SEC still reviewing Apple's disclosures on Steve Jobs' health

[AppleInsider]

The United States Security and Exchange Commission is still reviewing disclosures made by Apple earlier this year to determine whether the company knowingly withheld material information from shareholders about the health of its chief executive.

In particular, the commission is reportedly scrutinizing statements from the company to determine what happened in the nine days from when it reported that Steve Jobs' medical condition was “relatively simple” to when it ultimately disclosed that there were “more complex" problems, a person with knowledge of the probe told Bloomberg.

Regulators reportedly want to know what Apple's board of directors knew between January 5th, when Apple said Jobs was suffering from an easily treatable hormone imbalance, and January 14th, when the co-founder penned an open letter to the media in which he stated that his health-related issues were more complex than he originally thought.

Jobs would go on to take a medical leave for nearly six months, during which time he received a liver transplant in Memphis, Tenn. At the time of the transplant, he was reportedly the sickest person on the waiting list.

A person familiar with the ongoing investigation told Bloomberg that Apple's lead directors, Art Levinson and Bill Campbell, were being briefed by Jobs’ doctors on his condition during the time the company issued its contradictory statements. Should it be determined by regulators that Apple only told partial truths, its statements could be considered misleading.

Still, the ongoing review is said to be just that: a review. And there's currently no indication that the SEC is prepared to charge Apple or its directors with any wrongdoing.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[hmurchison]

Still, the ongoing review is said to be just that: a review. And there's currently no indication that the SEC is prepared to charge Apple or its directors with any wrongdoing.

Why not? They may as well test how flimsy their argument is when juxtaposed with the right to privacy and HIPAA legislation.

Just because someone is a CEO doesn't give people Carte Blanche to know everything about their personal life in particular their health record.

I think people are being windbags here. If you think you have a case ...lawyer up and bring a fire retardant suit.

[roehlstation]

To whom it may concern:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has a hangnail today.


Thank You.

[aga]

Maybe they should look into the monopoly on the money supply / money press, releasing of lies and hiding the truth from tax payers on the 'health of America' in regards to politicians ability to be objective, coercion in big government and the two party system and big business. Whilst moving along, maybe they could tell us the truth on Barry Soetoro.

Why is it http://barrysoetoro.com/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/ show the same page?

Anyone, anyone, anyone?

[GodBless]

I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.

People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by GodBless

I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.

People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.

However, they knew that the market and the media would over-react, and they would have been correct. At the time he was NOT the CEO, so they DID follow the letter of the law.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by GodBless

People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.

Where did they blatantly lie? Can you prove that Jobs, in fact, did not have a hormone problem? Where does his right to privacy become usurped by a shareholders need to make profit on their investment?

Investing in stocks is nothing but white collar gambling. No one is forcing people to invest in stocks and a company losing value because their CEO says "I have a hormonal imbalance" or whatever makes a mockery of the whole situation.

[GodBless]

Originally Posted by aga

Maybe they should look into the monopoly on the money supply / money press, releasing of lies and hiding the truth from tax payers on the 'health of America' in regards to politicians ability to be objective, coercion in big government and the two party system and big business.

People should rally together to not allow the government and our capitalistic system to continue to collapse (as it is doing so currently). The decaying US government and irresponsible practices of many businesses (which are often endorsed by the US government) are the cause of much of our current economic decline nationally--even recent international decline can, in many cases, be attributed to the fall of the high standards in the US. Apple should help lead the US in a better direction and not go with the flow when it is detrimental for their business in general, their employees, their customers and others who rely on the information that they openly report to the media and other external individuals and groups of people. It's about time for someone to step up and be the example for where most Americans want the country to go anyway.

I will commend the government if they actually do hold Apple responsible for the improper representation of Jobs health. I hope the SEC does its job properly and takes care of this case well. I think that it will be great if the US government will have a revival which includes going back to its healthier traditional standards. God bless the USA.

- GodBless

[ascii]

F 'em. If they push it Jobs should just resign. Gee, that would really be in the interests of the shareholders they are supposedly protecting now wouldn't it?

[BuzDots]

Originally Posted by aga

Why is it http://barrysoetoro.com/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/ show the same page?

Anyone, anyone, anyone?

Not taking up for 'ol Barry, but it is a redirect.

Contact this guy - maybe he can tell you more:

This Domain Is For Sale
Tharwat Abdul-Malik (tharwat@gmail.com)
+1.7704066885
Fax: +1.7704066885
12850 Highway 9 N
Suite 600-250
Alpharetta, GA 30004
US

(he may be Obamas long lost cousin)

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by GodBless

I buy, use and benefit from Apple products (and am using one to type this) so although I have an inclination to favor Apple, I most certainly cannot endorse Apple's choice to deliberately deceive the media about their most important member's health conditions.

