Transcon Lines v. A. G. Becker Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party‘s right to acquire a security did not make that party the beneficial owner of the security because such a right was contingent on the occurrence of external events
• noting that the precise question is not clearly answered by the statute, its regulations, or legislative history
• in the context of other securities regulations, the difference between control and controlling influence is one of degree
• in the context of other securities regulations, the difference between control and controlling influence is one of degree
• defendant not a beneficial owner of plaintiffs stock under Rule 13d-3 because his right to acquire the stock was contingent upon a future event
• TSC materiality standard applicable to Schedule 13D context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).