Whiting v. Dow Chemical Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
523 F.2d 680 (1975)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Macauley Whiting (plaintiff) was a director of the Dow Chemical Company (Dow) (defendant). Macauley’s wife, Helen Dow Whiting, was an heir to the Dow fortune and owned large amounts of Dow securities. Although Macauley and Helen formally segregated their financial accounts, they shared financial advisors and formed a common investment philosophy as to the management of their joint estates. Moreover, the lifestyle of both Macauley and Helen was primarily funded through dividend income and capital gains from Helen’s Dow securities. Helen sold a substantial number of Dow shares at approximately $55 per share. One month later, Helen loaned a portion of the proceeds of that sale to Macauley, who used it to exercise a call option to purchase a substantial number of Dow shares at approximately $24 per share. Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) required a corporate officer to remit any profits the officer gained on trades of the corporation’s securities made within six months of each other. Macauley filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment absolving him of liability to Dow under § 16(b) relating to the two transactions. Dow counterclaimed, seeking to recover the profits realized by the Whiting family from the combined transactions. The district court found Macauley to be liable and awarded damages to Dow. Macauley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gurfein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.