SEC looking into Apple's disclosures about Jobs' health

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Apple's disclosures about chief executive Steve Jobs' health problems, Bloomberg is reporting.



Citing a person familiar with the matter, theÂ*financial publicationÂ*said the SEC wants to make sure investors weren't misled.Â* The probe isn't an indication that investigators have seen any evidence of misconduct.



"The good news flipped by the bad news makes one wonder what Apple knew," said James Cox, a law professor at Duke University quoted in the report.Â* "It's not surprising for the SEC to come in and look afterward, given the pressure and publicity regarding their handling of a lot of cases," he said, referring to Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.



Spokespeople for both Apple and the SEC declined to comment.



An SEC lawyer who teaches at Wayne State Law School said securities regulators would be hard pressed to build a case against the Cupertino-based company.



"It would be difficult, and certainly a new area of the law," said Peter Henning.Â* "You would have to pin down exactly what they knew, and with a health issue -- unlike a merger or a decline in revenue -- it's not subject to definitive answers."



OnÂ*January 5Â*Jobs disclosed that a hormone imbalance was causing him to lose weight but that he was undergoing treatment and planned to remaining as chief executive.Â* Shares rose 4.2 percent.Â* But just nine days later,Â*the Apple co-founder spooked industry watchers with his decision to take medical leave through June, saying his health problems turned out to be "more complex" than he thought.Â* Apple shares have since fallen 8.4 percent.



A corporate governance expert at Chadbourne & Parke told Bloomberg that Apple's board may have met its obligation to shareholders by announcing Jobs would be on leave.



"It's really an issue of the ability of the CEO during the period of his ill health to continue to advise and consult and manage the affairs of the company," said Edward Smith, who said the board isn't obligated to give specific details about Jobs' illness.Â* "Someone might be able to [consult] from a hospital bed for several weeks just as well as they may do it from the office."



It's been speculated that Apple will inevitably face lawsuits from shareholders unhappy with the company's recent secrecy over Jobs uncertain health. Such suits would be the first of their kind and represent uncharted territory for the US legal system.



Bloomberg on Friday cited "people who are monitoring [Jobs'] illness" as saying he is considering a liver transplant as a result of complications that followed his pancreatic cancer treatment in 2004.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    UH OH!
  • Reply 2 of 41
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    I hadn't thought of this before, but because Steve, makes, builds, designs, ships, creates collects funds, pays bills, schedules work loads, hires, fires, promotes, designs new stores, opens new stores, brokers deals, does all of the coding, concept work and SO MUCH more … I think everyone is right, we should sure Apple!



    I have Apple stock!



    I, like many others have seen the value go down (oh wait, ALL of my others stocks have gone down too … I have got one hell of a lawsuit to think about). But I like EVERYONE else, could have sold my shares of Apple stock at ANY time, I didn't - sue me for being stupid!



    Oh, I forgot, Apple is going to close and fade into the sunset never to be heard from again, when Steve's gone!



    Yeah right.



    I like everyone agree this all could have all been handled better, but jesus, does that mean because it wasn't - we can sue Apple.



    I was suppose to get a raise but I didn't … can I sue?



    My marriage didn't go as planned … can I sue?



    My car is not as nice as I'd hope … can I sue?



    Mother nature as screwed things up more then once on me … can I sue.



    Skip
  • Reply 3 of 41
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    So Steve, how would you prefer your time in prison? Going forward or the other way?



    I think we all know the answer to that one...
  • Reply 4 of 41
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    Also, did you see the piece that said "this is only possible, because Mr. Jobs is such a figure head for Apple" "if Mr Jobs wasn't such, none of this would matter".



    So because he's popular … sue him?



    Skip



    PS Now I'm not sure what I would do with ALL of the money I'd get from this lawsuit? Oh, just the lawyers are going to get something, oh I see.
  • Reply 5 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post




    I was suppose to get a raise but I didn't … can I sue?



    My marriage didn't go as planned … can I sue?



    My car is not as nice as I'd hope … can I sue?



    Mother nature as screwed things up more then once on me … can I sue.



    1. Raise - It depends on why you didn't get the raise.

    2. Marriage, you have to if you want to end it.

    3. Not unless someone else made your car "not as nice".

    4. "Act(s) of God" lawsuits aren't well received, but given your lack of a question mark at the end of your sentence I will assume that was rhetorical.
  • Reply 6 of 41
    I think the main problem that most people have is that they see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. That just isn't the case. I would have to say that there is no way possible for this to go forward. After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.
  • Reply 7 of 41
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.



    On the contrary: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes....%20jobs&st=cse
  • Reply 8 of 41
    My biggest fear is that Steve will leave Apple not because of his health, but because of the public scrutiny he is being placed under over this issue. Who wants to live like that?



    I believe he and the board have been very forthcoming about this. He's made several public statements about his heatlh, and unfortunately, each statement only encourages people to demand to know even more. Pretty soon, they'll settle for nothing less than a by-the-minute report. Ridiculous.
  • Reply 9 of 41
    nizynizy Posts: 24member
    Surely the only way anyone could prove any kind of misleading activity by Jobs and the Apple board would be to prove they knew of the extent of his condition earlier? And the only way to prove that would be through his medical records, which surely would be a breach of his right to doctor-patient confidentiality?



    Also I don't see what benefit Apple would have got from the 2 announcements - surely both were very damaging to the companies stock?
  • Reply 10 of 41
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Question to the people who are so sure that Steve lied to Apple (or that Apple made Steve lie to the public) on January 5:



    What is the motivation for telling people you WON'T be leaving your duties, if you actually KNOW that 9 days later you will be? What does that gain you?



