The SEC Is Still Investigating Steve Jobs’ Health Disclosures

@ninjagin: I too think they should investigate but it would be helpful if they used some of these efforts to help make the law less murky for future situations.

It's a bad day when your corporate legal team's honest and well-researched answer to your question is, "We simply don't know".

It's a hell of a spot to be investigated for non-compliance when compliance is defined after the fact.

Jake712

Shouldn't the SEC be a little more interested in you know, protecting the economy from all the greedy bastards instead of a sick person who's worst actions are being maniacal to his employees? Thanks SEC, I feel reeaal secure about my investments now.

Kyle Bowles

@[us.imdb.com]

sneakypoo

@Lance eagles3strong: Because, more then enough people already want those people dead :P. And those are pretty much a given for everyone. I wish Steve Jobs would die because I hope that Apple would die out without him. I hate what the company stands for, I hate their attitude, I hate their totalitarian and greedy ways. It's a plague in the computing industry.

Kakkoister

@[en.wikipedia.org]

psychiccheese

@Hello Mister Walrus: A hormone imbalance could be due to a failing liver.

From [en.wikipedia.org] "The liver plays a major role in metabolism and has a number of functions in the body, including [...] hormone production"

so when they said he was having a hormone imbalance, it's possible they had no idea that it was due to his liver, or that he'd even need a transplant at all. And even if they did know, was it necessary to disclose that, as long as what they say is truthful?

psychiccheese

If Jobs took a leave of absence from the company, why should he have to divulge personal health information? I could understand an investigation if he didn't take the leave, but investors knew of the health problems when he took the leave.

@Kakkoister: why? you dick, would you wish it was Steve jobs. A relatively harmless man who does very little damage, accept harass a few employees. when there are world leaders out their intent on killing everyone who doesn't do exactly what they are told to do.

Steve will be fine. They will figure out a way to put him back together again. (and with an even more sleek, stylish appearance!)

WaffleTeamStrike

@frigg: Leave Stevie Alone.

@tande04: Meh, not really. Everyone is allowed at least one person they wish would die. Mine is Steve Jobs :P.

Kakkoister

@Curves: Because you know - a big potential crime nullifies all smaller potential crimes.

You know - like, if there's a murder investigation in my city - I get to drive through red lights on principle as long as I don't get caught.

Come on - if Jobs did something illegal - and I'm not saying he did - then he has to account for it. He's not above the law anymore than you or I am. He's not fricking GOD for pete's sake. And we find out whether or not he broke the law by investigating the situation.

And lest we forget, he IS one of the most visible CEOs out there in one of the most highly watched companies. He forfited an absolute right to privacy when he accepted that responsibility. No one forced him to take on that role.

aw i liked him better when he was chubby :(

Nick Silvestri

Giving that new liver a workout!

Hope thats a water martini.

John Eaton

One would think the SEC might have other, more important things to be looking into now given the fact that a lot of non-"murky" laws are being broken every day on Wall Street.

@Kakkoister: Geez...are you planning on shorting apple stock or something?

eucrow

@Kakkoister: Ouch, thats screwed up.

tande04

Please Steve Job's organs, give out on him soon, my hope for the future would be so much better.

Kakkoister

The only thing that would happen with Jobs giving out his health publicly, is his earlier demise. The added stress would kill him faster than whatever is eating him right now.

Ty Brown

@Hello Mister Walrus: Well like I said, I think its a question that they're going to look at. The question of if they decide to set any new ground or take a hard stance on it is something else completely.

You can make the argument that his health is a material fact for the company. They'd need to disclose it just like any other material fact. They couldn't just not say anything or give no comment. The parallel would be if apple had an asset which lost all value, they'd need to disclose that (saying nothing would be just as bad as lying). The counter argument is obviously that Steve isn't just some asset on the books and that he has some expectation of privacy.

There is a lot of back and forth here. I think its a pretty new area to look at. I don't expect much to come out of it just because the SEC is pretty much impotent at this point but I think its something that should be looked at in the future.

tande04

@Hello Mister Walrus: I agree completely with you on that. They could have (and in retrospect probably should have) simply left it at a non-disclosed health issue and that he would be intending on returning after X months.

He kinda reminds me of the guy in 6th Day, the CEO of the cloning company... you think??

Adrian Diaz

@tande04: It's a bit different. They could have not said anything, or said that they were not willing to comment.

Hello Mister Walrus

@GlenTen: Is that where they put it?

tande04

The SEC better look into whether or not they've already cloned Steve Jobs. A clone could easily pick up where the original left off. Someone needs to check the inside of his eyelids for his version number.

If I were Steve Jobs, I'd hire Chris Crocker to handle PR and fast.

@NurseDave: You don't have to. Its like any law, you apply it to the case at hand. If your CEO is so ingrained in not only the day to day of the company but the very image of the company of course its going to be different then the CEO of a company who does little more then sit back and pull a paycheck.

@Hello Mister Walrus: Well I think thats part of the question. In a case like this is not disclosing something like this misleading by its very nature? There is defiantly a balance of opposing ideals but thats true of nearly any legal question.

tande04

@ninjagin: Can't really have two different laws though.

NurseDave

@ninjagin: They don't have to disclose anything. They just cannot mislead investors. For instance, they said that Steve Jobs was having a "hormone imbalance" when he was getting a liver transplant. If the SEC believes that Jobs' health is material to stockholders, then this might be considered fraudulent.

Hello Mister Walrus

Honestly, I think it's a fair thing to investigate. Yet, it would seem that there must be some privacy issues at stake. How much does the shareholding set really need to know. What isn't necessary to disclose? I have a feeling that because Jobs is such a pivotal figure from a product development standpoint, that these disclosures are more meaningful for Apple, but perhaps not for Acme Tool & Die, for example.

ninjagin

I hope to see something out of it.

Don't get me wrong, its his health, glad to see him better, blah blah blah...

When they're saying "he's fine" out of one side of the mouth and he is getting a liver transplant out the other, as an investor that concerns me.

tande04

when you try to deceive.....

no one would dare, unless they can take on the Woz-inator, who can now dance you into oblivion

So at which point does personal privacy get trumped by big money?

S-Express

@ironman1266: I know who can take on the Wozinator. It's... umm... the next person to give me a free iphone.

Nick2