Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading

[konqerror]

Again, if he violated Apple policies, he can be fired. That’s likely in his employment agreement that he signed. Those policies do not have to be federal crimes.

And again, Apple fired him because he violated a law. When firing somebody for cause you have to be specific, and it has to be fair. A court evaluates this under the principle of good faith.

You cannot fire somebody for mismatched socks, even if you have a policy against it. It is fair to fire somebody for violating a law.

However, if you fire somebody because of insider trading, and a court finds that no insider trading occurred, then you're in trouble because your reason for firing was invalid.

If an employer fired you for theft, and it was proven in a court of law that no theft occurred, what would you think? Do you think that's fair? Do you think you should be compensated? Use common sense.

 

[citysnaps]

And again, Apple fired him because he violated a law. When firing somebody for cause you have to be specific, and it has to be fair. A court evaluates this under the principle of good faith.

You cannot fire somebody for mismatched socks, even if you have a policy against it. It is fair to fire somebody for violating a law.

However, if you fire somebody because of insider trading, and a court finds that no insider trading occurred, then you're in trouble because your reason for firing was invalid.

If an employer fired you for theft, and it was proven in a court of law that no theft occurred, what would you think? Do you think that's fair? Do you think you should be compensated? Use common sense.

Please... contact Apples legal and HR departments and inform them of their huge mistake terminating that guy’s employment. They’re clearly amateurs and can greatly benefit from your superior legal expertise. Stat!

 

[konqerror]

Please... contact Apples legal and HR departments and inform them of their huge mistake terminating that guy’s employment. They’re clearly amateurs and can greatly benefit from your legal expertise. Stat!

Again, you didn't read one word of what I wrote and are just trying to argue.

Apple terminated this guy at this time for PR reasons, not because they have a good leg to stand upon. Tim Cook wants to make it look like he's running a clean ship. It's embarrassing to Apple, understandably. Investors don't want to invest in an Enron.

If he was indeed insider trading, Apple will be fine. The guy will be found guilty and go to jail. End of story.

If there was no insider trading, the court will find him not guilty. Apple will pay the guy in a confidential settlement a 7 to 8-digit number to make him stay quiet. Perfectly affordable to Apple. You won't hear anything about it ever again.

It's already been planned out.

 

[citysnaps]

Again, you didn't read one word of what I wrote and are just trying to argue.

Apple terminated this guy at this time for PR reasons, not because they have a good leg to stand upon. Tim Cook wants to make it look like he's running a clean ship. It's embarrassing to Apple, understandably. Investors don't want to invest in an Enron.

If he was indeed insider trading, Apple will be fine. The guy will be found guilty and go to jail. End of story.

If there was no insider trading, the court will find him not guilty. Apple will pay the guy in a confidential settlement a 7-figure number to make him stay quiet. You won't hear anything about it ever again.

It's already been planned out.

Excellent. It seems you have inside knowledge with respect to what he was terminated for.

Again... inform Apple of their blunder, and save them some money.

 

[brucemr]

Considering the profits he made, he had at least 10x more than that to invest.

Reminds me a bit of even dumber thing I have seen....highly educated people with honors degrees making $250k and more per year getting caught and fired for intentionally cheating on expense statements (travel expenses) for max. 1k$ per year gain.

It’s character flaw...a total lack of judgement. I think on this scale of high risk vs. low reward, it is relatively rare. Such people must be removed from a company, as that flaw will certainly impact some other decisions they routinely make on behalf of the company in their job.

 

[SomeSoftwareGuy]

Whoa! I feel bad when I have a wash-sale... and those are legal. 😬

 

[konqerror]

Whoa! I feel bad when I have a wash-sale... and those are legal. 😬

Nothing shady about a wash sale. It's just a special case in accounting.

 

[brucemr]

Nice fabrication. But no. If an employee violates company policies they can be properly terminated. Violating a policy is not necessarily aligned with any crimes being charged.

You are precisely correct. He signed an employment contract. Most likely resigned updated one annually. That’s the way it works in my large company and presume Apple as well. We stay as far away from criminal charges issues as possible. Company policy is usually more stringent and straightforward vs. criminal law. Especially on common issues like insider trading.

 

[jeff051177]

Apple terminated this guy at this time for PR reasons, not because they have a good leg to stand upon

Dude, you're just making stuff up. We have no idea why he was fired. Apple just says that they conducted an investigation, and thereafter he was terminated. Obviously (maybe not?) Apple's own investigation revealed things that would call for his termination - this could be anything that apple's policies consider to be gross misconduct, but need not cross the threshold of breaking the law.

For example, if I went into the office today and yelled at my boss that he was a F****** C*** - I would be fired for gross misconduct, no question. Equally, if I didn't follow certain company policies, or lie repeatedly in the course of my job such as that it causes a huge problem, I would probably get fired.

IF apple fired him prior to the trial "because he broke the law" he could sue them right now - and even if he is found guilty, he could still sue them. Which is exactly why they wouldn't do that

 

[konqerror]

Equally, if I didn't follow certain company policies, or lie repeatedly in the course of my job such as that it causes a huge problem, I would probably get fired.

Nope. Lets say your boss said you stole something. You get fired and the police are called. The police, or a judge, says nothing was stolen and no laws were broken.

What would you do? Say your boss's investigation was fair. Even though nothing was stolen, your boss did a company investigation and you violated the company policy against breaking laws, which of course no law was broken?

Or would you demand your job back and threaten to sue? The thing you'd sue for is wrongful termination because you were fired in bad faith due to a faulty investigation.

Especially when the job has a 6 digit salary, and you have at least that much in severance, stock options, and retirement in the balance.

