Koch v. Hankins
1991 WL 38401, 928 F.2d 1471 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general partnership interest may be deemed an 'investment contract' and thus a 'security' under federal securities laws if the investors, despite possessing formal legal control, are practically unable to exercise meaningful management over the enterprise due to inexperience, dependence on unique managerial efforts of others, or the integrated nature of the overall investment scheme.
Facts:
- Investors, primarily doctors, dentists, and their relatives, each invested between $23,000 and $500,000 in 35 different general partnerships formed to purchase land for jojoba production.
- Several promoters, who were long-time accountants or an attorney for some investors, arranged for the clearing, leveling, and planting of jojoba seed on all 2700 acres of land involved across the 35 partnerships prior to soliciting investor funds.
- Promoters informed investors that it was not economically feasible to farm jojoba in 80-acre parcels, leading investors to regard their general partnerships as part of a larger 2700-acre plantation, not as independent farms.
- The Confidential Private Placement Memoranda for all 35 general partnerships identically specified the initial employment of Franklin W. Rogers as foreman for onsite farming, consultation with two named experts, execution of a five-year irrigation lease, and purchase of jojoba seeds, fertilizer, and other materials from the promoters.
- All 35 partnerships shared a common field office, financed by an administrative fund to which they all contributed.
- None of the investors had prior experience in jojoba farming, and many intended to play a passive role, with operating general partners often acting as conduits for materials created by the promoters.
- The investments ultimately proved unsuccessful, and the jojoba venture did not achieve its anticipated potential.
- The partnership agreements granted partners full and exclusive control of partnership business, exercisable by majority vote, including the ability to remove management personnel and access books and records.
Procedural Posture:
- Approximately ninety investors brought suit in federal district court, alleging violations of both federal and state law against the promoters.
- The district court exercised its discretion to refuse jurisdiction of the pendent state law claims, leaving only the federal securities law claims.
- The promoters then brought motions for summary judgment on statute of limitations and jurisdictional grounds.
- The district court granted the promoters’ motion for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the investments were not securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relying heavily on Matek v. Murat.
- The investors filed a timely notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Subsequent to the granting of summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit decided Hocking v. Dubois en banc, and the appeal was therefore remanded on a limited basis to the district court for decision of the investors’ Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration in light of Hocking.
- The district court denied the investors' motion for reconsideration.
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 general partnership interest, where investors possess formal legal control but allegedly lack the practical ability to exercise meaningful management over the enterprise due to their inexperience or dependence on the promoters for the success of a larger, integrated investment scheme, constitute an 'investment contract' and thus a 'security' under federal securities laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, Circuit Judge
No, the district court's summary judgment holding that the general partnership interests were not securities is reversed, because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the investors expected profits to arise essentially through the efforts of others. The court begins by reiterating that whether an investment is a 'security' hinges on the 'economic realities' of the transaction, not merely its label. Applying the 'Howey test,' the central inquiry is whether investors expect profits 'undeniably significantly' from the efforts of others. The court emphasizes that the en banc decision in Hocking v. Dubois governs the interpretation of the 'control' element for investment contracts, explicitly adopting all three factors from Williamson v. Tucker. These factors allow for an examination beyond the formal partnership agreement to include other documents, promotional materials, oral representations, and the practical ability of investors to exercise control. While the first Williamson factor, examining whether the formal agreement leaves investors with little power, favored the promoters due to the significant legal powers granted in the partnership agreements, the court found genuine issues of fact regarding the second and third factors. The second factor (investor's inexperience/unknowledgeability in business affairs) was remanded to the district court for further factual development, as the record was insufficient. Crucially, on the third Williamson factor (investor's dependence on unique entrepreneurial/managerial ability of promoters or managers), the court found a genuine issue of material fact. Given that investors were told that individual 80-acre plots were not economically feasible and that their investments were part of a larger 2700-acre plantation managed by a common foreman, their practical ability to affect decision-making for the entire enterprise was severely limited, despite their legal powers within their individual partnership. The court concluded that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual investor to replace the on-site manager for the entire plantation, which required catalyzing votes across 35 partnerships where many investors did not even know their partners. This practical dependence on the promoters' and managers' efforts for the overall profitability, akin to the situation in Hocking, created a triable issue of fact as to whether the investments constituted securities.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified and broadened the application of the Howey test within the Ninth Circuit, particularly for interests styled as general partnerships, by definitively adopting the Williamson factors as applied in Hocking. It established that courts must look beyond the formal legal powers granted in partnership agreements to consider the 'economic realities' and an investor's practical ability to control their investment. The ruling makes it more difficult for promoters to evade federal securities laws by structuring complex schemes as general partnerships while maintaining de facto control, thereby enhancing investor protection. Future cases will need to thoroughly explore all Williamson factors, including investor sophistication and practical dependency on managerial efforts, when determining whether a general partnership interest is a security.
