Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health Remain Under Scrutiny by SEC [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 8, 2009, 12:09 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/apples-disclosures-regarding-jobs-health-remain-under-scrutiny-by-sec/)

Bloomberg reports (http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=atTeJr..Zsx4) that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is continuing to investigate Apple's disclosures regarding Steve Jobs' health during the early January period leading up to the announcement that Jobs would be taking a six-month medical leave of absence. The report is a follow-up to Bloomberg's January report (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/21/sec-to-investigate-apples-disclosures-regarding-jobs-health/) about the investigation."The issue here is: Did Apple or Jobs make misleading disclosures, tested by what they knew at the time?" said Robert Hillman, a securities law professor at the University of California, Davis. "A disclosure could be misleading if it's a partial truth."Whether the SEC will ultimately be able to take action against Apple or Jobs is unknown, given the uncertainty about the situation and the "murky" laws regarding disclosure of the health of companies' CEOs. Regardless of the extent to which a company has a duty to reveal health matters, it is clear that once a company chooses to speak about an issue, it must do so truthfully.While there has to be some measure of confidentiality around the health of executives, any disclosures need to be accurate and complete, said Jahan Raissi, a former SEC enforcement attorney.

"Once you open your mouth and start to speak on a topic, you have to say something completely truthful," said Raissi, who is now a partner at Shartsis Friese LLP in San Francisco. "If what you omitted is material, that’s a problem."On that basis, the SEC is focusing its inquiry on what events may have transpired between January 5th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/05/steve-jobs-missing-macworld-due-to-health/), when Jobs and Apple announced that he was suffering from a "hormone imbalance" for which the treatment was "relatively simple" and January 14th (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/14/steve-jobs-taking-medical-leave-of-absence-until-june/), when Jobs announced that he was taking a leave of absence due to the medical issue being "more complex" than originally thought.

Jobs' health issues ultimately required him to undergo a liver transplant (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/20/steve-jobs-had-a-liver-transplant-two-months-ago/), although he was still able to meet his stated timeline in returning to work (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/29/apple-confirms-steve-jobs-back-at-work/) by the end of June.

Article Link: Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health Remain Under Scrutiny by SEC (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/apples-disclosures-regarding-jobs-health-remain-under-scrutiny-by-sec/)

jav6454

Jul 8, 2009, 12:13 PM

It's important to keep the investor communicated what happens health wise to its executives. However, due to the nature of fame (unluckily shall we say?) of the CEO, the issue of privacy arise.

Apple really has to find a middle on what information to release.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 12:14 PM

Last I saw from apple, they said steve was on track to return in late June.

Well look at that, it happened. Hypothetical "he could have died if he was getting a transplant!" shouldn't matter seeing as they held true to their word. After going on medical leave I don't see a reason why anyone should be privy to his information. He came back when they said and is now heading the company as usual.

DeathSticks

Jul 8, 2009, 12:14 PM

Poor Steve

Tenebrous

Jul 8, 2009, 12:18 PM

Clearly the FEC has no bigger fish to fry than to spend time on a nine-day period of time some months ago, right? Right? Freakin' bureaucratic kleptomaniacs.

nagromme

Jul 8, 2009, 12:21 PM

maclancer

Jul 8, 2009, 12:21 PM

Apple should disclosure Jobs' Health from the beginning, now they are in hot waters with the government.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 12:23 PM

I like how people care more about money than others personal privacy. THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS! :rolleyes:

MacCheetah3

Jul 8, 2009, 12:23 PM

Hi
I still don't see the big deal, even for investors to know details of medical "issues". You're going to bail from any investments in the company if suddenly Steve comes down with cancer... Oh wait... :rolleyes: It's fine if a company should divulge when a CEO 'steps out' for any kind of medical reason during a period but why really shouldn't be a big deal. Would you enjoy telling a ton of people about all of your medical issues? Apple's survived in Steve's absence before and they'll do it in the future.

Pugpuppydude

Jul 8, 2009, 12:26 PM

Dang.. I don't think he's going to be back. At least not like he was before, full time.

Widowsoft

Jul 8, 2009, 12:28 PM

I thought i had a cold which turned out to be hay fever sorry to those I said I had a cold
:rolleyes:

pdjudd

Jul 8, 2009, 12:29 PM

Clearly the FEC has no bigger fish to fry than to spend time on a nine-day period of time some months ago, right? Right? Freakin' bureaucratic kleptomaniacs.

If it involved any sort of fraudulent behavior that affects the way investors would handle stock from a company? Yes, the SEC has lots to say on that. If they feel that there is a legitimate complaint, it is their obligation to investigate.

Of course that being said, the chances of anything comming out of this is very nebulous at best. It isn't clear about how CEO's are required to disclose about their health - especially when they are on leave from the company. Plus consider the very volatile nature of the stock market and the stock of Apple has historically been. Finally throw in the fact that Jobs and his doctor are probably the only ones capable of knowing what really was going on during that 9 day period - very brief. Jobs' doctors are covered from disclosure by HIPPA unless Jobs releases them from that obligation.

This is a very nebulous affair that I feel that the SEC will abandon after they realize that they either don't have standing or there just isn't enough evidence to peruse much less prosecute on.

iGary

Jul 8, 2009, 12:29 PM

I like how people care more about money than others personal privacy. THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS! :rolleyes:

He gives up some of his privacy as part of the position he is in. He can leave the company at any time if he doesn't like his health being in the limelight, so he did.

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 12:30 PM

I like how people care more about money than others personal privacy. THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS! :rolleyes:

Personal privacy would be whether he likes boys or not. This is his health which affects business. And do you think Apple's motivation for not disclosing was to protect his privacy?

zombitronic

Jul 8, 2009, 12:41 PM

The SEC and Bloomberg can both go to hell. Why doesn't the SEC investigate Bloomberg for "accidentally" leaking Steve Jobs' obituary, causing a stock drop? With all the financial/economic corruption from Wall Street, journalists and Big Banks, why is the SEC so infatuated with Apple?

By the way, AAPL is up more than 60% since the announcement that Steve was going on medical leave. So who's upset here, other than the shorters?

zombitronic

Jul 8, 2009, 12:43 PM

Personal privacy would be whether he likes boys or not. This is his health which affects business. And do you think Apple's motivation for not disclosing was to protect his privacy?

In that case, I demand to know Steve Ballmer's blood pressure! That dude looks like he's about to pop a vein any second!

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 12:51 PM

He gives up some of his privacy as part of the position he is in. He can leave the company at any time if he doesn't like his health being in the limelight, so he did.

My gripe is that it shouldn't matter who the hell you are, things like privacy shouldn't fall victim to money matters like everything else does in this world with F$^#% up priorities, but alas, money is the only thing that matters.

Personal privacy would be whether he likes boys or not. This is his health which affects business. And do you think Apple's motivation for not disclosing was to protect his privacy?