People rely on the information that Apple reveals to the media. I would be more supportive of Apple in they had instead decided to said nothing instead of blatantly and straightforwardly lie like the company spokespeople did in this case. Not communicating about important matters that will affect their followers is an irresponsible thing for a prominent leader to do and Steve Jobs can and should do better than this. I respect many decisions that Steve makes but I certainly don't respect this one.

How arrogant are you to think you are entitled to know Steve Jobs' private personal information regarding his health. Do you want an update every time he takes a dump, too?

[anantksundaram]

This seems like such a waste of time, when, one assumes, the SEC has so many more important things to do - e.g., like deal with the Madoffs of the world......

[randythot]

What hogwash...even if the SEC finds fault with Apple, do you think SJ will do anything different in the future? Except for more careful tiptoeing to protect their rear end, SJ will keep his privacy. Price it into the stock, and let individuals worry about their health. The SEC should realize this is not stock manipulation if guided by reasonable disclosure (a very broad interpretive issue), and clearly motivated by privacy and personal health issues.

The SEC likely also needs to cover their back side also, but this is all annoying.

[BuzDots]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This seems like such a waste of time, when, one assumes, the SEC has so many more important things to do - e.g., like deal with the Madoffs of the world......

That is asking a little to much, don't you think???

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Where did they blatantly lie? Can you prove that Jobs, in fact, did not have a hormone problem? Where does his right to privacy become usurped by a shareholders need to make profit on their investment?

Investing in stocks is nothing but white collar gambling. No one is forcing people to invest in stocks and a company losing value because their CEO says "I have a hormonal imbalance" or whatever makes a mockery of the whole situation.

They blatantly lied the day after the MacWorld event when he came out on stage, almost skeleton like. They said he had a cold that he was getting over.

You are confusing what occurred ot him after his leave to what was going on before his leave. And yes, if the job functionality of a public companies CEO is impacted by an illness it is apparently the law to notify the correct people/authorities/public.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by steviet02

.... if the job functionality of a public companies CEO is impacted by an illness it is apparently the law to notify the correct people/authorities/public.

Really? Can you provide any credible cites/opinions/articles/case law?

[hmurchison]

This really isn't even a story.

Jobs could have said " I have a freakin' hemorrhoid that prevents me from doing my duties effectively. I am relieving myself and putting Tim Cook in charge"

The fact is he took a medical leave and it doesn't matter what ailment he had because he wasn't performing his CEO duties.

The fact that the absolute morons in Wall St are fucking with your money and turning things into Soap Opera isn't Jobs's issue. Apple didn't need a bailout remember? They run their company sensibly.

So Apple followed the rules to, what I consider, and acceptable extent. In order to bring suit you'd have to establish negligence. Jobs' wasn't in charge so how could be have been negligent?

You can't quantify how valuable Jobs is to Apple based on knee-jerk reactions from Wall St every time the man farts. That is an intangible and subject to opinion which is hard to base a winning argument on.

Then you get into HIPAA and 14th Amendment privacy issues. The SEC will give the impression that they are "looking" into this and then it'll get mothballed. Unless they have a super attorney that can walk on water it's likely best to just move on.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Really? Can you provide any credible cites/opinions/articles/case law?

How about the SEC? You'd think, given that the SEC is looking into this, that the authority had already been firmly established. That's what you'd think -- but for some apparently, knee jerk reactions trump all.

[Switch23]

Originally Posted by steviet02

They blatantly lied the day after the MacWorld event when he came out on stage, almost skeleton like. They said he had a cold that he was getting over.

You are confusing what occurred ot him after his leave to what was going on before his leave. And yes, if the job functionality of a public companies CEO is impacted by an illness it is apparently the law to notify the correct people/authorities/public.

Can you point us to the evidence that shows the Apple board knew the satements being made were false?

And by "knew", I mean had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements. Not evidence that they reasonably could have known, or could have guessed, or inferred the potential for something more. I mean knew that Jobs was more sick than they stated.

I love it when people just know something to be the case when there is zero evidence in the facts.

Bet, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good stoning?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Switch23

I love it when people just know something to be the case when there is zero evidence in the facts.

Bet, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good stoning?

It much easier for people who've grown up on watching faux legal procedure on TV. If life was only this easy, where conjecture and unfounded allegations actually meant something.

