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

[macshill]

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]

Apple is all about keeping things secret.

 

[Shasterball]

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]

Not necessarily ....

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]

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]

Sec

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?

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

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?

Excellent Comment.

 

[kernkraft]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Superdelphinus]

surely they are just investigating whether apple held back information about the health of its ceo and major shareholder, information that typically leads to apple stock varying wildly in value. I can't see on what possible basis you can this is unfair or over the top.

 

[satcomer]

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

I believe there will be no SEC case IF no Apple Employee profited by withholding the medical information. If an Apple Employee benefited from the misdirection then the SEC WILL have a case against Apple, Inc.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

surely they are just investigating whether apple held back information about the health of its ceo and major shareholder, information that typically leads to apple stock varying wildly in value. I can't see on what possible basis you can this is unfair or over the top.

Some people here will look you straight in the eye and tell you Apple can do NOTHING wrong!

 

[masterhiggins]

I think a more important question is...

...If Steve Jobs dies, is he going to be buried in an engraved iPOD coffin that allows users to more easily view his epitaph via a simple clickwheel?

-Sam

 

[pdjudd]

Some people here will look you straight in the eye and tell you Apple can do NOTHING wrong!

And there are others who believe the same thing but with Microsoft. Or any other person or entity. Cognitive dissonance is a real funny thing.

 

[blipper]

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.

HIPAA only applies to health care providers and insurers. Apple is not a covered entity. Presumably, Steve's employment agreement "requires him to consent" to provide Apple with relevant information as to his health status and to consent to Apple making such disclosures as are necessary for it to meet its material facts disclosures to shareholders and the SEC.