If hes on medical leave, then no his health shouldn't affect business. The only reason it does is because stupid investors are putting their money in steve and not the company, that is not apples fault. I don't know apples motivation, I just think that its ******** that they should have to disclose anything short of Steve dying when he is on medical leave. Hes ill, hes gone for a few months for illness, why do any more details need to be released. Oh wait, I forgot, money. Nevermind then because as usual thats the thing that matters in the world.

08Hawks

Jul 8, 2009, 01:04 PM

Anyone heard of HIPA, this should apply to everyone !!!!!! Including Steve .....

Hey, don't we need a little bit more government control over our lives ????? (sarcasm) ....!!!!!!!

The SEC has not done there so called job for years with the large corporations unless they can benefit...... Now these morons want to control the live of the executives as well as the business's......

Sorry for the rant , just tired of our government getting involved in our lives and not allowing us to be grown ups and take care of ourselves.....

FakeWozniak

Jul 8, 2009, 01:05 PM

Hard to pay for this kind of advertising. Apple is in the headlines just about every day.

Wonder if the folks behind Psystar are the same folks whining to the SEC et. al....

zombitronic

Jul 8, 2009, 01:09 PM

...stupid investors are putting their money in steve and not the company, that is not apples fault.

You're right about that. My wife and I have a good amount of money invested in Apple, and it's not because of Steve Jobs. It's because we use Apple products, we study Apple products, we've used other products, and we understand the advantage Apple has over the competition. We have faith in Apple to not suddenly do a 180° and start churning out unpopular crap.

Does Steve matter? Of course he does. He's proven to be a good navigator for the company. But anyone who invests in Apple for Apple knows that there's a smart network of employees behind their success, and that's not going to go away unless somebody drops a bomb on Cupertino. Honestly, as an investor, I'd be more worried if something happened to Jonathan Ive.

krye

Jul 8, 2009, 01:11 PM

So what's the problem? Jobs is back in the house. The stock didn't tumble. The SEC needs to shut the f up and find some better way to spend their time and money.

pavelbure

Jul 8, 2009, 01:11 PM

i wonder how many of you that cry for the government to stay out of personal health matters are also crying for the government to take over health care.

as it stands, he is a ceo and the stockholders have a right to know if the man who is running a company will be out for awhile. some may not like the direction the others take the company.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:14 PM

i wonder how many of you that cry for the government to stay out of personal health matters are also crying for the government to take over health care.

The two matters are separate even though you through them under the umbrella of "personal health matters."

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 01:19 PM

If hes on medical leave, then no his health shouldn't affect business. The only reason it does is because stupid investors are putting their money in steve and not the company, that is not apples fault. I don't know apples motivation, I just think that its ******** that they should have to disclose anything short of Steve dying when he is on medical leave. Hes ill, hes gone for a few months for illness, why do any more details need to be released. Oh wait, I forgot, money. Nevermind then because as usual thats the thing that matters in the world.

If his health is so severely at risk that he might die (as Steve Jobs was) then long term of course its going to affect business, whether he's currently on leave or not.

Maybe you're right that its unpleasant that money rules these decisions, but Apple are certainly no saints, their motivation for withholding the information would almost certainly be money.

benpatient

Jul 8, 2009, 01:19 PM

Steve Jobs, and Apple in general, have profited greatly from his "celebrity" and they have to accept everything that comes with it. If you don't want CEO health/wellbeing to be a marketing/investment consideration, then you have two choices: takes steps to avoid creating an air of celebrity around the CEO, or take the company private and get out from under SEC observation.

If Steve Jobs came to a press conference and said on record that Windows 7 is better than Snow Leopard, Apple's stock would tank.

What I mean by that is that Steve Jobs can (and does) have a bigger effect on Apple's stock value than any other single person. Apple takes advantage of this fact again and again. They have to be willing to accept the converse.

frjonah

Jul 8, 2009, 01:19 PM

I think the SEC has every right to look into Jobs because, after all, we wouldn't want to have any risk in investing, now would we? Furthermore, I think that Jobs should be required to contact the SEC every time he gets into his car because his risk of death will be going up, and we all have a right to know that. The same goes for, well, eating, exercising and using PCs because, as we all know, these things can increase the risk of choking and/or stroke. Come to think of it, the only fair solution to the investors is to have a live web-feed of Steve's life so we can make intelligent decisions on the basis of his behavior.

The "Free Market" definitely has to be totally controlled by infallible government to remain free... that's, like, obvious and stuff.

...am I the only one that is shocked by this rubbish?

iona

:apple: Steve, get better and don't worry about ANYTHING but your health right now!:apple:

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 8, 2009, 01:20 PM

The fact of the matter is Apples stock survival has been based on Steve Jobs. By Apple not disclosing the full truth of his condition they put the stock holders in a very bad situation. The SEC has every right to look into this. If for some reason Steve had serious complications, it would have had serious implications on its stock holders new and old.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:24 PM

Steve Jobs, and Apple in general, have profited greatly from his "celebrity" and they have to accept everything that comes with it. If you don't want CEO health/wellbeing to be a marketing/investment consideration, then you have two choices: takes steps to avoid creating an air of celebrity around the CEO, or take the company private and get out from under SEC observation.

What kind of logic is that? Because other people live idolizing people, individuals being idolized should give up their privacy?

Show me the law that says simply because others are stupid enough to care what "celebrities" do with themselves, said celebrities now have no privacy. You are talking about what has sadly become the accepted way of thinking socially, and its just wrong to invade someones life because you think its justified because Joe Schmo has nothing better to do than worship someone.

Shasterball

Jul 8, 2009, 01:25 PM

It's important to keep the investor communicated what happens health wise to its executives. However, due to the nature of fame (unluckily shall we say?) of the CEO, the issue of privacy arise.

When you become a public figure, you lose a lot of your right to privacy...

Bad Paper

Jul 8, 2009, 01:26 PM

I don't understand why this SEC rule exists at all -- not just in this particular case. Can anyone convince me that the SEC needs to know this stuff?

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:29 PM

When you become a public figure, you lose a lot of your right to privacy...

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 8, 2009, 01:31 PM

I don't understand why this SEC rule exists at all -- not just in this particular case. Can anyone convince me that the SEC needs to know this stuff?

Because if a CEO dies a company could as well. Look at what happened to Apple the first time Steve left. Its very important for a PUBLIC company to keep there shareholders in the loop with things. Privacy for health is one thing but Steve is the CEO of one of the most popular companies in the world and he is a pseudo super star. I guarantee you that if Steve Jobs stepped down tomorrow, Apples stock would go down quite a bit and stay there for a long time. Steve Jobs is Apple.

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press. Not saying I like the paparazzi but thats why they are around.

gnasher729

Jul 8, 2009, 01:34 PM

Apple should disclosure Jobs' Health from the beginning, now they are in hot waters with the government.

In hot waters with the same SEC that ignored how many reports of massive fraud in the Madoff case?

If it involved any sort of fraudulent behavior that affects the way investors would handle stock from a company? Yes, the SEC has lots to say on that. If they feel that there is a legitimate complaint, it is their obligation to investigate.

