Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,216 Magma Power Company v. The Dow Chemical Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that 2 courts should evaluate short-swing transactions pragmatically to determine 3 whether they serve as a “vehicle for the evil which Congress sought to prevent” 4 (quoting Kern Cty. Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U.S. 582, 594 5 (1973))
• noting, in passing, that qualifying Section 16(b) transactions are made “at a profit”
• describing Section 16(b) as a “blunt instrument” for controlling insider trading
• “Congress believed that such a blunt instrument was the only way to control insider trading.”
• “No showing of actual misuse of inside information or of unlawful intent is necessary to compel disgorgement.”
• “Section 16(b) operates mechanically, and makes no moral distinctions, penalizing technical violators of pure heart, and bypassing corrupt insiders who skirt the letter of the prohibition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).