Apple has filed a 21-page document with the courts outlining why it thinks that the Greenlight Capital lawsuit shouldn't be given the time of day.
It has also emerged that David Einhorn raised his stake in Apple during the fourth quarter of 2012.
In the document, Apple refers to the plaintiffs’ "Attempt to interfere with the orderly consideration of proposals at Apple’s February 27, 2013 shareholders’ meeting."
The company says it: "Respectfully requests that the Court deny plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction." Apple gives the following four reason for its denial.
1) Proposal No. 2 does not present a question of 'bundling' as plaintiffs argue
2) Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. The removal of the 'blank check' provision neither requires nor prohibits the issuance of preferred shares
3) Balance of hardships tilts in Apple’s favor, not plaintiffs. If the preliminary injunction is denied and Proposal No. 2 is approved but plaintiffs ultimately prevail on their claim, the Court could order Apple to ask shareholders to amend the Articles to restore the 'blank check' provision
4) The proposed injunction would harm the public interest. Proposal No. 2 gives common shareholders greater power—the right to approve issuance of preferred shares.
You can read the whole of Apple's response here.
It has also emerged that while Apple's share price plummeted in the fourth quarter of 2012 because four of the biggest hedge funds dumped billions of dollars of Apple stock, during the fourth quarter, one hedge fund was loading up on Apple shares. Greenlight Capital increased its stake in AAPL from 1.1 million shares to 1.3 million shares.