As a public company in the U.S., Apple shares are traded in markets regulated by the S.E.C. Amongst other things, any fact which could "materially alter" the performance of those shares in those markets must be disclosed.
The board need not disclose the specifics of Steve's medical condition, but it MUST disclose if, at any point, his health prevents him from performing his duties as demarcated by his employment contract.
In all likelihood, this was not done within the typical timelines, channels, and detail as proscribed by S.E.C. charters, but the S.E.C has extremely broad discretionary powers in these matters and could simply decide to do nothing.
Given the extreme congeniality of the Apple board and Steve's celebrity status, it's likely that they voted to offer no disclosure after Steve, himself, announced his condition following a pseudo off-the-record disclosure to the NYT.
The key thing is that Steve personally made the more detailed announcement--not Apple. The board only disclosed the 6 month medical leave and it's highly likley that no official board minutes will offer written record of these health discussions beyond the press release. This gives the board legally plausible, but weak, deniability regarding the details of Steve's health.
Buffett is correct, but given the various vestments of the parties involved (including the S.E.C.) it's likely that nothing will come of the matter barring a disgruntled board member or demands for an audit by a bloc of institutional investors.
"The board need not disclose the specifics of Steve's medical condition, but it MUST disclose if, at any point, his health prevents him from performing his duties as demarcated by his employment contract."
I think the fact that he took a much-publicized medical leave of absence covers that. What more, precisely, were you expecting?
"The key thing is that Steve personally made the more detailed announcement--not Apple. The board only disclosed the 6 month medical leave and it's highly likley that no official board minutes will offer written record of these health discussions beyond the press release. This gives the board legally plausible, but weak, deniability regarding the details of Steve's health."
Flip side: the board likely is legally forbidden from disclosing details, due to medical privacy laws (only the patient can decide when, how, for what purposes and to whom private medical information is disclosed).
The board need not disclose the specifics of Steve's medical condition, but it MUST disclose if, at any point, his health prevents him from performing his duties as demarcated by his employment contract.
In all likelihood, this was not done within the typical timelines, channels, and detail as proscribed by S.E.C. charters, but the S.E.C has extremely broad discretionary powers in these matters and could simply decide to do nothing.
Given the extreme congeniality of the Apple board and Steve's celebrity status, it's likely that they voted to offer no disclosure after Steve, himself, announced his condition following a pseudo off-the-record disclosure to the NYT.
The key thing is that Steve personally made the more detailed announcement--not Apple. The board only disclosed the 6 month medical leave and it's highly likley that no official board minutes will offer written record of these health discussions beyond the press release. This gives the board legally plausible, but weak, deniability regarding the details of Steve's health.
Buffett is correct, but given the various vestments of the parties involved (including the S.E.C.) it's likely that nothing will come of the matter barring a disgruntled board member or demands for an audit by a bloc of institutional investors.