Summary

Reliance Electric Company v. Emerson Electric Company…

A person avoids liability if he does not meet the statutory definition of an 'insider,' or if he sells more than six months after purchase. Liability cannot be imposed simply because the investor structured his transaction with the intent of avoiding liability under § 16 (b) . The question is, rather, whether the method used to 'avoid' liability is one permitted by the statute.
Among the 'objective standards' contained in § 16 (b) is the requirement that a 10% owner be such 'both at the time of the purchase and sale .
Source: Wikisource

Reliance Electric Company v. Emerson Electric Company…

Were we to adopt the approach urged by Reliance, we could be sure that investors would not in the future provide such convenient proof of their intent as Emerson did in this case. If a 'two-step' sale of a 10% owner's holdings within six months of purchase is thought to give rise to the kind of evil that Congress sought to correct through § 16 (b) , those transactions can be more effectively deterred by an amendment to the statute that preserves its mechanical quality than by a judicial search for the will-o'-the-wisp of an investor's 'intent' in each litigated case.
Source: Wikisource

Reliance Electric Company v. Emerson Electric Company…

On an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) , the Court of Appeals upheld the finding that Emerson 'split' its sale of Dodge stock simply in order to avoid most of its potential liability under § 16 (b) , but it held this fact irrelevant under the statute so long as the two sales are 'not legally tied to each other and (are) made at different times to different buyers . .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature