Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]n offering to those who are shown to be able to fend for themselves is a transaction ‘not involving any public offering’ ”
• explaining that the purpose of the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 “is to protect investors by promoting full disclosure of information thought necessary to informed investment decisions.”
• noting that the applicability of the Securities Act to a particular transaction “should turn on whether the particular class of persons affected needs the protection of the Act”
• “Keeping in mind the broadly remedial purposes of federal securities legislation, imposition of the burden of proof on an issuer who would plead the exemption seems to us fair and reasonable.”
• treating statutory exception in Securities Act of 1933 for “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering” as an affirmative defense
• characterizing the Companies Act as a “statutory antecedent]” of federal securities laws

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).