16 C.F.R. § 802.9

Acquisition solely for the purpose of investment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

An acquisition of voting securities shall be exempt from the requirements of the act pursuant to section 7A(c)(9) if made solely for the purpose of investment and if, as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person would hold ten percent or less of the outstanding voting securities of the issuer, regardless of the dollar value of voting securities so acquired or held.

Examples:1. Suppose that acquiring person “A” acquires 6 percent of the voting securities of issuer X, valued in excess of $50 million (as adjusted). If the acquisition is solely for the purpose of investment, it is exempt under Section 7A(c)(9).

2. After the acquisition in example 1, “A” decides to acquire an additional 7 percent of the voting securities of X. Regardless of “A” 's intentions, the acquisition is not exempt under section 7A(c)(9).

3. After the acquisition in example 1, acquiring person “A” decides to participate in the management of issuer X. Any subsequent acquisitions of X stock by “A” would not be exempt under section 7A(c)(9).

[43 FR 33544, July 31, 1978, as amended at 66 FR 8693, Feb. 1, 2001; 70 FR 4994, Jan. 31, 2005]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1993–1993 · leading case: United States v. William F. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. William F. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) that the complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel because Farley relied to his detriment on the FTC’s then existing public interpretations of the investment-only exemption; (3) that Farley’s purchases were exempt from HSR Act…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.