Apparently they didn't feel that Madoff had to be a fraudster...

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:34 PM

Because if a CEO dies a company could as well. Look at what happened to Apple the first time Steve left. Its very important for a PUBLIC company to keep there shareholders in the loop with things. Privacy for health is one thing but Steve is the CEO of one of the most popular companies in the world and he is a pseudo super star. I guarantee you that if Steve Jobs stepped down tomorrow, Apples stock would go down quite a bit and stay there for a long time. Steve Jobs is Apple.

Yet the stock rose even in his absense.....

Yes there was a time where Apple's well being was linked directly with Steve, but now it can easily carry on with the talent its got, it just wont have a "celebrity" out in the public, the companies products are the most loved part of apple. While Steve is well known, the general public doesn't have a clue who he is aside from investors who banked on steve alone rather than apple, geeks like us, and media reporters.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:37 PM

First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press. Not saying I like the paparazzi but thats why they are around.
Can you please show me how freedom of speech and the press somehow makes it mandatory that famous people release their medical records? I don't remember that particular part. Sure if they find something by other means they have every right to report on it, they have no right to demand and expect to get that information.

That was quite a stretch there.

DELLsFan

Jul 8, 2009, 01:37 PM

...Regardless of the extent to which a company has a duty to reveal health matters, it is clear that once a company chooses to speak about an issue, it must do so truthfully...

This is the crux of the matter.

The two matters are separate even though you through them under the umbrella of "personal health matters."

It's called irony. Very few are able to identify it. Those that can and disagree, often use a strawman argument to dilute the effect. I happen to share pavelbure's wonder on the matter.

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 8, 2009, 01:37 PM

Yet the stock rose even in his absense.....

Yes there was a time where Apple's well being was linked directly with Steve, but now it can easily carry on with the talent its got, it just wont have a "celebrity" out in the public, the companies products are the most loved part of apple. While Steve is well known, the general public doesn't have a clue who he is aside from investors who banked on steve alone rather than apple, geeks like us, and media reporters.

It doesn't matter though. Apple could have said Steve was taking some time off and just ended it there. Instead they disclosed partial information knowingly leaving out certain information because it could be detrimental to the stock. If they said Steve was having a Liver Transplant the stock wouldnt have rose in his absence. You kind of see where I am going. You can't partially disclose info to the public. Thats just a basic SEC law.

Can you please show me how freedom of speech and the press somehow makes it mandatory that famous people release their medical records? I don't remember that particular part. Sure if they find something by other means they have every right to report on it, they have no right to demand and expect to get that information.

That was quite a stretch there.

You said the paparazzi. I refered to that reference.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:39 PM

It doesn't matter though. Apple could have said Steve was taking some time off and just ended it there. Instead they disclosed partial information knowingly leaving out certain information because it could be detrimental to the stock. If they said Steve was having a Liver Transplant the stock wouldnt have rose in his absence. You kind of see where I am going. You can't partially disclose info to the public. Thats just a basic SEC law.
So you have insider info that says at the time Steve took his absence, they knew he was going to need a liver transplant? Unless you do that argument doesn't hold water. Things change, you have no evidence to support that they knew from the beginning he was that bad off.

ULFoaf

Jul 8, 2009, 01:41 PM

I have little doubt they misled the public about Job's health.

I doubt there will be much action unless someone proves they lost a lot of money because of this misleading. The irony? They would likely have lost more if they said "Steve Jobs has severe health problems causing him to lose weight" and even more later when they said "Steve has to take some time off so he can have a liver transplant."

Such is the stock market - if people believe rise/falls will happen, they take actions that often make it come true. Jobs is sick? I'm selling my Apple stock before it drops! When enough people do this, it of course does drop.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 01:41 PM

You said the paparazzi. I refered to that reference.

I said paparazzi because they THINK they are entitled to information when theyre not. If they can get ahold of it legally, they can do whatever they want with it, but they cannot demand private information and think they have the legal grounds to do so.

MacCheetah3

Jul 8, 2009, 01:43 PM

Hi
In that case, I demand to know Steve Ballmer's blood pressure! That dude looks like he's about to pop a vein any second!
:D Agreed.

I'd be more worried if something happened to Jonathan Ive.
Dang close. Steve is great ( him being fired or fatal medical conditions would be terrible ) and does have influence but he's just the coach ( so to speak ). The players are just as important in the team's success.

On top of that... Apple's overall secrecy hasn't killed them yet. In some ways it helps and some ways it hurts them.

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.
Agreed. I get just as annoyed by hearing of such in both that I sometimes couldn't possibly care less and that it shouldn't matter if they are a celebrity. Celebrity equals 24 / 7 FULL surveillance? Their personal life is just that... Personal.

Schtumple

Jul 8, 2009, 02:14 PM

I'm all for investigating to find OUT if something illegal was done, rather than just assuming either way. Apple should be held responsible if they've broken the law.

But some of the hollering seems to boil down to the premise that a patient's condition doesn't change over time, and that doctors don't do new tests or discover new information over time either.

But the fact is, doctors CAN determine something new--something they did not know a week (or an hour) before.

So if Apple makes one statement one week and an entirely new statement the following week, that's no more impossible than the DOCTOR making a new statement. Which happens all the time. The condition changes, or new test results come in, or whatever.

How much of those private records can be legally seized? I guess we'll find out.

Exactly, to me it does sound entirely plausible that at one point, that's all it looked like, and that was certain (at the time), then some more test results came in that said otherwise, and Apple rightly changed it's line, after this point Steve was on leave, it's kinda (and I mean KINDA) like saying Apple is at fault for not telling people about something that happened to Woz :p

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 02:20 PM

I said paparazzi because they THINK they are entitled to information when theyre not. If they can get ahold of it legally, they can do whatever they want with it, but they cannot demand private information and think they have the legal grounds to do so.

These aren't the paparazzi interested in Steve Jobs health so they can take pictures and sell magazines. This is an investigative body interested in enforcing industry regulations and shareholders interested in their business.

Beau10

Jul 8, 2009, 02:22 PM

So you have insider info that says at the time Steve took his absence, they knew he was going to need a liver transplant? Unless you do that argument doesn't hold water. Things change, you have no evidence to support that they knew from the beginning he was that bad off.

Which brings us back to the article this thread is about - the SEC is performing an investigation to find out this is the case. QED.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 02:22 PM

These aren't the paparazzi interested in Steve Jobs health so they can take pictures and sell magazines. This is an investigative body interested in enforcing industry regulations and shareholders interested in their business.

You're talking about the SEC right? I was talking about the paparazzi in response to someone here saying that we have the RIGHT to someones private life simply because they are famous. Please read my posts in context because this can easily be muddled if not read for what they are.

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 02:24 PM

Your posts confused me. It seemed that you were arguing there was no right to know about his health. If you were arguing just the celebrity side then I apologize.

jbernie

Jul 8, 2009, 02:25 PM

Anyone heard of HIPA, this should apply to everyone !!!!!! Including Steve .....

