Skip to main content

Mac > News

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 Apple should have revealed Jobs' op, claims Warren Buffett

Apple was wrong not to let shareholders know that Jobs was so sick he required a transplant

Karen Haslam

  • Email to a friend
  • Print this article
  • Bookmark this page
  • RSS feed

Apple should have revealed that CEO Steve Jobs had a liver transplant, because it is a "material fact" for shareholders of the company, at least according to high-profile US investor and businessman Warren Buffett.

The Iconic investor and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett told CNBC: "If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American, the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for 'em."

Warren Buffett continued: "Some people might think I'm important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. So it's a material fact. Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact. Whether I'm facing serious surgery is a material fact. Whether (General Electric CEO) Jeff Immelt is, I mean, so I think that's important," reports Cnet."

The Chicago Tribune explains that companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives. However, the lawyers the newspaper spoke to said that companies are required to disclose "material" information – which is basically any news an investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock.

Lawyer Jeffrey C. Soza said: "If they tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that's just as bad as telling something that flat isn't true."

If Apple investors had known that Jobs was so sick that he required liver transplant they may have not wished to invest in the company’s stock.

However, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.

Check out our new Macworld Mobile site.

Follow Macworld UK on twitter: www.twitter.com/macworlduk

Email A Friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:



PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.

<<prev article | back to news index | next article>>

Comments received


Phil said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

If Buffet couldn't work out that SJ must have had a serious illness - long term medical leave for a senior exec - then I wouldn't be investing any money through him. People can be so thick sometimes, they can't work things out for themselves

William said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

I think Apple didnt need to reveal it while he was on sick leave - it wasnt material if he wasnt working, was it?! - and it looks like Apple did reveal it (albieit through a slight spin machine..) the news when he was returning to Apple. Whether the lack of explicit press release FROM Apple (rather than the hospital) is legally dubious, the outcome is more or less the same: investors now know..


James Donevan said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

Buffett seems unaware of the facts. Once Jobs left the company on medical leave, the company had met its legal obligation to disclosure. Had he stayed in his position, Buffett would be correct.

Frank said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

Who do these investors think they are ? They have every right to know everything on someone, just because they bought some shares ?
Imagine how much Apple share prices would have dropped if the 'transplant' news had been known... For nothing !!!

Bingo said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

Apple are doing a fine job of xx off the people who matter - the shareholders.

George Berger said on Thu, 25 Jun 2009

Unfortunately, SEC regulations/rules are in direct conflict with HIPAA, a Federal law pertaining to patient privacy rights. Unless the patient gives his or her permission, a hospital, health practitioner or a fiducary can NOT divulge any information pertaining to the patient's condition. A hoslital can't even divulge whether someone is - - or has been - - a patient. Until the HIOPAA law is either amended or repealed, a patient's medical information is controlled by the patient and not well-meaning other individuals or corporate entities.

Baskaran said on Fri, 26 Jun 2009

Indecency prevails when money is involved - specially Apple's shares and the CEO's health. If you are worried about your money so much please go and invest in Microsoft. Balmer will handle it wisely.

Victor said on Fri, 26 Jun 2009

He should go. The company has been meandering nowhere for some time. Needs new blood and reintroduce innovation, not rehash.

ben said on Fri, 26 Jun 2009

why should jobs have to say whats wrong with him? at the end of the day it has nothing to do with anyone else

Slinky said on Fri, 26 Jun 2009

Because he works for the Shareholders of the company. Same way that you have to let your boss know of you're ill. If Jobs didn't want to tell his shareholders that he was having an operation he shouldn't have floated apple in the first place. Or he ahould have stuck with NEXT etc.

Being head of a public company comes with responabilities. One of which is to keep the shareholders informed.

Disclaimer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Macworld. Macworld accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content.
Click here to read the house rules.

Click here for the latest reader comments

Latest News


More news...