SEC Examining Apple on Steve Jobs' Health Disclosures

The storm after Gizmodo uncovered the real state of Steve Jobs' health keeps growing. Now the SEC is examining Apple's behavior to "ensure investors weren't misled," Bloomberg reports:


The Securities and Exchange Commission's review doesn't mean investigators have seen evidence of wrongdoing, the person said, declining to be identified because the inquiry isn't public.

Bloomberg News' David Scheer and Connie Guglielmo cite James Cox—a law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina—to argue that the Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing the disclosures, since they're feeling the pressure from stock holders and public opinion. Needless to say, everyone is especially sensitive to the Commision's "work" in the light of the current economic climate and the latest scandals, like Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud.

Back in December 30 2008, Gizmodo published an article about the rapid decline of Steve Jobs' health during 2008, citing a previously 100 percent reliable source.

The report, which caused Apple's shares to drop abruptly, was immediately answered live on CNBC by the network's Silicon Valley Bureau Chief Jim Goldman, who attacked Gizmodo's reporting, calling it "unsourced garbage," arguing that investors should keep buying the stock as normal because his inside sources told him that Steve Jobs was in "perfect health condition."

Right before the Macworld keynote, Jobs confirmed the problems in an open letter to the Apple community. He said that his doctors thought they got to the bottom of his health problems-a hormonal imbalance-and he recently had begun treatment to resolve the situation. He also said he would remain as CEO of the company until his total recovery in spring.

However, on Jan. 14, Jobs admitted his health problems were worse than he previously thought and stepped down from the CEO position, with Tim Cook taking over his seat "temporarily."

Bloomberg News argues that the chain of events is making some people question the way in which Apple has handled the disclosure of information that is believed to be crucial to the future of the company and, therefore, affects its value. [Bloomberg News]