    Isn't it simpler to take off the tin foil hats and speculate that the decision to take time off was made DURING those 9 days? Call me crazy
  • Reply 11 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k2director View Post




    I believe he and the board have been very forthcoming about this. He's made several public statements about his heatlh, and unfortunately, each statement only encourages people to demand to know even more. Pretty soon, they'll settle for nothing less than a by-the-minute report. Ridiculous.



    Really? So the first time he was seen looking like he was 90lbs and sick they came out and said he had a cold and loss some weight due to that. Then a few weeks later it was revealed he had another procedure related to his cancer treatment years ago. Then a couple weeks ago he said they had figured out what the problem was and needed to rest and get his energy back. The following week it was revealed that he actually had more complicated problems. I'm sorry, as a shareholder that is not forth coming in a timely manor and smacks of either denial or the lawyers getting involved and telling him not to lie about it.



    I'm surprised that people don't understand what impact he has on the stock.
  • Reply 12 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    Question to the people who are so sure that Steve lied to Apple (or that Apple made Steve lie to the public) on January 5:



    What is the motivation for telling people you WON'T be leaving your duties, if you actually KNOW that 9 days later you will be? What does that gain you?



    Isn't it simpler to take off the tin foil hats and speculate that the decision to take time off was made DURING those 9 days? Call me crazy



    Depends who sold the stock and when, doesn't it?
  • Reply 13 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    On the contrary: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes....%20jobs&st=cse



    That Nocera blog is a travesty: Just read the (very highly informed) comments section, if you'd care to educate yourself.
  • Reply 14 of 41
    What a silly move on SEC's part: as though they don't have more important things to deal with in the midst of the macro-financial meltdown, and their own ineptness on matters such as Madoff.



    This will go nowhere, fast.
  • Reply 15 of 41
    lafelafe Posts: 252member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Apple's disclosures about chief executive Steve Jobs' health problems, Bloomberg is reporting.



    Formality. SEC wants to show they aren't ignoring things. Move along. Nothing to see here.
  • Reply 16 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post


    Really? So the first time he was seen looking like he was 90lbs and sick they came out and said he had a cold and loss some weight due to that. Then a few weeks later it was revealed he had another procedure related to his cancer treatment years ago. Then a couple weeks ago he said they had figured out what the problem was and needed to rest and get his energy back. The following week it was revealed that he actually had more complicated problems. I'm sorry, as a shareholder that is not forth coming in a timely manor and smacks of either denial or the lawyers getting involved and telling him not to lie about it.



    I'm surprised that people don't understand what impact he has on the stock.



    You need to think things through a bit more before playing the blame-the-victim game like you do...



    First of all, it's quite possible that Steve *did* initially feel he had a cold/flu, and that he attributed his gaunt look to that, along with his vegan diet. Depending on the health advice he was getting (remember, he's not a big fan of conventional medicine, and even tried to treat his cancer through diet in 2004), he may not have had an accurate idea himself over why he was losing weight. Weight loss can happen *very very quickly* in many cases....my brother had a form of liver disease (since beaten!), but when it came on strong, he dropped about 50 pounds in 6 weeks! Steve may have experienced a rapid weight loss, and chalked it up to feeling under the weather and his already sparse diet.



    Secondly, he announced before Macworld Expo in 2009 that it was a "hormone imbalance" that was causing the problem. Did it occur to you that that was the most recent understanding he had, and he was sharing it the world, as you wanted him to? Then, the following week, after more tests and research, his doctors tell him that the problem is more complex, and so he reveals that to you, as you've loudly demanded.



    So what do you do? You kick him for not being able to, in one single moment, give you a 100% accurate picture of his condition that's guaranteed to *not* change at any time in the foreseeable future. You hypocritical bozos can't have it both ways--you can't demand that Steve updates you constantly on his health, but then blame him as he gets more and sometimes contradictory information about said health.



    P.S. Yes, Steve's health affects Apple's stock. So do 1000 other factors. The Palm Pre, Windows 7, the Blackberry storm, the overall economy, iPod sales #s, the rumors printed on this web site, etc. etc. etc. Welcome to the real world. If investors want a totally predictable ride, they should buy a nice conservative bond instead of Apple's stock (or any company's stock for that matter).
  • Reply 17 of 41
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    That Nocera blog is a travesty: Just read the (very highly informed) comments section, if you'd care to educate yourself.



    So you think he made it up? It all lies- right? I think you just spilled some kool-aid on that post of yours because you're only reading or listening to what you want to hear in the comments section.
  • Reply 18 of 41
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    This will go nowhere, fast.



    Richard Nixon is alive!
  • Reply 19 of 41
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    What a silly move on SEC's part: as though they don't have more important things to deal with in the midst of the macro-financial meltdown, and their own ineptness on matters such as Madoff.



    This will go nowhere, fast.



    What if that was the point? I wouldn't object if someone suggested that this may be a deliberate means to distract people from the ineptitude of SEC oversight, such as your Madoff example.
  • Reply 20 of 41
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    I think the main problem that most people have is that they see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. That just isn't the case. I would have to say that there is no way possible for this to go forward. After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.





    While I agree that Steve's health IS a private matter. I disagree with the premise that the main problem is that most people see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. I think Steve Jobs is the reason why most people see Apple and Jobs as the same entity, at least those of us in the know and who keep up with the tech world. I mean, go do a man on the street interview with a picture of an iPod or an iPhone and ask what company created it. Then ask who is the CEO of that company. I am sure that the answers would be as interesting as the answers that Jay Leno gets from his "Man on the Street" interviews of the most informed, American public schooled, citizenry. \
Sign In or Register to comment.