United States v. Apple Inc., Nos. 12-cv-02826, 12-cv-03394 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2014), represents the latest chapter in the saga of Apple Inc.’s efforts to avoid the burdens of corporate monitorship. Those efforts began with a verdict against Apple after a bench trial in an antitrust action by the United States and individual states. As part of the relief, the court issued a proposed injunction which created a corporate monitor position. Apple objected, arguing that a monitorship would be costly and burdensome and would have few benefits. At a hearing on the proposed objection, the court stated that it had hoped Apple would submit evidence of antitrust compliance reform that would render the appointment of a monitor unnecessary. In the court’s view, however, Apple submitted only “a very cryptic reference to the fact that it enhanced some compliance program it adopted at some point during this litigation.” After hearing these comments, Apple explained in a brief supporting its proposed revisions to the injunction that it had hired two seasoned antitrust lawyers, improved its compliance programs, intended to establish an annual antitrust compliance training program, would publish a revised compliance guide, and would institute regular auditing. The court found that this was still insufficient evidence of a robust internal antitrust compliance program, particularly in light of the egregiousness of the underlying conduct at the highest levels of the company. However, the court narrowed the monitor’s functions to two: to evaluate Apple’s internal antitrust compliance policies and to evaluate Apple’s antitrust training program. Once the monitor was appointed, disputes quickly arose, particularly over the monitor’s fees and its desire to interview executives and board members and the timing of those interviews. When those disputes came to a head, Apple sought a stay of the injunction pending the outcome of its appeal from the verdict and sentence. Apple principally argued that the monitor had “taken an adversarial, not judicial, stance towards Apple” and that it should be disqualified. The court rejected Apple’s arguments and denied the stay. According to the court’s opinion, if Apple had been able to make a persuasive and detailed presentation as to its adoption of a thorough and robust antitrust compliance program, it would have been able to avoid the cost and burdens of the court-imposed monitorship. Apple has since filed an Emergency Motion with the Second Circuit, seeking a stay pending appeal.