And on top of that, there's zero risk for you to sue. A lawyer will do this under contingency and take 40-60% of the winnings.

Think about it.

And I as I pointed out, this fairness is very strict in public jobs. Cops, teachers, bus drivers, and similar won't be fired, they'll be put on paid leave until a judgement is returned. Only then can they be fired.

 

[Defthand]

Frankly, I’m not surprised by this revelation. Predictably, where there’s big money to be made, his ilk are found. The disturbing thing is, their scheming minds are considered an asset if their ideas aren’t illegal. This guy enriched himself, but the guy(s) who conceived of the deception that was Batterygate, were just as unethical.

 

[I7guy]

Frankly, I’m not surprised by this revelation. Predictably, where there’s big money to be made, his ilk are found. The disturbing thing is, their scheming minds are considered an asset if their ideas aren’t illegal. This guy enriched himself, but the guy(s) who conceived of the deception that was Batterygate, were just as unethical.

Attempting to equate Power management, with insider trading is not in the same realm.

 

[FreemanW]

I don't see the problem here.

It isn't like he positioned his portfolio prior to implementing Trade Tariffs or Embargoes and then repositioned his portfolio immediately prior to lifting Tariffs and Embargoes.

He merely picked himself up by his own bootstraps.

 

[Baymowe335]

And again, Apple fired him because he violated a law. When firing somebody for cause you have to be specific, and it has to be fair. A court evaluates this under the principle of good faith.

You cannot fire somebody for mismatched socks, even if you have a policy against it. It is fair to fire somebody for violating a law.

However, if you fire somebody because of insider trading, and a court finds that no insider trading occurred, then you're in trouble because your reason for firing was invalid.

If an employer fired you for theft, and it was proven in a court of law that no theft occurred, what would you think? Do you think that's fair? Do you think you should be compensated? Use common sense.

You can fire someone at any time in at will states. California is at will.

 

[cylack]

He's obviously a "do as I say not as I do" type of guy.

 

[Substance90]

To those of you too quick to hate on the guy, imagine how hard it must be to not sell stock that you know is going to drop in value tomorrow or not to buy one that you know for sure is going to appreciate. Loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.

 

[Jaro65]

The lawyer in charge of enforcing insider trading policy is charged with insider trading.

Sometimes you can't even make this stuff up.

 

[Wanted797]

How stupid do you have to be? Did he assume he would be able to go under the radar. Wouldn’t you assume all eyes would be on you given you’re the one who is suppose to be watching others?!

I feel insider trading is a bigger problem than most people think. A company I worked at the dam CEO sold a MASSIVE amount of shares right before a really bad quarter and a bunch of other news that more than halved the stock price. If that isn’t fishy I don’t know what is.

 

[Fall Under Cerulean Kites]

And if he is found not guilty or the charges are dropped, somebody is going to be facing a suit for wrongful termination. If this happens, the company will usually end up settling for a chunk of money to keep it quiet.

In a public position, they are usually barred from firing somebody merely because of charges. That's why police, teachers, etc. are put on paid leave until they are tried.

You're either not from the USA, or are and don't really know how things work here.

Apple is a publicly traded company. Teachers and Police are public employees, meaning they're employed by the government. But that's not even relevant. The issue with placing these public employees on paid leave has to do with unions who have clauses prohibiting termination of union members until certain criteria have been met.

Further, most corporate employees in non-right-to-work states will have employment contracts. In those employment contracts there will nearly always be a clause stating that if the employee is found to have engaged in wrongdoing, that termination of employment is warranted. Note, this can refer to either internal investigations or external (including criminal convictions).

 

[mattopotamus]

I cannot even imagine how incredibly difficult it would be to sit on the information if you had it available to you. You are talking about millions of dollars in money.

 

[mrjohnnyglass]

What horrendous decision making.

Having any amount of Apple stock in quantity should’ve just been an enjoyable ride…
Insider trading on it for the micro movements around earnings is just moronically stupid

Indeed. You would think someone as smart as that would have known to hide his tracks better than that.

 

[frifra]

This isn't monumentally stupid because of the quantity - it's stupid because of his position and how easy it is to catch exactly this kind of insider trading. If he was trading a single share, he still would have been caught.

I've heard of some sophisticated schemes to hide insider trading. You can instead trade in ETFs that hold said stock in a relatively high percentage, never using the same ETF twice. You can hide behind a spaghetti of shell corporations. You could anonymously sell the insider information. This guy did none of that.

Really? There are ETFs which hold certain stock in much higher amounts than others? Defeats the purpose of an ETF if so.

 

[newellj]

I cannot even imagine how incredibly difficult it would be to sit on the information if you had it available to you. You are talking about millions of dollars in money.

But huge numbers of people in the business, banking/financial, legal and accounting worlds do exactly that every day. It just isn't that hard. And if you were tempted, there are lots of stories like this of people being hung out to dry for trading on inside information, and it's unbelievably easy for the SEC, the DOJ and the exchanges to track these people today.
[automerge]1572007889[/automerge]

Indeed. You would think someone as smart as that would have known to hide his tracks better than that.

In an electronic trading world, you can't. The degree of idiocy this guy displayed is breathtaking.

 

[MacBebe]

I bet this guy earned a lot of money while at Apple and yet he wanted more. Greed.

 

[ipponrg]

Really? There are ETFs which hold certain stock in much higher amounts than others? Defeats the purpose of an ETF if so.

Not necessarily. If you look at your ETFs, each one has slightly different holdings than the others. For example, the Vanguard large cap might have more Apple holdings than the other large cap ETFs