I am not sure, but I don't think HIPPA is in play as everyone likes to scream it, the information is released by Apple with Steve Jobs knowledge, not any medical organization (Doctor, hospital, insurance etc). HIPPA is to protect your privacy, not protect you as a CEO from keeping your health a secret. The SEC will not require Apple to release a daily update on Steve Jobs to say he has a cold, or he is jet lagged or whatever, they are only concerned with life changing type events where his health would prevent him from functioning in his assigned role as CEO of Apple.

There are laws regarding full discolure & material information which must be disclosed to the shareholders/investors in a timely manner. Failure to do so raises questions of impropriority regarding all sorts of transactions including buying/selling of stock by insiders. As a shareholder if Apple keeps something quiet, then drops a bombshell on the market and the stocks tank, they will potentially get a fine, but you the shareholder see the value of your portfolio destroyed and all you get to do is wait and see if you can recover your losses or sell out at a potential loss and invest elsewhere.

Warren Buffet is on record as saying his health is material information to his shareholders as he is influential to the performance of the company, just in the same way Steve Jobs is, he also feels that Apple should have been more transparent in what was going on.

---------------------------------

I would think that if Apple was to be found wanting in its communication I would expect them to get a rap over the knuckles and a strongly worded don't let it happen again letter from the SEC, should they be found grossly neglegent ( I don't think they will) I have a feeling they will get a lot more punishment (justified or not) given the current environment and the desire to stick it to businesses who have commited wrong doings.

Apple can do one of two things to make all this talk go away...
1) go private, they would be no longer required to report anything
2) Steve Jobs can take on a different role, ie Evangilist, and step away from the CEO role so his health is not material in the eyes of the SEC. He can still be extremely influential but without the SEC oversight.

Hopefully, this investigation serves a purporse in the sense that the SEC realizes that the laws should be clarified and reduce the grey areas so that companies know that cough = no report, broken leg = no report, liver transplant = report.

I don't disagree that a persons health should remain a private matter, but I realize & understand that for the senior executives of many companies, especially the Fortune 500 type, that the wellbeing of the senior ranks can adversely affect the performance and financial strength of a company.

Yes Apple has boat loads of cash in the bank and they won't fail over night or even next week, month or year should Steve Jobs suddenly die, but short term there is a good chance that Apple's stock would lose value based on this event occuring. Long term investors may see a drop in the value of their investments but not all investors are in Apple or any other stock for the 15-20 year range, some might be in it for the 1-2 year range and knowing the health of the CEO could put his life at stake might make them look for a different company to invest in.

Victor Odin

Jul 8, 2009, 02:30 PM

Show me the law that says simply because others are stupid enough to care what "celebrities" do with themselves, said celebrities now have no privacy.

When the "celebrities" are CEO's of large publicly traded companies regulated by the SEC, and when their health may have an adverse effect on the stock price ... then there are "laws" that say exactly what you stated above, and the SEC will show them to you in the near future.

iSee

Jul 8, 2009, 02:34 PM

The SEC is blowing smoke here. They've been asleep at the wheel while the Madoff ran a massive ponzi scheme under their noses (despite being tipped off repeatedly over the years) and while the rating agencies they regulate helped create the global financial meltdown by certifying mortgage-backed securties as AAA investments.

Hey SEC, quit quibbling over the wording of disclosure statements and start doing something useful. These guys are out investigating parking violations while the bank is getting robbed.

Scottsdale

Jul 8, 2009, 02:38 PM

As a shareholder, I expect the truth. Jobs has his right to privacy, and he would have best served himself to not disclose any information. The problem is it "looks" like Apple was deceptive about the nature of Jobs health issues and there lies a big problem. Jobs took a leave for a diet problem and we later find out he was the sickest patient making him top candidate for the first liver available. I think Apple was deceptive to avoid panic and a stock price drop, and that is a problem. At the same time, this information should be privy to Jobs and his doctors only, so the SEC should have no recourse. Bottom line, don't believe anything Apple discloses about the nature of their employees' health.

LethalWolfe

Jul 8, 2009, 02:43 PM

What kind of logic is that? Because other people live idolizing people, individuals being idolized should give up their privacy?

Show me the law that says simply because others are stupid enough to care what "celebrities" do with themselves, said celebrities now have no privacy. You are talking about what has sadly become the accepted way of thinking socially, and its just wrong to invade someones life because you think its justified because Joe Schmo has nothing better to do than worship someone.
Public figures (in the legal sense) do have reduced privacy protection under the law compared to someone who isn't a public figure.

Lethal

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 02:46 PM

Your posts confused me. It seemed that you were arguing there was no right to know about his health. If you were arguing just the celebrity side then I apologize.

I think that if apple did know the whole time about his needing a transplant then yes, they have done wrong. But if steve/apple found out after going on leave then I think they don't have any (or shouldn't rather, I'm not clear on the law regarding this) reason to tell the public seeing as it should simply be covered under medical leave. It didnt interfere with the timeframe they set for him to be gone so I dont personally think they had any reason to let the media know.

That being said, I think its incredibly sad that there are laws in place to invade personal privacy simply because of money matters.\

Edit: to lethal: really? Thats disgusting.

pdjudd

Jul 8, 2009, 02:49 PM

Public figures (in the legal sense) do have reduced privacy protection under the law compared to someone who isn't a public figure.

Lethal

Do you have a cite for that?

pavelbure

Jul 8, 2009, 02:53 PM

The two matters are separate even though you through them under the umbrella of "personal health matters."

there is basically nothing separating them. people are crying about the government snooping, then on the other hand they want to hand over all their info to the very same people they are complaining about.

Victor Odin

Jul 8, 2009, 02:54 PM

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 02:55 PM

there is basically nothing separating them. people are crying about the government snooping, then on the other hand they want to hand over all their info to the very same people they are complaining about.

Well yes, if you want to boil down SEC investigations into company policies and national health care down to rhetorical, be my guest. They are separate matters for anyone who doesn't like to play politics with the details however.

Glideslope

Jul 8, 2009, 03:05 PM

GO SEC!!! Oh, nice job keeping an eye on the markets in 2007-2008. :eek:

Freaking waste of my Federal Tax. These laws are as clear as the bottom of the Niagara River.

People that live in Glass Houses should not throw Rocks. :apple:

Glideslope

Jul 8, 2009, 03:06 PM

Just curious. If it was a key member of Microsoft or Dell that was being investigated, would your position be the exact same?

Mine would. :apple:

LethalWolfe

Jul 8, 2009, 03:41 PM

Edit: to lethal: really? Thats disgusting.
I don't see what disgusting about it. If the POTUS has a brain tumor that could be impairing his judgement that's news. If Joe Blow down the street has the same condition that's not news.

Do you have a cite for that?
Public Figures (http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil-rights-law/right-to-privacy/public-figures.htm)

This is so because where public figures are involved, the newsworthiness of the information will outweigh the right to privacy of the public figure – so long as the information is actually true and was not printed or aired with “actual malice.”
.
.
.
However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information.