There's no "smoking gun" here. No documents showing that the Apple Board willfully withheld secrets about Jobs' condition and in fact it'd be hard to prove a case even if documents were found as Jobs was not doing CEO duties.

You have to prove that his ailment caused harm to the company and Jobs being skinny isn't hurting Apple.

Never confuse moral arguments with legal arguments.

[nizy]

This investigation is stupid as they can't prove Apple or Jobs did anything wrong. To prove Jobs/Apple mislead shareholders and investors, they would need to prove BOTH knew the full extent of his problems and that they knowingly didn't reveal it. To prove that Jobs knew, you'd need to access his medical files, which is illegal. And even if you could access that data, how could you prove that Apple knew about the full extent of his illness and so willingly mislead everyone? Jobs could have just told them "I'm ill and require 6 months medical leave". No proof = no case.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

It much easier for people who've grown up on watching faux legal procedure on TV. If life was only this easy, where conjecture and unfounded allegations actually meant something.

There's no "smoking gun" here. No documents showing that the Apple Board willfully withheld secrets about Jobs' condition and in fact it'd be hard to prove a case even if documents were found as Jobs was not doing CEO duties.

You have to prove that his ailment caused harm to the company and Jobs being skinny isn't hurting Apple.

Never confuse moral arguments with legal arguments.

You don't know what's there. It's not terribly responsible for you to suggest that you know something that you can't possibly know, unless you happen to be on the Apple Board of Directors. So, are you?

Never confuse complete conjecture and wishful thinking with facts.

[iBill]

With all the malaise we've experienced in our economy over the last several months, and all of the aspects of that which relate directly to issues of importance to the SEC, you'd think they would have more pressing matters to attend to. In hindsight, it makes the entire options backdating "scandal" look trivial and this current investigation seem petty.

Why does the SEC even exist? It's a joke.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You don't know what's there. It's not terribly responsible for you to suggest that you know something that you can't possibly know, unless you happen to be on the Apple Board of Directors. So, are you?

Never confuse complete conjecture and wishful thinking with facts.

Well, I guess that's why it's being like - INVESTIGATED?

(not directed at you but the post you were responding to)

Originally Posted by hmurchison
It much easier for people who've grown up on watching faux legal procedure on TV. If life was only this easy, where conjecture and unfounded allegations actually meant something.

There's no "smoking gun" here. No documents showing that the Apple Board willfully withheld secrets about Jobs' condition and in fact it'd be hard to prove a case even if documents were found as Jobs was not doing CEO duties.

You have to prove that his ailment caused harm to the company and Jobs being skinny isn't hurting Apple.

Never confuse moral arguments with legal arguments

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You don't know what's there. It's not terribly responsible for you to suggest that you know something that you can't possibly know, unless you happen to be on the Apple Board of Directors. So, are you?

Never confuse complete conjecture and wishful thinking with facts.

If the SEC had significant amount of information and could somehow link Jobs health with any deleterious effects on Apple (which would be difficult because Apple's stock has seen a resurgence in the last 6 months) then perhaps they should file.

Even if there were concerns detailed in documents Jobs took a leave of absence which is the right thing to do IMO. The bloviating about Apple not being open about Jobs is superfluous an skirts the issue at hand. Stockholders don't need to know about the health of the CEO unless there was negligence that harmed the company. Period.

The rest of this crap being spewed has tenuous legal foundation and makes for web fodder/filler.

[jasonfj]

and nailing Apple over this would help shareholders how?

[kpluck]

Here is the thing, if Apple would have just stuck to "Mr. Jobs health is a personal matter that we can't comment on" they probably would have been OK. However, they didn't do that. They made various statements about his health that may, or may not have been, accurate based on what the board knew.

Example, from what I have read, in January Apple initially said his condition was the result of something "relatively simple" and about a week or so later they called it "more complex." To play devil's advocate, if Apple knew when they made the "simple" comment that his condition was more serious and their lawyers advised them to change their statement, resulting in the "more complex" description, it could be argued their initial description misled investors, albeit for a short period of time.

I think this is less about Steve's right to privacy and more about statements that Apple made and what they actually knew to be fact. Personally, I think a CEO should have the right to keep his health matters private. If investors don't like that, they are free to place their money elsewhere. However, once a CEO tells the board information I believe the board has a duty to make accurate statements based on that information.

-kpluck

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by kpluck

Here is the thing, if Apple would have just stuck to "Mr. Jobs health is a personal matter that we can't comment on" they probably would have been OK. However, they didn't do that. They made various statements about his health that may, or may not have been, accurate based on what the board knew.

