Lexplug logoLexplug

Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. et al.

Supreme Court of the United States
328 U.S. 293 (1946)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A transaction qualifies as an "investment contract" and thus a security under the Securities Act of 1933 if it involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.


Facts:

  • W. J. Howey Company owned large tracts of citrus groves in Florida.
  • To finance development, Howey Company offered the public small, uniform strips of land within its citrus groves, usually amounting to 1.33 acres or less per investor.
  • Alongside the land sales contract, purchasers were offered a 10-year service contract with Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., a sister company, which would cultivate, harvest, and market the citrus.
  • Prospective customers were told that investing was not feasible without a service arrangement, and 85% of the acreage sold was covered by the service contract.
  • Most purchasers were non-residents of Florida who lacked the knowledge, skill, and equipment for citrus cultivation and were attracted by the expectation of substantial profits.
  • The service contract gave the service company full and exclusive possession of the land, with no right of entry for the landowner to market the crop.
  • All citrus produce from the various plots was pooled, and profits were allocated to investors based on their holdings.
  • The Howey companies used the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to offer and sell these land and service contracts.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an action against W. J. Howey Company and Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc. in the U.S. District Court (a trial court).
  • The SEC sought to restrain the respondents from offering and selling what it alleged were unregistered securities.
  • The District Court denied the injunction, ruling that the scheme did not involve an investment contract.
  • The SEC, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the Howey companies (appellees).
  • The SEC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.

Locked

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 scheme involving an offering of units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract to cultivate, market, and remit the net proceeds to the investor constitute an "investment contract" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy

Yes, the scheme constitutes an investment contract. An investment contract under the Securities Act is a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. The court's reasoning emphasized substance over form and economic reality, finding that the investors were not buying land for personal use but were contributing capital to a large-scale citrus enterprise managed by the respondents. The investors provided the capital and shared in the earnings, while the promoters managed and operated the enterprise. The land sales contracts and warranty deeds were merely a convenient method of determining the investors' shares in the profits of this common enterprise, making the overall arrangement an investment contract subject to the Act's registration requirements.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter

No, the scheme does not necessarily constitute an investment contract. The determination of an investment contract depends on the specific circumstances, and in this case, two lower courts made concurrent findings of fact that the land sales and service agreements were separate transactions. The Supreme Court should defer to these findings. The record showed that purchasers were not required to engage the service company and that some, in fact, did not. The Securities Act was not intended to bring every innocent real estate transaction within its scope simply because a similar arrangement could be used to evade the law.



Analysis:

This case is foundational in securities law because it established the canonical test—the 'Howey Test'—for defining an 'investment contract.' The decision significantly broadened the scope of what constitutes a security, prioritizing economic reality over the formal structure of a transaction. By creating a flexible, substance-over-form standard, the Court ensured that the Securities Act could adapt to protect investors from countless and variable schemes, a principle that remains crucial in regulating novel financial instruments like cryptocurrency offerings and other complex investment vehicles.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. et al. (1946) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. et al.