Lethal

pdjudd

Jul 8, 2009, 03:45 PM

I don't see what disgusting about it. If the POTUS has a brain tumor that could be impairing his judgement that's news. If Joe Blow down the street has the same condition that's not news.

Public Figures (http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil-rights-law/right-to-privacy/public-figures.htm)

Lethal

Of course that quote covers nothing of medical details. After all Jobs did authorize disclosure of the transplant. He did to of his own free will (and the fact that it would have gotten out anyway). I still see nothing there that obligates him to release anything medically related without his consent. At best, its a legal defense regarding someone else invading ones privacy. Its not akin to a judge ordering disclosure of information normally private.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 03:49 PM

Newsworthiness now has something to do with the amount of privacy the law gives you? :confused:

kornyboy

Jul 8, 2009, 03:55 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

I think that this is a bit silly. Medical issues are personal no matter who it is. Apple and Steve Jobs both revealed more than what was necessary in my opinion. I know that he is a CEO of a large publically traded company but that does not remove his right to his own privacy.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 03:57 PM

LethalWolfe

Jul 8, 2009, 03:59 PM

Of course that quote covers nothing of medical details. After all Jobs did authorize disclosure of the transplant. He did to of his own free will (and the fact that it would have gotten out anyway). I still see nothing there that obligates him to release anything medically related without his consent. At best, its a legal defense regarding someone else invading ones privacy. Its not akin to a judge ordering disclosure of information normally private.
I didn't say that it had anything to specifically do w/releasing medical details. I was just correcting NT1440's assumption that public figures have the same right to privacy as non-public figures.

In this situation Jobs is a victim of his own success. If Apple would've come out and said exactly what was going on the stock would have tanked. But they had to say something so the investigation is to whether or not Apple stepped over the line it was tiptoeing. If Jobs was just a 'normal' CEO Apple could've been up front w/everything w/o the fear of the stock tanking. But when your CEO is seen as a singular genius that saved the company from extinction and has played a lead role in changing the landscapes of consumer electronics and digital media distribution the game isn't the same.

Lethal

nighty5

Jul 8, 2009, 04:00 PM

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 04:03 PM

Maybe the SEC could concentrate on more pressing issues.

Like, not falling asleep at the wheel when one of the biggest financial depressions of all time is unravelling.

SEC, too busy and too lazy to do anything about it.

Think of it this way, which gets the SEC more attention:

1. Investigating a well known and well liked company

or

2. Doing their job the way they're supposed to

BornAgainMac

Jul 8, 2009, 04:07 PM

If Steve Jobs came to a press conference and said on record that Windows 7 is better than Snow Leopard, Apple's stock would tank.

Steve Jobs needs to say Snow Leopard pwns Windows 7 and that everyone should buy a Mac. Then continue to say "The problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have no taste and I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way.".

pdjudd

Jul 8, 2009, 04:08 PM

I didn't say that it had anything to specifically do w/releasing medical details. I was just correcting NT1440's assumption that public figures have the same right to privacy as non-public figures.

I asked for the cite. All I was doing was expanding on things from said cite. I was not trying to imply that you were claiming anything about disclosure of medical records - just pointing out the natural extension that someone could have leap-frogged onto.

Stella

Jul 8, 2009, 04:09 PM

Like it or not, Apple have a duty to inform their shareholders of significant events that may have an impact on the organization.

If a company doesn't, then it is SEC responsibility to investigate.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 04:10 PM

Like it or not, Apple have a duty to inform their shareholders of significant events that may have an impact on the organization.

If a company doesn't, then it is SEC responsibility to investigate.

And steve's ongoings during medical leave that had no impact upon his return time are significant because.....

overcast

Jul 8, 2009, 04:19 PM

And steve's ongoings during medical leave that had no impact upon his return time are significant because.....

How exactly does a liver transplant have no impact on his return time, or the future of the company? This isn't like getting a strep test, he's going to be on heavy drugs for the rest of his life to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. Face it, Jobs IS Apple. He started it and built it back up from absolutely nothing. He is the sole reason for the companies success in the past eight years. While this may be more of a special case than any other CEO, it doesn't change the fact that anything happens to him DIRECTLY affects the company. Shareholders have a right to know about something so life threatening. And yes, it's ALL about money and the shareholders.

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 8, 2009, 04:20 PM

And steve's ongoings during medical leave that had no impact upon his return time are significant because.....

You don't know the internal significance.

He is the CEO of a billion dollar company. It is his duty to keep the shareholders in touch with his future. If he wanted privacy... he wouldn't be CEO of a PUBLIC company.

LethalWolfe

Jul 8, 2009, 04:21 PM

Newsworthiness now has something to do with the amount of privacy the law gives you? :confused:
Like I said, the POTUS having a condition that could impair his ability to do his job is newsworthy. Joe Blow having a condition that could impair his job at the 7/11 is not newsworthy. Joe Six Pack hiring illegal immigrants to take care of his lawn isn't really newsworthy. Someone high up at the INS hiring illegal immigrants to take care of his law is newsworthy.

Going beyond the scope of Jobs and the SEC, newsworthiness has a lot to do w/Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

Lethal

iSee

Jul 8, 2009, 04:25 PM

Just curious. If it was a key member of Microsoft or Dell that was being investigated, would your position be the exact same?

Yes.

My point is that the SEC has let us all down terribly; that it bears a significant portion (not all, by any shot) of the responsibility for the global economic meltdown. I would annoy me greatly to see them focusing on splitting hairs on a minor disclosure issue no matter who the target is.

Not every criticism of an Apple detractor is due to fanboyism.

Hm. We call a person who defends Apple no matter what a fanboy... but what do we call people who think any comment that does not criticise Apple must have been made by a fanboy?

dernhelm

Jul 8, 2009, 04:46 PM

In that case, I demand to know Steve Ballmer's blood pressure! That dude looks like he's about to pop a vein any second!

Only stockholders have a right to that information...
:p

Bad Paper

Jul 8, 2009, 04:55 PM

Because if a CEO dies a company could as well. Look at what happened to Apple the first time Steve left. Its very important for a PUBLIC company to keep there shareholders in the loop with things. Privacy for health is one thing but Steve is the CEO of one of the most popular companies in the world and he is a pseudo super star. I guarantee you that if Steve Jobs stepped down tomorrow, Apples stock would go down quite a bit and stay there for a long time. Steve Jobs is Apple.I'm not convinced. It's one thing for the board to tell the shareholders about big changes at their regular meetings; it's another thing entirely to require them to disclose information other than "CEO is on break until June."

iSee

Jul 8, 2009, 04:55 PM

Only stockholders have a right to that information...
:p

Ha, ha.

I know you're just making a joke, but it's actually a key point that both buyers and sellers have access to the same information. So, both stockholders and potential stockholders have the right to the same information.

twoodcc

Jul 8, 2009, 05:02 PM

i don't know. i really don't see the big deal here

newyorkone

Jul 8, 2009, 05:17 PM

Considering the amorphous nature of the laws concerning the issue of Steve Jobs Health and what Apple should disclose, it seems that the SEC should focus it's energy on bigger and more serious issues.

