Opinion ID: 3010853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Schedule 13D statement: In September 1995, the

Text: Committee filed a Schedule 13D statement with IBSF and the SEC. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the filing of a Schedule 13D statement by any person who . . . is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 5 per centum of a class of equity securities, including a syndicate or group acting for the purpose of acquiring such ownership, 15 U.S.C. S 78m(d)(3), within ten days of acquiring such ownership, id. S 78m(d)(1). The SEC's implementing regulations also require, via Instruction C, information regarding each person controlling a member of a group filing a Schedule 13D statement. 17 C.F.R. S 240.13d-101 Instruction C. The Committee amended its initial Schedule 13D statement nine times, with the ninth amendment filed 5 December 3, 1996, some three weeks after this litigation was commenced. As amended, the Committee's Schedule 13D statement provides the information required by the SEC's regulations, 17 C.F.R. SS 240.13d-1 to -101, with respect to SAL, SAL II, and Federal, and with respect to Seidman as a person controlling SAL, SAL II, and Federal. However, no information was provided with respect to Seidcal, Charisma, 8th Floor, Moore, or those who may be perceived as controlling Seidcal, Charisma, 8th Floor, and Moore. The district court, in its January 23, 1997 opinion, ruled that the Committee's Schedule 13D recitals were complete, because Seidman managed SAL, SAL II, and Federal without consulting others, and, indeed, the very purpose of establishing each of the three funds was to create a fund for Seidman to invest in financial institutions at his discretion. IBS Financial Corp., 954 F. Supp. at 988. Looking to the realities of each organization, the district court concluded that Seidman and not Seidcal controls both SAL and SAL II within the meaning of Instruction C. Id. at 987. Moreover, Seidman makes all of Federal's investment decisions without consulting Moore or other investors . . . . Nor has IBSF alleged that Moore intends to remove Seidman or that he uses his authority to do so to influence Seidman's investment decisions . . . . Accordingly, the court concludes that Moore is not a `controlling person' within the meaning of Instruction C. Id. at 988.