 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Apple Computer, Inc. Summary: According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed this purported class action on August 24, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. On January 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the Company’s stock and asserts claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as state law. The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2007, which was heard on September 7, 2007. On November 14, 2007, the Court issued an order dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case. On December 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. On January 23, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on March 21, 2008. On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. The court entered judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008. On June 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
The original 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.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3571
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Apple Computer, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | AAPL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.apple.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Martin Vogel, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/24/2006 | ||
| Memorandum Of Law In Support Of The New York City Employees' Retirement System's Motion For Its Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of Its Selection Of Counsel | |||
| Type: Memorandum | Date on the document: 10/24/2006 | ||
| The New York City Employees' Retirement System's Motion For Its Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of Its Selection Of Counsel | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 10/24/2006 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 01/10/2007 | ||
| Stipulation And Order Setting Schedule For Filing Of Amended Consolidated Complaint And Briefing And Hearing Schedule Re Motions To Dismiss | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 03/19/2007 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Martin Vogel, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Verified Derivative Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act, Break Of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding And Abetting, Unjust Enrichment, Recission, Gross Mismanagement, And Waste Of Corporate Assets | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Phyllis Jones, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/22/2006 | ||
| Complaint - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Alfred Ronconi, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/31/2006 | ||
| Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Erick Gulsrud, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/01/2006 | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top