Haven't they dropped the ball enough already...ahem (cough), Madoff! Stop wasting time and taxpayer money on maybe issues. There are countless other Madoffs out there getting away with financial murder.

Eric S.

Jul 8, 2009, 05:26 PM

"The issue here is: Did Apple or Jobs make misleading disclosures, tested by what they knew at the time?"

The answer is, yes, obviously.

diabolic

Jul 8, 2009, 05:41 PM

I don't see a problem with their disclosures.

Whether he's on medical leave for a liver transplant or just to get some rest, his medical details should not be the shareholder's business. People are still allowed some privacy even if they are a CEO. Requiring otherwise would set a very bad precedent.

MrCrispy

Jul 8, 2009, 06:05 PM

Well, I think its a catch 22.

A) maybe they did need to disclose his health in order to keep the SEC happy.

B) Disclosing those issues would have been a violation of HIPAA regulations which would have put the company in hot water with a different organization.

Can't really win either way.

shoobe01

Jul 8, 2009, 06:17 PM

Does anyone READ the articles before responding?

- If you say nothing, that's fine.
- If you tell the whole truth, that's fine.
- If you lie, that might not be fine. Omissions can be included in this.

APPL said it was a minor ailment in a specific way, then changed their mind to say "more serious." As I read the regs, their original statement /may/ have opened the door to requiring them to continue to update, with the same specificity. So SEC investigages to see if that was a violation. For all the usual law enforcement reasons.

We're never going to wild-west free markets, so investigating after the fact is pretty non-intrusive. Everyone big gets investigated (to some degree or other) pretty regularly.

This forum needs more mods.

jbernie

Jul 8, 2009, 06:54 PM

Maybe the SEC could concentrate on more pressing issues.

Like, not falling asleep at the wheel when one of the biggest financial depressions of all time is unravelling.

SEC, too busy and too lazy to do anything about it.

Considering the amorphous nature of the laws concerning the issue of Steve Jobs Health and what Apple should disclose, it seems that the SEC should focus it's energy on bigger and more serious issues.

Haven't they dropped the ball enough already...ahem (cough), Madoff! Stop wasting time and taxpayer money on maybe issues. There are countless other Madoffs out there getting away with financial murder.

Yup, just because it is Apple and they are oh glorious "good" company, and just because there are other things going on in the financial world, Apple should get a free pass, nothing to see here, move along now.

I'm sure that if you were defrauded of your life savings by a popular person but there was also some other major event going on, you would be very happy to see the police give the person who defrauded you a free pass because there are other things they need to focus on, remember, think of the children! At least Madoff got 150 years.

If Apple broke laws then they need to be held accountable regardless of whether or not other things are happening. You are asking the SEC to turn a blind eye to potentially improper conduct by senior executives of a major corporation yet at the same time asking them to investigate senior executives of other major companies for the same thing. Double standards abound.

I don't see a problem with their disclosures.

Whether he's on medical leave for a liver transplant or just to get some rest, his medical details should not be the shareholder's business. People are still allowed some privacy even if they are a CEO. Requiring otherwise would set a very bad precedent.

If Steve Jobs & Apple do not want to have the health of their CEO discussed then they can take the company private and not be required to disclose anything more than tax filings or Steve Jobs can move to a non executive/board role within Apple where he can still maintain influence but his health is no longer material information relating to the health of Apple itself. Regardless because Steve Jobs is an iconic public figure who is basically worshipped by the Apple faithful his health will discussed whether he or Apple likes it or not.

Ultimately Apple dug themselves into this hole:
you don't say on Day 1: "minor issue, nothing to see here"
and then say on Day 10: "umm oops, sorry, need 6 months medical leave".
and then say after 6 months: "hey surprise, i got a new liver"

If they didn't want to raise eyebrows and get the SEC involved they should have waited until they had all their ducks in a row and said "Steve needs to take 6 months leave", even then it still raises questions, taking 6 months leave and getting a secret liver transplant isn't exactly a minor issue, those kinds of medical procedures still expose the company to the risk of losing their iconic CEO due to complications.

Blacklabel34

Jul 8, 2009, 07:00 PM

REALLY SEC? Next time this happens, who wants to bet Apple doesn't say a thing!? They're bigger issues at hand and they focus on Job's health. R-I-G-H-T...:confused:

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 07:05 PM

REALLY SEC? Next time this happens, who wants to bet Apple doesn't say a thing!? They're bigger issues at hand and they focus on Job's health. R-I-G-H-T...:confused:

Yeah lets overlook what could be a blatant infringement of the rules, just because Steve Jobs is such a nice guy.

jbernie

Jul 8, 2009, 07:14 PM

B) Disclosing those issues would have been a violation of HIPAA regulations which would have put the company in hot water with a different organization.

No it wont, HIPAA would only be in play if the Doctor, Medical Facility, insurance company or the company (Apple) disclosed the information without prior consent/authorization from Steve Jobs.

From what was reported:
- the Hospital did a media release with Steve Jobs approval saying that they peformed the operation. so no violation.

- if the hospital was breathelessly announcing how they were so happy to have just done a liver transplant on Steve Jobs 5 minutes ago and they hadnt obtained his approval to release any information. it is a violation.

- to my knowledge Apple has not released any press release saying it happened, just that he was returning to work as expected. so no violation.

- if Apple released a statement saying he had had a liver transplant and Apple had Steve Jobs authorize the release of the information then it still isn't a violation.

http://www.hhs.gov/hipaafaq/use/index.html

At this point any statement from Apple would just officially confirm what is already in the public domain.

jbernie

Jul 8, 2009, 07:23 PM

REALLY SEC? Next time this happens, who wants to bet Apple doesn't say a thing!? They're bigger issues at hand and they focus on Job's health. R-I-G-H-T...:confused:

Actually Apple could have kept their mouths shut for a few more weeks and not had any issues, they came out sprouting blooming roses that there was no issue and then had to say 9 days later he needed 6 months leave. This is what got Apple caught in the mess.

If you are going to announce material information to the shareholders then make sure you get it right, if you screw it up then the SEC and friends want to pay a visit and have a cup of tea, some cookies & a little chat with you.

dfs

Jul 8, 2009, 07:48 PM

Some posters here (and in similar discussions I have read on other sites) think that Steve's health is a private matter, and the public has no right to know about it. This may not be the case. Any corporation that offers stock for public sale is legally required to disclose all so-called "material facts" that might affect the value of its stock. If Apple had simply refused to divulge the truth about Steve's health and had taken the position that the health of a corporate CEO does not constitute a "material fact" they might, for all I know to the contrary (I'm not a lawyer), have had a case that would stand up in court. But they didn't do this. Instead, they knowingly put out false information about the nature and severity of Steve's medical problem. That's something very different indeed, now they can be accused of falsifying a material fact, not just have failed to divulge something that may or may not be classified as such, and this perhaps counts as criminal misconduct. I should imagine that this leaves their corporate ass hanging in the wind. And as an AAPL shareholder, I'm afraid I have to agree the SEC is very much entitled to look into this

deconstruct60

Jul 8, 2009, 08:07 PM

Ultimately Apple dug themselves into this hole:
you don't say on Day 1: "minor issue, nothing to see here"
and then say on Day 10: "umm oops, sorry, need 6 months medical leave".
and then say after 6 months: "hey surprise, i got a new liver"

There is probably a non-legal "good manners/protocol" debate that can be had about that sequence (or not releasing info during the medical leave specifically).

