At worst, it has been lying to the market and Apple's customers for the better part of a year. These are questions Apple and its iconic co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs have had to face ever since he was diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer in Giving the board the benefit of the doubt seems like a stretch given the lack of disclosure in Nagarajan and I weren't alone taking what some Apple defenders viewed as a hard and insensitive position.
But in context, Buffett is really making an ethical, rather than legal, distinction -- a public company's fundamental fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders. Apple well knows all this—indeed, the company has shrewdly leveraged the immense admiration and popularity Jobs enjoys, encouraging the identification of Jobs with the Apple brand.
They should disclose anything that might jeopardize their ability to perform their duties, particularly compromised health.
And, they add, the company will need to be very careful, as it was on Monday, about how it words those statements. Apple has chosen different strategies over the course of the past six months in handling those rumors.
Assuming that Jobs is fighting off cancer again, or the effects from it, he has enough emotional stress -- and that includes resigning as CEO last week. Should they have been. At first, the reason offered by a spokesman was that the firm would not take part in the event after But Apple defenders argue that Jobs deserves his privacy, particularly because of illness.
A Public or Private Matter. That's Tim Cook's role.
To be sure, Steve Jobs, like anyone else, has a right to keep details about his health problems private. The distinction between public figure and private citizen doesn't necessarily matter, under the law.
It seems to me that a private citizen undergoing cancer or cancer-related treatment meets this legal definition. Right now, Jobs has essentially abdicated the responsibility for an undetermined amount of time. During Jobs' two medical leaves, starting in early andI argued that his health was not a private matter.
And clearly, this famously reticent company must now tread carefully. The intense interest in anything related to Apple in the tech industry makes it ripe for disinformationwhich seems to have cropped up time and time again with the rumors that Jobs was dying. Or does he or she have an obligation to disclose them to investors and other stakeholders.
We now know, through Monday's announcement, that Jobs decided "a few weeks ago" that determining why he was continuing to lose weight was his highest priority.
Right to Know or Right to Privacy. One way Apple could avoid having to go down that road is by making its succession plan clearer, Lorsch said. Happily, the disease proved to be treatable with surgery, which Jobs underwent in And if investors respect or care about Jobs, they should want to know.
Now that it has cleared the air and addressed the state of Jobs' health, Apple may be forced to give regular updates, according to corporate governance experts. In a June CNBC interviewafter Jobs' liver transplant was revealed and soon before he returned from the last medical leave, Buffett affirmed the importance of full disclosure: Tech Industry Steve Jobs' health now a public matter In choosing to go public with CEO Steve Jobs' ailments to deflect damaging rumors, Apple may be forced to give regular updates on the health of its founder.
Jobs and his family would like some degree of privacy in the midst of health issues. If not Jobs, then at least Apple's board of directors has a responsibility to appraise shareholders about such an iconic CEO's realistic ability to continue in the role.
The Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't explicitly require disclosure of executives' health-related issues, but it does encourage companies to disclose succession plans.
The recent financial reform law does put a CEO to a shareholder vote, and state of health is information that should be available to them. Case Disclosure of Steve Jobs’ Health as Apple CEO: A Public or Private Matter?
An important issue within the scope of corporate governance is whether a company should disclose the health problems of its CEO and how much information should be disclosed.
Disclosure of Steve Jobs’ Health as Apple CEO: A Public or Private Matter? An important issue within the scope of corporate governance is whether a company should disclose the health problems of its CEO and how much information should be disclosed.
Jan 18, · To be sure, Steve Jobs, like anyone else, has a right to keep details about his health problems private.
But an individual’s right to privacy is not absolute.
In this case, it has to be balanced against obligations Jobs and his board of directors have to Apple’s stakeholders, especially its shareholders, employees, and customers. Is Steve Jobs Health A Private Matter.
ASSESSMENT I – EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs ( – ) • American entrepreneur, marketer, and inventor, who was the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Apple Inc.
• Recognized as a charismatic pioneer of the personal computer revolution and for his influential career in the computer and consumer electronics fields.
the fact of the matter is that the precise nature of Steve Jobs’ illness is a matter for Steve and his family. The company had no obligation to disclose more. and he wants that he wants to take out of the limelight and focus on his health.
Some people might think I’m important to the. After insisting for months that Jobs' health was a private matter, Apple changed its tack in the face of widespread speculation regarding its CEO's weight loss.
On Monday, the company issued a.Is steve jobs health a private matter