Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Anderson blames Jobs for misstated Apple options grant

Former Apple chief financial officer Fred Anderson, now battered and bruised by the company's options debacle, is shoving current chief executive Steve Jobs back into the melee to deflect some of the remaining blows.

In a statement that followed his settlement with the SEC on Monday, Anderson largely shifted the blame for his involvement in a backdated 2001 Executive Team grant back to Jobs. The former Apple finance chief claims that Jobs came to him in late January of 2001 and informed him that he had received the Board's approval for the massive grant on January 2nd, 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," Anderson's lawyer, Jerome Roth, said in the statement. "He further advised Mr. Jobs that the Board would have to confirm its prior approval in a legally satisfactory method."

Anderson then contests that Jobs offered further approval, assuring him that the Board would verify the grant. "Fred relied on these statements by Mr. Jobs and from them concluded the grant was being properly handled."

Anderson said he understood that, under Apple's stock option plan and accounting rules at the time, a grant date could be moved to a later date than the date of the actual grant decision and that there would be no compensation expense as long as the stock price on the new date was higher than the price on the original date.

"Mr. Anderson understood that the date of grant was to be moved forward pursuant to this provision from January 2 to January 17 to avoid any appearance of impropriety that might arise from a grant awarded just prior to the stock price rise that resulted from the 2001 MacWorld exhibition and Mr. Job's keynote speech at the exhibition on January 9," says the statement. "He further understood that the January 17 date was selected by Mr. Jobs and Ms. Nancy Heinen, the former General Counsel, and that the stock price on January 17 was higher than the price on January 2."

As it turns out, the Board likely never gave the necessary prior approval to the grants, contrary to what Anderson claims to have understood from Jobs.

With respect to a second grant issued to solely to Jobs during October 2001, Anderson claims "virtually no involvement" as he was not a member of the Board and did not have a formal role in compensation matters pertaining to the CEO.

"Fred had absolutely no knowledge of any alteration of Board documents and this is reflected by the fact that he is not even mentioned in those charges," according to the statement.

Those interested can read Anderson's statement, in its entirety, on the next page.

Attorney for Fred Anderson Issues Statement Regarding Settlement of Claims with the SEC

The following statement is attributed to Mr. Fred Anderson's attorney Jerome Roth, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in San Francisco. This statement was issued following the announcement by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that it had settled claims against Mr. Anderson arising from his tenure as Chief Financial Officer at Apple.

"Fred Anderson has a long-standing impeccable reputation and is widely regarded as one of the most ethical CFO's in the nation whose extraordinary contributions to Apple's success during his eight-year tenure are unquestioned. He is accurately recognized by many current and former Apple employees and throughout the industry as a man of exceptional ability, achievement and integrity.

"With respect to today's announced settlement by the SEC of its complaint against him, Fred is pleased to put this matter behind him.

"In the settlement Fred makes no admission or denial of the claims by the SEC. The terms of the settlement permit Fred to continue to act as an officer or director of public companies and do not bar him from practicing before the SEC. The claims against him also do not include fraud under the two antifraud provisions of the securities laws requiring proof of knowing misconduct.

"With respect to the Executive Team grant that is the subject of the complaint against him:

  • 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.
  • Fred understood that, under Apple's stock option plan and accounting rules at the time, a grant date could be moved to a later date than the date of the actual grant decision and that there would be no compensation expense as long as the stock price on the new date was higher than the price on the original date. Apple's 1998 Executive Officer Stock Option Plan provided in Section 16 that 'The date of grant of an Option...shall be, for all purposes, the date on which the Administrator (in this case the Board) makes the determination granting such Option...or such later date as is determined by the Administrator '. Mr. Anderson understood that the date of grant was to be moved forward pursuant to this provision from January 2 to January 17 to avoid any appearance of impropriety that might arise from a grant awarded just prior to the stock price rise that resulted from the 2001 MacWorld exhibition and Mr. Job's keynote speech at the exhibition on January 9. He further understood that the January 17 date was selected by Mr. Jobs and Ms. Nancy Heinen, the former General Counsel, and that the stock price on January 17 was higher than the price on January 2.
  • Finally, Mr. Anderson understood that the Board of Directors, which consisted of sophisticated corporate executives of national stature, including the former Chief Financial Officer of IBM, verified the January 17 date by signing in early February 2001 a Unanimous Written Consent (UWC) with an effective date of January 17. It now appears the Board may not have given the necessary prior approval to the grants, contrary to what Mr. Anderson understood from Mr. Jobs and from the Board's signing of the UWC with an effective date of January 17.

"Mr. Anderson has agreed to pay disgorgement, the difference in the value of the stock between the January 17 date and the date in early February when the UWC was signed by the Board.

"With respect to the October 2001 grant to Mr. Jobs that is also the subject of the complaint, Fred had virtually no involvement as he was not a member of the Board and did not have a formal role in compensation matters pertaining to the CEO. Fred had absolutely no knowledge of any alteration of Board documents and this is reflected by the fact that he is not even mentioned in those charges.

"Fred Anderson remains proud of his accomplishments as a former CFO and Board member at Apple. He wishes the company and its many talented employees continued success. With this matter resolved, Fred looks forward to continuing his career as a Founder and Managing Director of Elevation Partners."



33 Comments

athletics68 17 Years · 18 comments

SEC obviously doesn't agree with Fred.

fraklinc 17 Years · 244 comments

what a freaking scumbag, everything is getting resolve and they keep talking, making things worse, guess what fred, your where Apple chief financial officer not jobs, you will now learn words dont mean a thing, and that rules dont get bend for anyone you fail to do your job as a Apple chief financial officer take the heat and dont make things worse, saying you did it because steve told you to wont really make any difference

blacksummernight 18 Years · 562 comments

If what he says is true, why not tell it. No reason to take the beaten by himeself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc

what a freaking scumbag, everything is getting resolve and they keep talking, making things worse, guess what fred, your where Apple chief financial officer not jobs, you will now learn words dont mean a thing, and that rules dont get bend for anyone you fail to do your job as a Apple chief financial officer take the heat and dont make things worse, saying you did it because steve told you to wont really make any difference

buck 18 Years · 293 comments

Isn't the investigation over? What's the point of this?

melgross 20 Years · 33622 comments

First of all, it's not a statement from Anderson. It's a statement from his lawyer. There is a difference. It's in the second person. If Anderson made the statement himself, it would be in the first person.

The reason for this is that he can deny the exact meaning of what was said without being judged on it, as he would be if he made the statement himself.

I'm not saying that this indicates any wrongdoing over and above what the judgement handed out. It's a standard way of handling these things.

I said this in a thread in AR's earlier, and I'll repeat it, as it's been my position:

Quote:
Anderson's lawyers statement seems to be complete, but is after all, just an interpretation.

While Anderson's lawyer is hinting that "Jobs did it", without more details of exactly what was said, we can't rely on that statement as being the final word on what actually occurred.

As this matter has been before the SEC for months, and Job's position in the investigation has been investigated for the same length of time as has anyone else's, the fact that he hasn't been charged, while they have, seems to tell us something.

Unless more information comes out, it seems to be the only logical conclusion.