the law is still a question legally battle as consideration is given to the investors who may want to have such information in order to help make informed decision regarding the investment.
In this regard, the courts will find it an offence to have crossed the materiality threshold if the information was given to an investor who did not seek such information but based on making a fortune. The law prohibits such moves that are only aimed at making individuals to invest based on envisaged fortune. The case of piper v. Chis-Craft Industries, Inc. comes in handy in the understanding how the article is enforceable in law (Hazen, 2003). The supreme court in there ruling determined that there should be no private remedy in the case of competing tender offeror. The court declined to do direct compensation of any private remedy, and instead highlighted that the opinion was in pursuit of section 14 (e) - Private right of action in the hands of the target company or its shareholders (Hazen, 2003).
The Court in arguing the case of piper indicated that the motive of Williams act was to ensure further protection by furnishing the shareholder of the target information so that they could make informed choices and not that of competing tender offerors, which were considered collateral benefits to the tender offer provisions (Hazen, 2003). This shows how the article consideration for enforcement is determined. The underlying factor in this case is the intention of giving the insider information t the prospective shareholders. If the intention is the response to inquiry, then one may be considered not culpable for any violation of the statute, but if it is proved to be for the conspiracy to make a fortune for oneself then it is a violation of the act.
The federal security act was enacted following the stock market crash of 1929, which ensued the great depression in the American economy. The period lasted of about a decade and resulted into negative impact on the industrialized