Example, from what I have read, in January Apple initially said his condition was the result of something "relatively simple" and about a week or so later they called it "more complex." To play devil's advocate, if Apple knew when they made the "simple" comment that his condition was more serious and their lawyers advised them to change their statement, resulting in the "more complex" description, it could be argued their initial description misled investors, albeit for a short period of time.

I think this is less about Steve's right to privacy and more about statements that Apple made and what they actually knew to be fact. Personally, I think a CEO should have the right to keep his health matters private. If investors don't like that, they are free to place their money elsewhere. However, once a CEO tells the board information I believe the board has a duty to make accurate statements based on that information.

-kpluck

Were they under oath at the time they released the statements? Then what difference does it make?

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Well, I guess that's why it's being like - INVESTIGATED?

Um, yes?

This has to be something like the fourth thread on this topic. In all of the others, a lot of people got in my face when I pointed out that some experts in corporate governance laws suggested that Apple may have violated SEC material event disclosure requirements. I was told over and over in the most certain terms that they could not possibly have violated the rules. Now it turns out the SEC is looking into the possibility that they did violate rules, rules that some here still swear don't even exist.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by roehlstation

Were they under oath at the time they released the statements? Then what difference does it make?

It's not a courtroom, so absolutely none. As a public corporation, Apple is obligated by law to disclose material events which a reasonable and prudent investor would want to know. I believe kpluck maybe correct -- that Apple might have been better off saying nothing rather than making public statements which can be interpreted as having been evasive in light of what we know today. Unlike others, I can't pretend to know what the SEC will find or conclude about this. The only thing I know or at least strongly suspect is that Apple needlessly exposed themselves to this scrutiny. Their approach to corporate governance has been criticized before; it is certainly one of the company's chronic weak points.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by kpluck

I think this is less about Steve's right to privacy and more about statements that Apple made and what they actually knew to be fact. Personally, I think a CEO should have the right to keep his health matters private. If investors don't like that, they are free to place their money elsewhere. However, once a CEO tells the board information I believe the board has a duty to make accurate statements based on that information.

-kpluck

I agree in part. However even in my scant experience with healthcare it's easy to get multiple diagonsis or find that the original diagnosis was just manifestation of a deeper and more dangerous issue. I had an ex that was told she had perhaps a year to live by one doctor prior to getting the correct diagnosis of RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) by another. That's quite a swing for something that doesn't even require surgery.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Now it turns out the SEC is looking into the possibility that they did violate rules, rules that some here still swear don't even exist.

The legal fan in me wants them to test their case. I don't think Jobs and Co. have much to worry about.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by Switch23

Can you point us to the evidence that shows the Apple board knew the satements being made were false?

And by "knew", I mean had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements. Not evidence that they reasonably could have known, or could have guessed, or inferred the potential for something more. I mean knew that Jobs was more sick than they stated.

I love it when people just know something to be the case when there is zero evidence in the facts.

Bet, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good stoning?

Are you disagreeing with me that the statement issued by apple was a lie?

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by steviet02

Are you disagreeing with me that the statement issued by apple was a lie?

We don't know with anything like certainty, and that's the point. Presumably the SEC will look into this. But I think we can safely assume that Apple's legal department cleared whatever statements were released, and that they would know better than to release a knowingly false statement. I suspect this will in the end come down to an argument over interpretations of the disclosure requirements where the health of a CEO is concerned.

I'll make a prediction: Apple will claim that they only reported what Steve told the board. In the end it will be very difficult for the SEC to prove otherwise, unless somebody was dumb enough to write an e-mail or a memo, or something to the contrary was memorialized in board minutes.

[bugsnw]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Um, yes?

This has to be something like the fourth thread on this topic. In all of the others, a lot of people got in my face when I pointed out that some experts in corporate governance laws suggested that Apple may have violated SEC material event disclosure requirements. I was told over and over in the most certain terms that they could not possibly have violated the rules. Now it turns out the SEC is looking into the possibility that they did violate rules, rules that some here still swear don't even exist.

Millmoss is correct. I pretty much stay out of threads like this because when it comes to law, a lot of emotion gets spewed around and not much legal objectivity.

I love Apple, but SJ's desire for privacy does not trump securities laws. Being a CEO is a voluntary activity. It comes with much responsibility and potential public exposure.

That said, I don't think the SEC will have enough to chew on to go much further than an investigation. At least it will prod Apple to tread more carefully.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by bugsnw

I love Apple, but SJ's desire for privacy does not trump securities laws. Being a CEO is a voluntary activity. It comes with much responsibility and potential public exposure.

