§ 16(a) in order to make “the acquisition of a derivative security as a reportable event, whether or not the security is presently exercisable,” id. at 81,264. Although the new regulations, if applicable, clearly would have a significant impact on our analysis, we are obligated to evaluate this case according to the SEC rules operative at the time of the disputed transactions, as long as those rules were not inconsistent with the dictates of § 16 of the Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 78w(a)(l) (1992) (Section 23(a)(1) of the Act) (“[n]o provision of this chapter imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any rule, regulation, or order of the [Securities and Exchange] Commis sion”). See also, Greene v. Dietz, 247 F.2d 689, 694-95 (2d Cir.1957) (<HOLDING>); Colema Realty Corp. v. Bibow, 555 F.Supp.
holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law holding that a receiver is not liable for loss resulting from his good faith reliance on the advice of counsel holding that benefiting fiduciary must show he acted in good faith and that transactions were fair and equitable holding that  23a serves to immunize from  16b liability those corporate insiders who structure their option transactions in good faith reliance on existing sec rules and regulations holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith