) She is a lawyer and knows better and #2) Being told by a client/employer to break the law is no defense. She should be disbarred as well, and that is exactly what will happen if the SEC wins the case against her.
I would think that as the CFO he would have access to the board and the board records. As the CFO it was his responsability to ensure that he had the correct authority in writting before acting on it.
A shame - although very predictable - that it's all getting nasty.
Fred's not really doing himself much of a favour here though IMO. Much as I respect a lot of the work he did at Apple, does he really think that the chances of future directorships will be enhanced by his argument that "I was told it was OK, so I just went ahead and did it?". No chief finance officer in any company I've worked for would do it - they'd check everything twice before laying themselves on the line professionally. It surprises me Fred did differently. He's no fool.
Nancy on the other hand is very interesting. She thinks she's got a strong enough case, which you've got to guess implicates Steve Jobs directly.
Fun times ahead. But Fred's just screwed himself over in that statement in my book. As if he wasn't screwed enough already....
Fred's not really doing himself much of a favour here though IMO. Much as I respect a lot of the work he did at Apple, does he really think that the chances of future directorships will be enhanced by his argument that "I was told it was OK, so I just went ahead and did it?". No chief finance officer in any company I've worked for would do it - they'd check everything twice before laying themselves on the line professionally. It surprises me Fred did differently. He's no fool.
Nancy on the other hand is very interesting. She thinks she's got a strong enough case, which you've got to guess implicates Steve Jobs directly.
Fun times ahead. But Fred's just screwed himself over in that statement in my book. As if he wasn't screwed enough already....
I will agree with you here; in the short to mid term, Jobs has raised the value of the stock more than his criminality took from it. The problem is while YOU might have gained, people who bought the stock during the time in question are the ones who would have been the victims.
It is when you forge the documents and fake the board meeting that were intended to grant the options.
Sounds a lot like the Salem trials. anyone found guilty of witchcraft go to forfit their lands and possessions. Lets see .... SEC accusses and SEC get to keep the spoils. Ummmmm.
Given her alleged culpability (over an issue that was LEGAL at the time, and the issue becomes how that conflicts with IRS specific accounting principals, as distinct from commercial reality and other layers of regulations.
My only question is if she will be "allowed" to serve in the future. (and where the shakedown money actually goes)
Rocketman
My thoughts too.
I hope he hasn't, but I can just imagine him doing it. If I had to put money on either way, I'd put money on him having done it without a doubt.
How could you tell someone the truth like that! You know people here have no actual reason to learn the truth about anything. You have to watch yourself or they may actually respond and tell you how they feel and give their opinions about you and your comments. Then they might even try to support their opinions with incorrect facts and links to youtube and myspace. Then worst yet... they will try to tell you how your are wrong and give even more incorrect facts to back them up. Anyway. This stock thing has been blown out of proportion. Last time I checked this was a rumors site... not the New York Times or Business Week. Give my my product update rumors and Leopard rumors. If I want political/journalistic issues I will read a real newspaper or news site. And it's funny how the Admins will post this actual factual journalism/governmental stuff then remove posts when we start talking about ethics, philosophy, and politics... WTF
That's why they should only post RUMORS
sheesh!
Yes, but I was responding to the post that stated that options granting in general is illegal.
I'm not saying Jobs shouldn't be held accountable if he did, in fact, do something wrong, but some of these posters are crying for blood as if they have the actual facts of the case.
The SEC is taking her to court and will be asking that she be kept from practicing again.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
If Steve Jobs is found guilty of a crime I hope that I can count on all of you to help overturn the law that he was found guilty of breaking and create a new retroactive law that gives him immunity to having broken said law. Steve Jobs inherently in who he is cannot break the law. The law must be moved and changed according to where he walks.
NOT!
That's what an Apple apologist or "sympathizer" might say. I say it's time we hold Apple's feet to the fire. When Fred Anderson left Apple, Jobs heaped praise at him. It reminds me of how Bush lets people go as they start getting investigated to the point that they could be linked to him. And then chalks it up to needing to spend more time with the family. Trust me, no family wants to spend more time with the sort of cronies Bush has got working for him. What I am saying is this: was Anderson the fall guy?
Now if Jobs is in trouble I hope he takes his lumps like Martha Stewart. She is a remarkable example of how a CEO can take lumps and come back stronger. In Jobs' commencement speech at Stanfordf, he talked about how all these seemingly bad things happened to him that actually led to great successes later. Maybe spending a little time in the clink will give Jobs a great idea for Mac OS XI. Who knows!
All's I know is this: I'm not an Apple apologist, and I don't think it benefits Apple to get away with anything. I think an honest fresh start is the most fertile ground for a company like Apple.
NOT!
That's what an Apple apologist or "sympathizer" might say. I say it's time we hold Apple's feet to the fire. When Fred Anderson left Apple, Jobs heaped praise at him. It reminds me of how Bush lets people go as they start getting investigated to the point that they could be linked to him. And then chalks it up to needing to spend more time with the family. Trust me, no family wants to spend more time with the sort of cronies Bush has got working for him. What I am saying is this: was Anderson the fall guy?
Now if Jobs is in trouble I hope he takes his lumps like Martha Stewart. She is a remarkable example of how a CEO can take lumps and come back stronger. In Jobs' commencement speech at Stanfordf, he talked about how all these seemingly bad things happened to him that actually led to great successes later. Maybe spending a little time in the clink will give Jobs a great idea for Mac OS XI. Who knows!
All's I know is this: I'm not an Apple apologist, and I don't think it benefits Apple to get away with anything. I think an honest fresh start is the most fertile ground for a company like Apple.
"Law" or "corporate officer"?
Being disbarred alone would be good for her value.
As for the folks claiming there are Jobs fanbois, let me say this. The real issue here is legal conduct and selective enforcement. To get to SE thay have to claim "lie under investigation", not a violation of any underlying rule, law, regulation or ethic. And I assure you, there are plenty of varieties of those.
Rocketman
The elite class doing what they do, heck as its been said you get more time stealing a loaf of bread.
I made my choice and my ethics were far above the sleazy acts of the US Government.