Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. and Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs face shareholder claims in a case relying on a different strategy than previous, similar lawsuits accusing the company of improperly backdating stock-option grants.

Filed under seal in Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, California, the case is ``similar but not identical'' to other so-called derivative lawsuits, said H. Adam Prussin, a lawyer representing shareholders. An Amended complaint was filed Sept. 5 by investors on behalf of Apple against its directors and officers for breach of corporate duties.

Prussin said yesterday that he used a different approach than lawyers in previous suits that have been dismissed or settled. He said he won a court order in 2007 requiring the company, under California law, to produce books and records of its backdated options. He filed a first complaint in the current case in April.

``We have details about the transactions involved that I don't think anyone else has,'' Prussin said in a phone interview. ``We know who did what to whom and when. Plaintiffs in the other cases did not do an examination of books and records,'' he said, declining to explain what the records contain.

Under a court order keeping much of the lawsuit from public view, a version of the amended complaint was filed with most details of the transactions blacked-out. The case names as defendants Apple, Jobs, six former and current directors, former Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson and former General Counsel Nancy Heinen.

`Backdating Scheme'

Jobs ``was at the center of the backdating scheme,'' according to the suit, which claims Apple's board went ``out of its way to shield Jobs from any responsibility.''

Apple spokeswoman Susan Lundgren said the Cupertino, California-based company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Through backdating, companies retroactively change grant dates to increase a recipient's gains. At least 225 companies have disclosed internal or federal probes involving options irregularities, and more than 140 have said they will restate financial results.

Apple said in a 2006 annual report that it backdated 6,428 stock-option grants to executives and employees from 1997 to 2002, including a grant to Jobs made at a special board meeting that never occurred. An Apple investigation determined that Jobs hadn't engaged in any misconduct, and in July federal prosecutors closed a criminal probe of backdating at Apple.

`Cryptic Allusion'

Apple's language in its 2006 annual report to describe the backdating is ``vague and shifting,'' according to the complaint filed by Prussin on behalf of the Boston Retirement Board. Its ``cryptic allusion, almost in passing, of Jobs' `awareness' of and `recommendations' concerning option grant dates are obfuscations,'' according to the suit.

``Rather than blame Jobs and or other members of current management, Apple has tried to shift all the blame to two former employees, former Chief Financial Officer Fred D. Anderson and former general counsel Nancy R. Heinen,'' according to the complaint.

Both Anderson and Heinen resigned from Apple, and both settled lawsuits filed against them by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over option backdating at the company.

On Sept. 8, Apple's settlement of a consolidated federal case over backdated stock options was tentatively approved by a judge in San Jose. Joseph Tabacco, a lawyer working with Prussin, said the amended suit filed Sept. 5 wasn't covered by the settlement.

The case is Boston Retirement Board v. Steven P. Jobs, 108CV110403, Santa Clara County Superior Court (San Jose).

To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in Los Angeles at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 13, 2008 00:01 EDT