Summary

David Hackett Souter Gollust v. Mendell — Opinion of the Court

The modest financial stake in an issuer sufficient to bring suit is not necessarily greater than an interest in the original issuer represented by equity ownership in the issuer's parent corporation. A security holder eligible to institute suit will have no direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, since any recovery will inure only to the issuer's benefit. Yet the indirect interest derived through one share of stock is enough to confer standing, however slight the potential marginal increase in the value of the share.
Source: Wikisource

David Hackett Souter Gollust v. Mendell — Opinion of the Court

An "issuer" of a security is defined under § 3 (a) (8) of the 1934 Act as the corporation that actually issued the security, 15 U.S.C. § 78c (a) (8) , and does not include parent or subsidiary corporations. [6] While this requirement is strict on its face, it is ostensibly subject to mitigation in the final requirement for § 16 (b) standing, which is merely that the plaintiff own a security of the issuer at the time the § 16 (b) action is "instituted." Today, as in 1934, the word "institute" is commonly understood to mean "inaugurate or commence; as to institute an action."
Source: Wikisource

David Hackett Souter Gollust v. Mendell — Opinion of the Court

Nor was it meant as a precise description of a plaintiff's incentive to sue; the witness elsewhere made it clear that a stockholder plaintiff (or any other security holder) would not directly receive any recovery, but would be suing solely on the corporation's behalf: "The fact that the stockholders, with an interest, are permitted to sue to recover that profit for the benefit of the company, puts anyone doing this particular thing, in the position of taking [a] risk that somebody with a profit motive will find try to find out."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature