Some corporate governance experts question whether the tech giant could have been more forthcoming about its CEO’s hormone imbalance

Watch full size video:

In this composite photo, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is seen forward Sept. 9, 2008 and on Oct. 12, 2005. Jobs announced today that he is battling a hormone imbalance that is responsible for a drastic loss in weight. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

By Arik Hesseldahl

Apple (AAPL) investors got answers to some of their nagging questions relating to the freedom from complaint of the company’s chief executive, Steve Jobs, on Jan. 5 when Jobs disclosed in a letter that he is passion from a hormone imbalance that has caused hurried measure damage over the past year.

In the letter, published on Apple’s Web site, Jobs aforesaid doctors had determined the cause of his burden squandering to be "a hormone imbalance that has been ‘robbing’ me of the proteins my body needs to have existence healthy." The remedy is "simple and straightforward," he said, adding that he’sitting begun treatment and will remain CEO.

Some shareholders were cheered through the disclosure, and Apple shares rose 4.2%, to 94.58.

But some corporate governance experts questioned whether Apple reported as a great deal of—as early—as necessary. On Dec. 6, when Apple before-mentioned Jobs would not become his customary speech at the annual Macworld Expo in San Francisco, the assemblage didn’t summon health as an conclusion. Instead, Apple said the company will not participate in future Macworld events and that Apple Vice-President Phil Schiller will deliver the Jan. 6 address. Earlier in the year, in a published parley, an Apple spokesperson attributed the executive’s conspicuous weight destruction to a "common bug," and the company later called Jobs’ health a "private matter."

Joe Grundfest, co-director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, says securities lawyers could "get a good debate going" over whether Apple was as forthcoming as necessary. "Some will say this is good enough, and some resolution use arguments that we finally take disclosure and that it’s adequate but late," Grundfest said.

Another question raised by the disclosure is how much more Apple may be compelled to say on the issue. Will the assemblage need to make regular updates on the executory’s health? In his letter, Jobs writes that his doctors "count upon it will take me until late this spring to regain" lost weight and body mass. What if it takes longer? Jobs didn’t want to say even as much to the degree that he did. "I’ve said more than I wanted to say, and all that I am going to recite, about this," he wrote at the conclusion of his letter.

Securities laws require that publicly traded companies disclose facts that are "essential," end arguments rage over what constitutes material, Grundfest said. "Suppose Jobs were losing weight and it didn’t interfere with doing his job, but he didn’t comprehend why he was losing weight," he says. "What’s the enter of directors to do? Say that the CEO is losing weight and it doesn’t know why?"

Strictly discourse, Jobs isn’t required to uncover much. The rules on disclosure of a elucidation executive’s illness, while arguably material information as far during the time that investors are concerned, are weighed in provision for privacy laws and standards. Various CEOs have acted differently over the years. When then-Intel (INTC) CEO Andy Grove was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1995, the company didn’t immediately unveil the actuality, but Grove did so the following year by writing every article for Fortune depository about his experience combating the disease. When Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), underwent surgery to remove most beneficial polyps from his colon in 1997, he chose to tell the circumstances to his investors and release particulars of his succession plan.