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.
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.
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)
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
. 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...
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.
Comments
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.
Why does the SEC even exist? It's a joke.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
. 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...
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.
God bless the USA.
- GodBless