The legal issue the SEC is after is if whether or not on Day 1 Jobs ( and perhaps other members of board) knew (been told by doctors ) that he had liver failure/cancer/whatever and that the root cause was not nutritional problem. That saying it was a "nutritional problem" was just a cover so that folks would go away and could later 'disappear' to have a transplanet on the "down low".

That is making a false material statement. Doesn't really have to do with health, HIPAA or any of the other diversionary stuff that people keep throwing up. Health is just the domain of the false material statement, but no different in principle than

Day One: we expect to make $2B profit this quarter.
Day 10: oops not going to make $2B profit this quarter
6 months later : had huge accounting glitch and made no money two quarters ago.

Again it is case of when you knew it was true at the time of each statement. If on Day one the company officier knew that there was no way was going to make $2B in profit that quarter, it is a false material statement. If the accountants came to the CEO and told him that only had $100K in profits so far in quarter and projections had it coming up to only $900K by quarter end. It would be false to go out and state that expected to hit some $2B mark when there was nothing to support that.

Same SEC investigation either way.

Now if the doctors told Jobs they were confident that if he just ate different food he would be OK. Then deeper tests put a liver tumor on the table after the first statement. Told the truth as far as knew it. SEC will verify the sequence and investigation over.

Similar, the finance example. If was bringing in money hand over first and then somehow the market collapsed, earthquake blew up factory , or something completely unexpected happened to throw off expectation. Then find out somebody at lower level was cooking the books several months later... then not in trouble for the misleading statements. [ might be in trouble because financial controls were loose enough some low level person could cook the books for their division. ]

The better course, if Jobs really wanted to keep it out of the press, would have been to just take the long extended sick leave as soon as decided it was his #1 problem to work on before even found out what root cause was (assume the worst and come back earlier if isn't). So back in December just issue note "going on sick leave till July, hopefully see y'all after the 4th of July. Going to devote 100% of my time to getting better. ".

What is ironic is that if external folks weren't hounding him over his health would he have taken time out to get get the treatment to save his life? If his doctors were clueless he had a major liver problem and he kept putting off getting more precise help, there was a significant probability would have let this drag on till it really was fatal and there weren't any options.

That's one reason why folks have a problem with this. Billionaire, cancer survivor with much higher than average risk for liver cancer and can afford any doctor/test he wants, and somehow he is wandering around Apple getting sicker every day and ignorant of what is the root cause. It could have happened that way. Many people with the resources and the risk would have been a bit more proactive and known sooner.

However, in this case ignorance was bliss. Jobs will have ducked both problems if he was ignorant of his health. Lucky dude.

NT1440

Jul 8, 2009, 08:12 PM

How exactly does a liver transplant have no impact on his return time

Well jeez, i dunno, maybe because he came back EXACTLY WHEN THEY SAID HE WOULD. Thats how it had no impact upon his return time.

batchtaster

Jul 8, 2009, 09:01 PM

i wonder how many of you that cry for the government to stay out of personal health matters are also crying for the government to take over health care.

That's a very nice straw man you've built there. Look how brightly it burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Man).

AidenShaw

Jul 8, 2009, 09:19 PM

REALLY SEC? Next time this happens, who wants to bet Apple doesn't say a thing!? They're bigger issues at hand and they focus on Job's health. R-I-G-H-T...:confused:

Remember that the SEC is still ticked off about Jobs and Apple over the stock option backdating scandal. Did they buy the bit about Jobs not knowing what was going on? No, but they had no proof that would hold up.

sam10685

Jul 8, 2009, 09:23 PM

His health is a private matter. Leave the man alone.

Stella

Jul 8, 2009, 10:58 PM

His health is a private matter. Leave the man alone.

Due to the position and influence that SJ welds at Apple, his health is significant and not so private as the health of the average Joe.

macshill

Jul 9, 2009, 02:28 AM

His health is a private matter. Leave the man alone.

But to be fair all around, you'd have to say the same thing if Bill Gates had done this.

I disagree w/ you when it's the CEO of a company who's stock rises and falls w/ a single rumour, but that's the way companies opperate. So not disclosing something negative that can impact stock can be a form of stock manipulation, just like if Martha Stewart got an early tip on something and dumped it prior to D-day.

Maxipeg

Jul 9, 2009, 03:14 AM

In this case I believe it was much better for the company (and finally for the shareholders) not to disclose all the details. SEC should focus on more serious stuff such as it's own failures

Blacklabel34

Jul 9, 2009, 03:37 AM

LethalWolfe

Jul 9, 2009, 04:14 AM

In this case I believe it was much better for the company (and finally for the shareholders) not to disclose all the details. SEC should focus on more serious stuff such as it's own failures
It's not like the SEC is comprised of a single individual that can only handle one assignment at a time. Saying the SEC should ignore the 'little guys' until all the 'big guys' are caught is like saying the police shouldn't investigate robberies until all the open murder cases are solved.

Lethal

at&t

Jul 9, 2009, 04:44 AM

Ok, yes, the guy is sick but everyone needs to get over it. He'll be fine. You don't need to know his well being for the rest of his life.

macshill

Jul 9, 2009, 05:57 AM

In this case I believe it was much better for the company (and finally for the shareholders) not to disclose all the details. SEC should focus on more serious stuff such as it's own failures

I'd like to hear your words if you were a Apple stock holder and the company were to screw you and the other shareholders over by not releasing a negative development, deceiving all to keep the stock up high only to have a tech. news website leak the development and have the value plunge the next day of trading. "Steve Jobs got arrested for exposing himself to blind old ladies while in a trenchcoat??!! Shouldn't they have TOLD us (shareholders) this before so we could have decided to shed our stock or not?"

Mackan

Jul 9, 2009, 06:56 AM

Apple is all about keeping things secret.

Shasterball

Jul 9, 2009, 08:49 AM

Show me the law that says that, not just the word of scum sucking paparazzi and the people who have come to think that is right.

What a sickening mindset.

Ummm, there is TONS of law that says that. Grab a set of legal cliffnotes on copyright and one's right to privacy/publicity. After you do that, come back on here and write something intelligent.

kingtj

Jul 9, 2009, 10:24 AM

The only way to be SURE they don't get in any legal problems with the govt. is to say absolutely NOTHING.