I disagree with this to a certain extent. I think that breaching an individual's privacy is something tenable under only the most egregious of acts of negligence.

The elephant in the room is the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade concerning privacy of the mother which established "right to privacy" as a constitutional protection. If an expectant mother can usurp state laws with regard to the termination of her unborn child because of some (potentially mythical) interpretation of the 14th Amendment then that same Constitutional interpretation could bolster any citizen who is pressured to divulge health information.

[zoetmb]

This whole thing is B.S. as far as I'm concerned. Once it was announced that Steve Jobs had cancer, we knew all anyone needed to know because anyone who has had any type of cancer is always subject to relapse and the type of cancer Steve had is particularly virulent. Everything announced (or not announced) since then is trivial and incidental because any investor who felt an absence of Steve Jobs was a risk to their investment should have already factored that in once the cancer was announced. The specifics don't matter once the risk was defined.

Furthermore, most CEOs are type A personalities and are therefore subject to stress releated illnesses such as heart attacks and strokes. I'm amazed that Ballmer hasn't had a heart attack yet - he's both overweight and flies into rages.

In addition, since most CEOs travel extensively, they are also at risk for travel accidents.

And even if Steve was100% healthy, he could pick up and quit at anytime, just as other CEOs have.

So there's always a risk. If one believes that the success of Apple is too tied to Jobs personally, then don't buy the stock. It's very simple.

And that's aside from the issue of privacy, etc.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

We don't know with anything like certainty, and that's the point. Presumably the SEC will look into this. But I think we can safely assume that Apple's legal department cleared whatever statements were released, and that they would know better than to release a knowingly false statement. I suspect this will in the end come down to an argument over interpretations of the disclosure requirements where the health of a CEO is concerned.

I'll make a prediction: Apple will claim that they only reported what Steve told the board. In the end it will be very difficult for the SEC to prove otherwise, unless somebody was dumb enough to write an e-mail or a memo, or something to the contrary was memorialized in board minutes.

I agree with your last statement, and as a shareholder I hope that there aren't any financial ramifications from an investigation. Having said that, you gotta call a spade a spade. Considering the statements that came out a few days after that and then the subsequent leave you have to admit that the initial statement is incredulous at best. Everyone can say it wasn't a lie because I wasn't in the board room, thats fine. But we all know it wasn't the truth, anyone looking at that human being could tell he was really ill and not suffering from a common cold.

[OC4Theo]

Where were these bastards when all the crooks were pumping and dumping stocks? Where were they when banks were screwing the homeowners? Where were they when Maddoff and likes of him were stealing from their victims?

This review is just a bunch of crap. The problem with SEC is that it spends its time reviewing the irrelevant, while serious issues are left behind. No investor has lost money because Steve Jobs went on sick-leave.

SCREW THE SEC!

[BuzDots]

Originally Posted by zoetmb

. If one believes that the success of Apple is too tied to Jobs personally...

That is the problem, not only here but on Wall Street. Investors think that Steve is the be-all-end-all of Apple, and if he "goes away" Apple will cease to exist in a certain amount of time. Everyone with any knowledge (inside or out) knows this is just BS. Otherwise why would it be news when Bob Borchers, Jon Rubinstein, Mike Bell or Chuq Von Rospach left Apple?

Hell we all know Steve Jobs does it all!!

Anyone who buys AAPL - or any stock - based on a healthy CEO is a fool.

...kinda like saying Disney has gone to hell since Walt died...

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by steviet02

I agree with your last statement, and as a shareholder I hope that there aren't any financial ramifications from an investigation. Having said that, you gotta call a spade a spade. Considering the statements that came out a few days after that and then the subsequent leave you have to admit that the initial statement is incredulous at best. Everyone can say it wasn't a lie because I wasn't in the board room, thats fine. But we all know it wasn't the truth, anyone looking at that human being could tell he was really ill and not suffering from a common cold.

The series of seemingly contradictory statements is the basis for the SEC asking questions -- but they are not branding them untrue strictly by virtue of having instigated the investigation. So I would not go as far as you have. I'd be very surprised if anything of substance came of this as far as the SEC is concerned, but it probably will become more grist for the mill when corporate governance is discussed. As a stockholder myself, I'm kind of tired of Apple being constantly held up as an example of what not to do. I think it's a distraction and a needless tarnish on the image of a company for which image is so important. They can do better and they ought to do better. Maybe after this they will.