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.
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 …
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.