Got a tip for us? Share it...

Anderson Blames Jobs In Backdating

In an interesting twist to the high-profile stock options backdating probe that has been ongoing for over a year at Apple, former CFO Fred Anderson is claiming that he warned Apple CEO Steve Jobs about the financial and legal repercussions of his backdated option grant, and that Jobs had given him assurances that the grant was board-approved.

The Wall Street Journal (Paid Subscription Required) has Mr. Anderson's full statement, which in part reads:

Fred was told by Steve Jobs in late January 2001 that Mr. Jobs had the agreement of the Board of Directors for the Executive Team grant on January 2, 2001. At the time Mr. Jobs provided Fred this assurance, Fred cautioned Mr. Jobs that the Executive Team grant would have to be priced based on the date of the actual Board agreement or there could be an accounting charge. He further advised Mr. Jobs that the Board would have to confirm its prior approval in a legally satisfactory method. He was told by Mr. Jobs that the Board had given its prior approval and the Board would verify it. Fred relied on these statements by Mr. Jobs and from them concluded the grant was being properly handled.


The SEC has yet to respond to these specific allegations. A previous report by Mercury News indicated that there has been a lack of evidence to support criminal charges against Mr. Jobs.

Anderson has recently settled with the SEC regarding his involvement in the ordeal, having admitted no guilt but having to pay a $150,000 fine in addition to paying back the received grants. Separately, the SEC is pursuing legal action against former general counsel Nancy Heinen, which she plans to contest.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

63 months ago
This makes me wonder if that Mercury News report was accurate. If it was, then the SEC may still pursue civil action against him.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
based on what i've read, the SEC says this is false. but it's still early.

He needs to have verifiable proof or nothing will happen.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
so did anderson escape jail time by agreeing to testify against jobs? i don't imagine it'll be long before we find out.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
i actually wouldn't be that surprised if steve did do that, just based on his confidence and all that.

but again, i'm not based on any real proof
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago

This makes me wonder if that Mercury News report was accurate. If it was, then the SEC may still pursue civil action against him.


The Merc News reporting was essentially a rehash of material we've seen before, presented in somewhat more detail. IMO it relies too heavily on unnamed sources to be fully reliable. It seems likely that Anderson made this statement in connection with his plea agreement. Can the SEC pursue a civil action? I don't think so.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
"the Board had given its prior approval and the Board would verify it."

Maybe I'm reading something wrong, but it sounds more like Anderson is "blaming" the Board, and Jobs was just the messenger in that conversation. Unless Jobs lied to Anderson about the Board's approval/verification--but Anderson doesn't seem to be saying that.

I'm sure everyone involved--guilty and innocent alike--is trying to deflect blame or the appearance of blame. I wonder if we'll ever know who REALLY acted with intent to defraud?
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
well Anderson cried mommy and settled.

Let's see if the other person who hasn't settled has something to defend her/him self with (not sure if it's a man or woman).
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
In listening to the details carefully, this is Andersen's post-settlement lash-out PR release so when he goes on to run his new investmnt fund, his new associates can point to somebody to explain why he had to settle with SEC.

Notably SEC justified their hands-off approach regarding Jobs by citing the immediate and full cooperation they received from Apple and all the remaining ployees there (after the key players in the drama resigned.

The whole SEC involvement in this is anti-stockholder interest and in an area (options pricing) which in effect has no "losers" in a stock with such large daily transaction volumes as Apple has. The "dilutive effect" is nearly unmeasureable and has "no impact" on the market for the stock.

So I can see why he is pised to give $35,000,000 "back". My question is who got the $35m? Apple, Apple stockholders, or the SEC. Wanna place a bet?

Rocketman
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
As the Martha Stewart and Richard Scrushy cases show, it's often very difficult to prove intent in securities cases.

Scrushy successfully was able to pull the "I didn't order the numbers to be fixed" defense in his criminal trial. Granted there were civil matters, but he isn't in jail and his house and other items are shielded from garnishment.

Stewart just was placed in jail for lying to Fed officials and not for insider trading in the ImClone case.

Jobs is claiming of course that he didn't order the options to be backdated, that only he "discussed it" thus he should be absolved from liability and blame should be shifted to the board and Apple's lead council.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
63 months ago
If Jobs is indicted and removed as CEO of Apple, and Apple falls by the wayside into the corporation graveyard, how long would a web site like MacRumors survive? A year? Less?

Have you guys got your resumes polished up yet?:eek:
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives

[ Read All Comments ]