Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.
I know what 'presumptive' means.
There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.
Thus, for instance, if Apple board can show that SJ kept them informed, they deliberated as a board, followed all of the business judgment criteria in arriving at their conclusion, and the conclusion they came to was that it is not material, or that a prudent investor would have taken into account the risk that SJ wouldn't be around one day, then there is little that shareholders can do. That is the nature of the US corporate governance system. (And, thank God for that, for o/w courts would be second-guessing everything that companies do).
If any of these so-called corporate governance 'experts' had a leg to stand on -- and I have not seen one that has cited an effective reasoning for how a shareholder might prevail -- you bet that some schmuck would have brought a lawsuit already.
Time will tell....