Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation
503 U.S. 258 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover under the civil action provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), unless the defendant's alleged violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. An injury that is merely a remote consequence of the defendant's conduct, such as a loss resulting from the insolvency of a directly-injured third party, does not satisfy this proximate cause requirement.
Facts:
- From 1964 through July 1981, Robert G. Holmes, Jr. and his co-conspirators allegedly engaged in a scheme to manipulate the stock of six companies.
- The scheme involved making overly optimistic statements about the companies and selling small numbers of shares to create the appearance of a liquid market.
- Holmes personally made false statements about one company and engaged in manipulative trading of another.
- Two broker-dealers, First State Securities Corporation (FSSC) and Joseph Sebag, Inc. (Sebag), bought substantial quantities of the manipulated stock with their own funds.
- In July 1981, the market became aware of the fraud, causing the prices of the manipulated stocks to plummet.
- The sharp decline in stock value caused the financial collapse of FSSC and Sebag, rendering them unable to meet their obligations to their customers.
- Because the broker-dealers failed, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), a non-profit corporation that insures investors, was statutorily required to advance nearly $13 million to reimburse the customers for their losses.
Procedural Posture:
- The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) and trustees for two failed broker-dealers sued Robert G. Holmes, Jr. and others in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging RICO violations.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Holmes on the RICO claims, ruling that SIPC lacked standing because it was not a purchaser or seller of securities and that it failed to satisfy the proximate cause requirement.
- SIPC and the trustees, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the purchaser-seller requirement does not apply to RICO claims and that proximate cause was satisfied when considering the acts of all co-conspirators.
- Holmes, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted on the question of whether SIPC had a right to sue under RICO.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party whose injury arises only from the insolvency of a third party that was the direct victim of an alleged stock manipulation scheme have a right to sue the perpetrators of the scheme for damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. A plaintiff may sue under RICO's civil liability provision, § 1964(c), only if the alleged violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. The language 'by reason of' in § 1964(c) was modeled on the Clayton Act's civil-action provision, which courts had long interpreted as requiring proximate causation. Here, the direct cause of SIPC's injury was not the stock manipulation itself, but the resulting insolvency of the broker-dealers, FSSC and Sebag. The broker-dealers were the directly injured parties, and SIPC's harm was merely a remote and contingent consequence of the injury inflicted upon them. Allowing recovery for such indirect injuries would lead to difficult problems of damage apportionment, risk of multiple recoveries, and is unnecessary because the directly injured victims—the broker-dealers, through their trustees—are the proper parties to sue and vindicate the law.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Concurs in the judgment. While the majority is correct that SIPC's claim fails for lack of proximate cause, the Court should have first resolved the question on which certiorari was granted: whether a RICO plaintiff alleging securities fraud must be a purchaser or seller of securities. A plaintiff need not be a purchaser or a seller to assert a RICO claim predicated on securities fraud. The broad text of RICO, which allows 'any person' to sue, contains no such limitation, unlike the judicially implied private right of action under Rule 10b-5, where the limitation was established for prudential reasons. Despite this, SIPC's claim still fails because its injury was not proximately caused by the alleged violation.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Concurs in the judgment. A statutory cause of action requires both proximate causation and that the plaintiff fall within the 'zone-of-interests' the statute is meant to protect. While the purchaser-seller rule from 'Blue Chip Stamps' defined the zone-of-interests for a judicially-created Rule 10b-5 action, that was a prudential, legislative-like judgment that should not be applied to a statutory cause of action like RICO that has no such textual limitation. However, the background common-law principle of proximate cause applies to all statutory actions unless Congress specifies otherwise, and that requirement is clearly not met here. SIPC's injury is too remote from Holmes's alleged conduct to support a RICO claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the proximate causation requirement for civil RICO claims, directly analogizing it to the standard used in antitrust law under the Clayton Act. By requiring a 'direct relation' between the injury and the alleged misconduct, the Court significantly limits the class of potential RICO plaintiffs to those who are directly harmed. This prevents a cascade of litigation from indirectly injured parties, such as creditors or insurers of the primary victim, and avoids complex problems of damage apportionment and multiple recoveries. The ruling effectively establishes that derivative injuries, which are contingent on harm to a third party, are not sufficient to confer standing under RICO.
Unlock the full brief for Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation