Spin and Apple's Backdating Scandal

You have to admit, when it comes to PR, Apple is the spin master, along with it's Mac groupies. How else can you explain the quick rush to judgement of the "legal experts" being cited in the newspapers praising Steve Jobs:

View this article at: http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/10/09/legal.experts.on.probe/
Monday, October 9,2006 @ 5:00pm

Is Jobs clear of Apple options scandal?

Legal experts are commending Apple for taking charge to remedy its stock option grant scandal, despite the implication of two former executives which raised "serious concern" during Apple's internal investigation. The investigation of irregularities -- which has plagued investors with worries of company chief Steve Jobs possibly losing his position -- made significant progress last week to clear the air around Jobs' apparent lack of involvement with the shady accounting practices. "The company has taken every single appropriate step that can be expected to be taken to identify and remedy the past problems," said Mike Koenig, a criminal defense attorney. [Isn't that what defense attorneys always say?]"We think Apple will get past this unscathed - as long as it doesn't impact [Steve] Jobs," said analyst Shannon Cross of Cross Research. [Who is Cross selling research to?] Jobs assertion that he did not understand the accounting implications of the illegal backdating may also help his case, according to Reuters. [It's always better to be dumb and rich, than smart and rich...proven jury research.]

"He didn't know there was rejiggering of the financial results," said James Cox, a Duke University Law School professor. [Ahhhhh, who says....ohh Apple's Special Committee]"There's a difference between knowing that the options were backdated and knowing that the numbers that were being produced were misleading," Cox said. [ Hmmmmm...missed me on that one]Another attorney said Apple's mistakes seem much less serious than activities allegedly performed by executives of Brocade and Comverse -- which were also involved in stock options backdating -- and that disciplinary action will likely prove more lenient for the Cupertino-based company. "There have been some egregious cases," said George Stamboulidis, an attorney with Baker Hostetler. "But this doesn't sound to have been one of them," Stamboulidis of Apple. [Somehow I can't hear the violins.]

Comments

[whocares]

Grant of stock options is meant to be a form of compensation (i.e., dangling carrot) on top of regular pay that companies will award to management for their outstanding service. Stock options are supposed to induce management work hard and align their interests with those of the company’s shareholders. Sounds fair thus far. Now, when stock options are backdated, the risk of uncertainty is alleviated; when stock options are vested at the grant date, it is disguised pay (substance over form doctrine). And when dust settles, companies have shareholders pick up the tab of their generosity. Would you knowingly pay more than the company is worth?