Press Release follows verbatim:
A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities and/or sold put options of Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: AAPL) between December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Complaint charges that Apple and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10-b(5) and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The action alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Apple’s improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain executives which made it appear that such options were issued on dates when the market price of Apple stock was higher than actual market price on the actual grant dates. This improper backdating masked the virtually instant profits the option recipients obtained. Under generally accepted accounting principles, these profits were required to be recognized as an expense in the Company’s financial statements for the appropriate period, but were not. Thus, the Company’s financial statements in its Form 10-K filing for the fiscal year 2005 and interim financial statements for 2005 and 2006 were materially false and misleading. In addition, the Company’s Proxy Statement for its annual shareholder meeting held in 2006 was materially false and misleading because it contained statements concealing Apple’s practice of backdating stock options. The Complaint further alleges that as a result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs and the Class were damaged.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members and are represented by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody, which has significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions on behalf of investors.
If you purchased Apple securities and/or sold put options on Apple shares between December 1, 2005 and August 11, 2006, inclusive, you may be a member of the class and have until October 24, 2006, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class, however, you do not need to_take any action at this time. Should you decide to seek appointment asa lead plaintiff, you may retain Stull Stull & Brody, or counsel of your choice.
If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or_interests with respect to this matter, please contact Howard T. Longman of Stull, Stull & Brody at 973-301-0900 or toll free at 800-337-4983 or via e-mail at Tsvi@aol.com or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.
Related articles:
Does Apple board member Al Gore have an options problem? – August 25, 2006
Shareholders allege Apple execs reaped ‘millions’ in unlawful profits – August 23, 2006
How options-backdating irregularities can affect your Apple Computer stock – August 23, 2006
Apple’s options imbroglio: Mac-maker granted options at or near key events in company’s history – August 18, 2006
Apple added to Nasdaq’s list of ‘delinquent companies’ – August 18, 2006
Apple unlikely to be delisted by NASDAQ – August 16, 2006
Apple CEO Steve Jobs drawn into stock options scandal – August 15, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – August 11, 2006
As expected, Apple delays quarterly results due to stock-options grants review – August 11, 2006
Some stock options grant decisions were made by Apple board, and potentially, CEO Steve Jobs – August 10, 2006
Disney: no material impact from Pixar options – August 09, 2006
Pixar options draw scrutiny – August 08, 2006
Apple stock options scandal? What scandal? – August 07, 2006
Class action lawsuit over stock options filed against Apple Computer, Inc. – August 04, 2006
Wall Street forgiving of Apple’s stock option irregularities; CEO Jobs unlikely to be terminated – August 04, 2006
Apple’s stock option irregularities escalate into a scandal as world awaits Steve Jobs’ WWDC keynote – August 04, 2006
Apple warns of profit restatement dating back to 2002 – August 04, 2006
Apple loses 3.5% to $67.15 in premarket trading – August 04, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – August 03, 2006
Shareholder’s options suit against Apple alleges ‘striking pattern that could not have been chance’ – July 11, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – July 05, 2006
UBS: stock options probe unlikely to hurt Apple – June 30, 2006
Apple joins growing list of companies entangled in stock option ‘irregularities’ – June 29, 2006
Apple to investigate stock option grant ‘irregularities’ made between 1997 and 2001 – June 29, 2006
Big time lawyers, and they use AOL for e-mail?
Words fail me.
Bottom feeding lawyers help keep honest people honest
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />
TO STULL, et al:
So as a member of the class AND a current shareholder I’m suing myself and paying lawyers’ fees to do it! I’ve made roughly 1000% on my investment over the last 4 years. What EXACTLY have I got to complain about? Just go away!
NewType,
The laws are already on the books allowing a Judge to fine (“sanction” in legal speak) lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits.
However, since judges were lawyers prior to sitting on the bench and most become lawyers again after sitting on the bench, judges very, very seldom sanction lawyers. It’s the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
I was an expert witness in a lawsuit for a few million. The other side’s lawyers kept drafting frivolous petition after frivolous petition for data from the side I was working for just to try to bleed them dry generating paper and paying for lawyer time.
The judge saw through this and ordered the opposing side to stop it and sanctioned the lead lawyer personally for $5,000.00. I thought this was a trivial sum considering that lawyer gets about $600.00 an hour for his services. However, the lead lawyer on the side I was on said this was HUGE. — A $5,000 fine for someone who makes well over a million a year is HUGE???? I didn’t think so.
But… the bottom line is the laws and such are in place to stop lawyers from filing frivolous actions. It’s just that judges almost never enforce them.
Oh, bye-the-bye, I agree that 99.99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name!
But I disagree with the old joke that 10 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean is a good start. I would agree that 100,000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean is a good start.
Thorin: “Bottom feeding lawyers help keep honest people honest”
I would agree with this if lawyers were at all interested in honesty. The problem is that 99.999% of them are not. They are only interested in winning their case and maximizing their fees (not necessarily in that order).
I have personally been exposed to lawyers asking me questions, on the stand, under oath, of the nature of:
“So, isn’t it true Mr. XXX that because of the serious personal hazards that were inherent in the flawed ABC design that you are intending to do a complete redesign of the XYZ system?”
When I tried to explain that there was no such hazard or design flaw and that there would be no redesign necessary, he interrupted to emphatically ask the judge (while looking at the jury) that I be instructed to answer a “yes or no” question with a “yes or no” answer so that my answer to the question can be clear and unambiguous to the jury. The judge instructed me to do so. The lawyer got his statement about a completely ficticious design flaw into the minds of the jury and I looked like I was just fighting with the lawyer rather than answering his questions.
After 4.5 days on the stand taking this kind of stupid abuse… I don’t know anyone who would look kindly toward a lawyer.
Stull, Stull & Brody: Just another bunch of class action trial pimps proving why the need for tort reform.
Bull, Bull & Fcukery.
Thats all I have to say…
Stull, Stull, & Brody other wise known as Vulture, Vulture, & Buzzard should have the judgement of Shakespeare carried out on them. Damed blood suckers.
but gheem: shakespeare didn’t mean it in its obvious sense. He was referring to the way that lawyers stood in the way of, well, a coup. Essentially the character was suggesting that killing the lawyers would be necessary in order to flout the law.
I think this underscores the whole story. The law, and hence lawyers are needed by society, but in every societal mechanism there are the exemplars and the bottomfeeder; those who contribute and those just on the gravy train.
I can’t wait to get my $5 check….
Why is it that these low life lawyers are always scum sucking, Air America, John Kerry-Al Gore, liberal, commies??????
Amazing. No MDN take. Whatever gets them to shut the hell up is good by me. Bring on the lawsuits!
Class action law suits should be pro-bono by law, covering expenses only.
Ndelc,
I agree completely!
and always from California.
martin – trolls wearing elephant masks are still trolls. go away.
Martin,
You hit the nail on the head. You’re no troll. Matt + Terrorist!
Again I ask, what damages were caused by this? The only people that lost money lost money in Jan. when the stock got ahead of itself. That is a risk in investing. The options didn’t effect the stock at that point in time. So I don’t see any damages to any stock holders. Maybe I’m wrong, which is why I’m asking what damages people could have received.