Connection lost
Server error
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,683 John Bershad v. Bernard P. McDonough Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporate insider structured a stock transfer as an “option” to avoid short-swing profit liability. The court looked past the agreement’s form to its economic substance, holding that a “sale” occurred when the agreement was signed, not when the option was later formally exercised.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that for Section 16(b) purposes, the date of a “sale” is determined by the transaction’s economic realities and transfer of ownership benefits, not by its formal label, preventing insiders from evading liability through sham transactions or formalistic devices.
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,683 John Bershad v. Bernard P. McDonough Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Bernard McDonough and his wife purchased over 10% of Cudahy Company’s common stock, and McDonough subsequently became Chairman of the Board. Less than six months later, on July 20, 1967, the McDonoughs entered into an agreement with Smelting Refining and Mining Co. (“Smelting”), labeled as an “option agreement,” for their 272,000 shares. Upon signing, Smelting paid a non-refundable $350,000, representing over 14% of the total $2.448 million purchase price. Concurrently, the McDonoughs placed their shares in escrow and granted Smelting an irrevocable proxy to vote the shares. A few days later, McDonough and his associate resigned from the Cudahy board and were replaced by Smelting’s nominees. Smelting formally exercised the option on September 22, 1967, just after the six-month period from the McDonoughs’ purchase had expired. A shareholder sued on behalf of Cudahy to recover the McDonoughs’ $612,000 profit under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For the purposes of determining liability for short-swing profits under Section 16(b), did the “sale” of the securities occur on the date the parties executed an agreement labeled as an option, or on the later date when the option was formally exercised?
Yes, the transaction constituted a “sale” on the date the option agreement Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, se
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
For the purposes of determining liability for short-swing profits under Section 16(b), did the “sale” of the securities occur on the date the parties executed an agreement labeled as an option, or on the later date when the option was formally exercised?
Conclusion
This case is a key precedent for the pragmatic approach to interpreting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Legal Rule
Under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the determination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the prophylactic purpose of Section 16(b), which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna ali
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A transaction’s substance, not its form, determines if it is a