Feder v. Martin Marietta Corp. case brief summary
406 F.2d 260 (1969)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff, a stockholder of defendant corporation, sued defendants pursuant to § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78p(b), to recover for short-wing profits realized on stock purchases and sales by defendant trader. Plaintiff argued that the president of defendant trader was deputized, or represented, by defendant trader while a member of the board of directors of defendant corporation, and was therefore a director. The trial court found no deputization and dismissed plaintiff's action.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed, finding that the president of defendant trader was a deputy and that the trial court erred in apportioning the weight of the evidence in finding that there was no deputization.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the dismissal, finding that the president of defendant trader was a deputy.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
406 F.2d 260 (1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissing plaintiff's action filed under § 16(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78p(b).CASE FACTS
Plaintiff, a stockholder of defendant corporation, sued defendants pursuant to § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78p(b), to recover for short-wing profits realized on stock purchases and sales by defendant trader. Plaintiff argued that the president of defendant trader was deputized, or represented, by defendant trader while a member of the board of directors of defendant corporation, and was therefore a director. The trial court found no deputization and dismissed plaintiff's action.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed, finding that the president of defendant trader was a deputy and that the trial court erred in apportioning the weight of the evidence in finding that there was no deputization.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the dismissal, finding that the president of defendant trader was a deputy.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment