toggle

AAPL Stock: 111.78 ( -0.87 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

NYC pension fund continues with Apple suit

updated 10:55 am EST, Tue December 18, 2007

NYC pension fund lawsuit

A group managing the pension fund for New York City's public servants is continuing a lawsuit against Apple, despite a ruling suggesting it should not, reports say. In November, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the US District Court in San Jose determined that the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) had no basis for suing Apple over stock backdating, as it hadn't actually suffered damages. Fogel did recommend joining a derivative suit that would not have produced payouts, but NYCERS has instead chosen to re-file a second version of the suit.

Exactly what changes may have been made are unknown, but NYCERS is still accusing Apple of damages triggered by a 14 percent drop in its stock price, a result of the backdating scandal revealed in 2006. Fogel is said to have dismissed the case in part because Apple value has risen 500 percent since 2005, easily negating any short-term losses. A hearing scheduled for January will decide whether or not NYCERS can continue with its second lawsuit, which may affect the pension plan's health if no money is awarded.




by MacNN Staff

toggle

Comments

  1. rvhernandez

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Lawyer$ looking for $...

    Of cour$e they don't want to join a law$uit in which there aren't any monetary gain$. Otherwi$e, how will they pay the lawyer$?

  1. dliup

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Solution

    The solution should be that Apple be "forced" to buy back stock at the price when the stock "scandal" happened, instead of today's price. Was it $100 back then and $180 or so now? That'll teach those frivolous lawsuit makers a lesson. Lol.

    As the judge said, they've suffered no damages, so they are just wasting their money.

  1. hokizpokis

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    lawyers

    would gladly trade in their own mothers for a buck...

  1. danviento

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    What a waste

    So when they loose this case again, they'll loose the money spent on litigation fees, etc. Funny how ppl who try these scams often end up loosing more than they bargained for.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    lousy decision

    Tossing out the lawsuit because the stock has risen 500% was a bad call. It all depends on how such an event affected the company, not "Hey, the stock has risen since then, so it's not a big deal!". What if the pension fund sold shares during the drop? What if they had margins called on because of the drop? h***, what if the drop caused their balance sheet to show a drop, thus causing concern amongst investors, thus causing the pension fund to take steps they wouldn't have otherwise needed to make.

    And while it's oh-so-much-fun to lash out at lawyers, unless the fund is actually run by lawyers it's still the fund that is suing, not the lawyers.

  1. unity@mac.com

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Testurdo

    The lawyers are indirectly responsible. Why? People hire lawyers for legal advice. The lawyers associated with this suit have advised their clients to proceed even after being advised not to. So yes the fund may be suing, but because they have be ill-advised to.

    As for tossing out the suit, they did not sell shares, they took no lose.

    So should I bring suit with the Dow Jones since all my shares dropped when it was trading below 13k? Should I bring suit to the Bush Administration for adjusting the interest rates which negatively affected me?

    No, because I do not want to look like an a**. Whether its the global economy or a single company, there is ALWAYS risk and EVERY investor knows that! Think Enron!

  1. SubPop

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    lawyer vs client

    The lawyers associated with this suit have advised their clients to proceed even after being advised not to. So yes the fund may be suing, but because they have be ill-advised to.

    You're making a very big assumption here. Nowhere does it make mention that their lawyers made the recommendation to continue. I don't know any lawyer that would make that recommendation after the suit was tossed out. What's more likely is that the lawyer made the recommendation to drop it and the pension fund ignored this advice. This happens far more often.

    So should I bring suit with the Dow Jones since all my shares dropped when it was trading below 13k? Should I bring suit to the Bush Administration for adjusting the interest rates which negatively affected me?

    No - because that is a risk that you are reasonably expected to take into consideration, and a risk that share prices are generally adjusted for automatically. The options scandal, on the other hand, was caused by improper accounting practices which is outside that expected risk.

    If you look back at 2001 and 2002, and held Dow shares that were affected by the fall of Enron or Worldcom, you would be entitled to sue either of those companies (of course, good luck getting anything from them)

    there is ALWAYS risk and EVERY investor knows that! Think Enron!

    Investors are expected to take reasonable precautions. Nobody could have reasonably mitigated the damage that Enron caused, except for those who knew what was going on (surprise surprise, they are all multi-millionaires, including the dead and the jailed).

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Re: unity

    Wow, still making fun of people's names. Will you ever grow up.

    As to your questions/points:

    People hire lawyers for legal advice.

    No they don't. They hire lawyers to sue people and make money, regardless of reason, logic, or the like. And once people see $$$ in their eyes, there's little stopping them.

    So should I bring suit with the Dow Jones since all my shares dropped when it was trading below 13k?

    I'm sorry, are you invested in a Dow Jones industrial stock? Did Dow Jones do something illegal that caused the index to drop? And since the index is just that, an index, which is based on 30 companies, it dropping would more indicate drops in the associated companies. Perhaps you should look into suing them.

    Should I bring suit to the Bush Administration for adjusting the interest rates which negatively affected me?

    Um, no. Because the Bush administration has no ability to change interest rates. That's up to the Federal Reserve, which is an independent gov't entity (the only way it would work at all anyway).

    And, again, did they do something illegal ? Perhaps you could spend your time suing the mortgage companies and hedge funds who loaned so much out to people who were such high credit risks, thus causing the current economic mess.

    But that's not right. We should just tell people to wait until the stock price goes up 500 percent, because then they won't have suffered.

  1. unity@mac.com

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    testudo

    No, not people's names. Just your handle. Seeing that your chose the genus of a turtle, I thought you were a little slow and would not catch on.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Dell AD211 Bluetooth speaker

For all of the high-priced, over-engineered Bluetooth speakers in the electronics market, there is still room for mass-market solution ...

VisionTek 128GB USB Pocket SSD

USB flash drives dealt the death blow to both the floppy and Zip drives. While still faster than either of the old removable media, sp ...

Kodak PixPro SL10 Smart Lens Camera

Smartphone imagery still widely varies. Large Megapixel counts don't make for a good image, and the optics in some devices are lackin ...

toggle

Most Commented