Ironically, many of the same people throwing a fit about the "partial truths" they supposedly heard about Jobs' health are the ones who'd throw at LEAST as big a fit if Jobs suddenly went away for a while, with Apple simply repeating a line of "No comment" whenever asked about it!

Apple should disclosure Jobs' Health from the beginning, now they are in hot waters with the government.

kdarling

Jul 9, 2009, 11:03 AM

Ok, yes, the guy is sick but everyone needs to get over it. He'll be fine. You don't need to know his well being for the rest of his life.

He wasn't just a little sick.

The guy had a near death experience. (Been there.) This can alter your philosophy on life and work, and is crucial information for investors and analysts.

Because of it, there is plenty of speculation that he will no longer worry about day to day operations, but concentrate more on future devices that will be his legacy. That has all sorts of implications... mostly good, IMO.

mavfan11

Jul 9, 2009, 12:39 PM

I wonder how many people that think it's okay for Apple to skirt the SEC's regulations have posted their outrage at Apple EULA being broken, and I'm not talking about Psystar but the people that get worked up when an individual buys Leopard and installs it on a netbook for his own use? :rolleyes:

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 9, 2009, 01:57 PM

Well jeez, i dunno, maybe because he came back EXACTLY WHEN THEY SAID HE WOULD. Thats how it had no impact upon his return time.

You don't have a clue about publicly traded businesses. This has nothing to do with him returning as promised and more to do with deceiving shareholders. The man had a Liver Transplant, this will effect his life for as long as he is alive, and has the potential to put shareholders in a bad situation if he dies/died or leaves the company. Telling people you are taking a medical leave and then having a secret Liver transplant when you are the CEO of a once again I stress PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY is illegal. I love Apple but there secrecy can't extend towards there shareholders in situations like this.

I wonder how many people that think it's okay for Apple to skirt the SEC's regulations have posted their outrage at Apple EULA being broken, and I'm not talking about Psystar but the people that get worked up when an individual buys Leopard and installs it on a netbook for his own use? :rolleyes:

Excellent Comment.

kernkraft

Jul 9, 2009, 01:57 PM

If it involved any sort of fraudulent behavior that affects the way investors would handle stock from a company? Yes, the SEC has lots to say on that. If they feel that there is a legitimate complaint, it is their obligation to investigate.

Of course that being said, the chances of anything comming out of this is very nebulous at best. It isn't clear about how CEO's are required to disclose about their health - especially when they are on leave from the company. Plus consider the very volatile nature of the stock market and the stock of Apple has historically been. Finally throw in the fact that Jobs and his doctor are probably the only ones capable of knowing what really was going on during that 9 day period - very brief. Jobs' doctors are covered from disclosure by HIPPA unless Jobs releases them from that obligation.

This is a very nebulous affair that I feel that the SEC will abandon after they realize that they either don't have standing or there just isn't enough evidence to peruse much less prosecute on.

I completely agree about the seriousness of the matter. In fact, I think the way, Apple dealt with the situation is disgraceful. They are a public company and have strictly regulated responsibilities towards their shareholders. Shareholders own the company, the management's power originates from them, there would be no shiny overpriced and noisy MacBook with or without Firewire, if some people did not put their money behind the company. Jobs, as a CEO, even when retired played and will play a major role in the company. It is their duty to tell me, an occasional Apple shareholder, if there is a problem and I can make adjustments. For example, sell and not pocket huge losses.

Perhaps, some investors will prove that they suffered losses due to Apple's misrepresentation of Jobs' health. After all, there is a legal obligation to disclose medical details about top managers' health and not to do so may attract not just criminal charges but civil litigation too. I really hope, that Apple will be penalised for the incident. It is time to kill that culture of fear and secrecy that Jobs is responsible for. It is a bit dated now and personally, I cannot see, how it benefits the consumer. All the usual quality problems about the iPhone and MacBooks, I think support the theory.

This whole incident should be seen in the light of Apple's uniqueness about its shareholders. From time to time, Apple is being saved by people, who believe in the company and don't sell, when every sane person would. Is this secrecy the way to pay back the favour?

But I agree that they might get away with it this time. Rotten Apple!

Mattie Num Nums

Jul 9, 2009, 02:19 PM

I completely agree about the seriousness of the matter. In fact, I think the way, Apple dealt with the situation is disgraceful. They are a public company and have strictly regulated responsibilities towards their shareholders. Shareholders own the company, the management's power originates from them, there would be no shiny overpriced and noisy MacBook with or without Firewire, if some people did not put their money behind the company. Jobs, as a CEO, even when retired played and will play a major role in the company. It is their duty to tell me, an occasional Apple shareholder, if there is a problem and I can make adjustments. For example, sell and not pocket huge losses.

Perhaps, some investors will prove that they suffered losses due to Apple's misrepresentation of Jobs' health. After all, there is a legal obligation to disclose medical details about top managers' health and not to do so may attract not just criminal charges but civil litigation too. I really hope, that Apple will be penalised for the incident. It is time to kill that culture of fear and secrecy that Jobs is responsible for. It is a bit dated now and personally, I cannot see, how it benefits the consumer. All the usual quality problems about the iPhone and MacBooks, I think support the theory.

This whole incident should be seen in the light of Apple's uniqueness about its shareholders. From time to time, Apple is being saved by people, who believe in the company and don't sell, when every sane person would. Is this secrecy the way to pay back the favour?

But I agree that they might get away with it this time. Rotten Apple!

I am glad there are people here that actually understand what a Public Companys relationship to their shareholders are, because some people here think that Steve is just another employee like the janitor.

jbernie

Jul 9, 2009, 02:33 PM

Apple is all about keeping things secret.

The only way to be SURE they don't get in any legal problems with the govt. is to say absolutely NOTHING.

If they want to play the secrets game, go private, they can keep everything a secret then and the SEC won't touch them. While publicly traded it will be a toss up between not saying anything when they do know and saying something that isn't correct as to which one would cause more issues with the SEC.

pdjudd

Jul 9, 2009, 03:37 PM

Perhaps, some investors will prove that they suffered losses due to Apple's misrepresentation of Jobs' health.

Actually I can't see how that will be proven due to the unstable nature of Apple's stock in general and the fact that overall, it went up in the last quarter. Its very hard to prove a loss due to a specific cause that happened over a 9 day period.

After all, there is a legal obligation to disclose medical details about top managers' health and not to do so may attract not just criminal charges but civil litigation too.

Actually, that area of law has not been established and several people has said it is murky at best. Of course we should point out that the procedure itself was done over a period of time when he was on leave (which was disclosed) and we are talking about the 9 day period of time in January - we also need to point out that things in the medical world change rapidly. From the OP:

Whether the SEC will ultimately be able to take action against Apple or Jobs is unknown, given the uncertainty about the situation and the "murky" laws regarding disclosure of the health of companies' CEOs.

Emphasis mine. You make it sound as if it is a certainty when there is no such certainty. Which is why my previous post was precluded with an IF. If Apple is guilty, they should pay. Right now, this is just an investigation that has some problems right off the bat and involves an area where things are not always black and white.