Feds Visit Steve Jobs At Apple HQ In Continuing Options Probe

The federal investigation into Apple CEO Steve Jobs' role in backdating nearly 6,500 options is continuing, according to people in the know. First reported by The Recorder, a legal newspaper in San Francisco, federal investigators apparently visited Jobs' at his office at Apple headquarters and tried to learn more about his role in the affair, in which at least two backdated options were granted to him. An internal Apple investigation by Apple cleared Jobs of any wrongdoing. Both sides declined to comment on the ongoing investigation.

• Sources: Bloomberg, Washington Post, Reuters
• Related commentary: Apple: Jobs Knew, Apple's Options Scapegoat: Introducing Ms. Wendy Howell, Why Steve Jobs Should Resign
• Potentially impacted stocks and ETFs: Apple (AAPL). Competitors: Microsoft (MSFT), SanDisk (SNDK), Dell (DELL), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Lenovo (LNVGY.PK). ETFs: NASDAQ 100 Trust Shares (QQQQ), Internet Architecture HOLDRs (IAH), iShares S&P Global Technology (IXN), Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)

Seeking Alpha's news summaries are combined into a pre-market briefing called Wall Street Breakfast. Get Wall Street Breakfast by email -- it's free and takes only a few seconds to sign up.

Comments

[Julian Ivan-Alexander]

Jobs needn't have met with them. That he did so voluntarily just supports his and Apple's assertion that he did nothing illegal. Obviously the SEC will want to interview all parties involved if they can - they're looking into the matter after all! What a stupid spin to put on it. If anything, meeting with them actually supports the stance that there's nothing to this hogwash. If he had anything to hide, he'd have done better not to have met with them and left himself open to any surprise questions they might have prepared for him.

Interestingly, and in stark contrast, Nancy Heinen and Fred Anderson allegedly refused to meet with the SEC to answer questions.

2007 Jan 24 07:46 AM

[Barry Gitarts]

Tommo, the situation you describe is exactly like Martha Stewart. She met with the SEC and look what happened to her, she was not even convicted for insider trading she was convicted for lying to the feds. Had she not met with the feds she would not have been convicted. Another is Hank Greenberg who did not met with investigators and as a result was not convicted or even trialed for anything.

From a business and legal perspective I would never want any of my company executives meeting with government investigators as there is nothing that can be gained from such meeting and everything to be lost. So just for the future, when you have a company where the executives willingly start talking to investigators, it shows poor exercise of judgement and regardless of the outcome instantly increases the risk of the company without adding any reward.

2007 Jan 24 12:02 PM

[Tom B]

Supposedly, Jobs had his lawyers with him. Hopefully, he pulled out a response of "no comment", if necessary-- and hopefully, it wasn't necessary.

Maybe the Feds were looking for dope on Heinen.

2007 Jan 24 01:33 PM

[Julian Ivan-Alexander]

Barry, great points! However, I cannot imagine Jobs would have agreed to meet them if he had anything other than a rock solid explanation for his role in any backdating or, as you point out, he would only be leaving himself vulnerable to being caught out with a surprising line of questioning.

The lessons of Martha Stewart are no doubt fresh in the minds of all US CEOs.

2007 Jan 24 12:36 PM

[Technicolour Squirrel]

Hey, Barry, here's an even better way to avoid being prosecuted for committing perjury in front of government investigators. DON'T LIE TO THEM.

The "legal perspective" is what turns reasonable human beings into sharp-dealing jerk, and we should all abhor the fact that we need to be constantly reminding people of the value of the truth.

Lawyers did this to us.

2007 Jan 24 01:07 PM

[Barry Gitarts]

Technicolour, If you don't talk to investigators there is no chance of you lying to them. If you talk to them and you give information that is false (even if you think its true) you could be charged with obstruction of justice. Thats what happened to Martha, she thought she was telling the truth.

This is not being dishonest, it is a way of protecting yourself from investigators representing an organization (government) which earns its keeps by dishonest means; extortion (taxes).

2007 Jan 25 10:34 AM