back to article Dead Steve Jobs sued by own shareholders in no-poach pact brouhaha

Apple is once again facing a lawsuit, this time from its own shareholders over its no-poaching-of-staff pacts with rivals. A lawsuit [PDF] filed in California's San Jose District Court earlier this week claims the Cupertino giant misled investors and damaged the value of the company by striking a fishy hiring agreement with …

  1. asdf

    disgusting

    And the rich wonder why populism is flourishing. Certain people seem to preach about the beauty of a free market unless it concerns labor. Good ole crony capitalism.

    1. FreemonSandlewould

      Re: disgusting

      FYI: Please note that every entity involved like Apple and Google are controlled by people at the top who purport to be liberals.

      That is the kind of dishonest you get from liberals.

      True capitalism is can only be practiced honestly. The rest is just an expensive imitation.

      1. asdf

        Re: disgusting

        >True capitalism is can only be practiced honestly.

        So do you consider Wall St. investment banks to be capitalistic? Jamie Dimon is as honest as they come.

  2. ratfox
    WTF?

    How does this make sense??

    So you're a shareholder, and you want the company to pay you… Thus diminishing the value of the company you partly own…

    Seems like at best, this is a no-op; and that's without counting lawyer's fees!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Re: How does this make sense??

      @ratfox: "Seems like at best, this is a no-op; and that's without counting lawyer's fees!"

      If I'de known this was coming then I could have shorted Apple. Hey, I think I just invented a brand new financial product like Synthetic CDOs?

    2. John Tserkezis

      Re: How does this make sense??

      "So you're a shareholder, and you want the company to pay you…"

      Is that the idea? You'd be hard-pressed to find a shareholder that DIDN'T go into it hoping they'll get their money back plus interest.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: How does this make sense??

      You own $x of stock,you hope the payout to you is $x+y

      The company has a lot of cash in the bank and could afford to pay off a few troublesome small shareholders to avoid a clash action suit if the big institutional investors agreed

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: How does this make sense??

        Sorry that should have been "class-action".

        The "clash-action suit" was an ill fated attempt by the seminal punk band to launch their own range of fitness wear

    4. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: How does this make sense??

      "So you're a shareholder, and you want the company to pay you… Thus diminishing the value of the company you partly own…"

      Given Apple's notorious reluctance to pay dividends to shareholders even with the enormous cash pile it's sitting on, I think it's a fair call for shareholders. A payout by court order, just like a dividend, is cash in the bank.

      Share price is only theoretical value unless/until you sell.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Ethical investor R. Andre Klein

    This is interesting, I wonder how many Apple shares R. Andre Klein holds and when did he buy them and what other companies does he have a financial interest in. It's so encouraging to see even in todays ethically challenged climate, someone who is prepared to stand on principle and take a haircut on Wall Street.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    "widely respected businessmen"

    Steve Jobs was a widely respected businessman? Only on Planet Stupid.

    1. stanimir

      Re: "widely respected businessmen"

      The very same person who thought "thermonuclear war" is the way to conduct business.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Stanimir

        Business as a global thermonuclear war? A strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

        Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of Chess?

    2. james 68

      Re: "widely respected businessmen"

      Steve Jobs was indeed a widely respected businessman, slimier than the lawyers he was so fond of hiring and as immoral as a pedo in a santa suit at christmas, but he did indeed have the respect of other businessmen and his cult like followers. In fact those very immoral aspects are probably why other businessmen respected him, he was what they wished they could be if only they could eject the last of their humanity, he was a hero to many of those people.

      However to those of us who are sane, humane and had not drank the apple flavoured Kool-aid he was best described as an asshat.

      1. Aitor 1

        Re: "widely respected businessmen"

        But he had the gut to say himself that he was a bad person.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: "widely respected businessmen"

      In business circles it is often the case that respected = feared.

      1. asdf

        Re: "widely respected businessmen"

        In business circles it is often the case that sociopath = c suite

  5. tommyc2k7

    Why not? You can always sue somebody. It's just gonna take some special protocol. We would have to perform a sue-ance

    1. dotdavid
      Coat

      "The ouija board didn't seem to work, but we might have been holding it wrong"

  6. DaveMac

    "The suit seeks unspecified payouts from the company for damages to shareholders from the negative impact of the case on the company's value."

    Presumably there will be a counter-suit for the damages to shareholders from the negative impact of this suit on the company's value.

    1. Bronek Kozicki

      Actually no, it makes sense. Apple suffered reputational damage as soon as the first class action suit was brought. I'm too lazy to see how this original suit affected the share price but I'd hazard a guess that there was some dip. Now a shareholder are asking for compensation for this dip.

      It's fair game, given that (due to lack of dividend) the only way to profit from Apple shares is to sell them, which makes shareholders more sensitive to share price moves.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Presumably there will be a counter-suit

      Nope.

      First off, in order to be accountable they'd have to have some authority in the company by which they could affect share price.

      Next up, you can't be sued for attempting to enforce your civil rights unless in making such attempts you make false allegations.

  7. Marcus Aurelius
    Mushroom

    One argument would be

    ...that because of this agreement Apple was able to save billions of dollars, obtain and hold the staff it wanted and therefore report increased profits which would reflect in an increased share price. The settlement will be for peanuts (if you call a couple of hundred million peanuts) and therefore a reasonable return on its dodgy activity.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: One argument would be

      Given the pitifully small fines for most corporate naughtiness compared to the payoff for breaking the law you could claim that any director that stayed within the law violated their duty to the shareholders and so acted illegally.

  8. Stevie

    Bah!

    This is the way we wreck the shareholder value,

    Wreck the shareholder value,

    Wreck the shareholder value,

    This is the way we wreck the shareholder value,

    In the search for a quick dividend payout.

  9. Caesarius
    WTF?

    Hang on a minute

    If the no poaching pact was done for profit, and if it succeeded, then the shareholders got more value not less. Why would they cut off their own noses?

    Or perhaps the pact had run its course, and was generating less money (but how can anyone know that?). Then it might be good to be first in the queue suing for compensation.

    Sorry, that's a bit cynical.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like