Silver v. New York Stock Exchange
373 U.S. 341, 10 L. Ed. 2d 389, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2628 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not create a blanket antitrust immunity for a stock exchange's self-regulatory actions. Such actions are subject to antitrust scrutiny, and any implied repeal of antitrust laws is limited to what is necessary to make the securities regulation scheme work; therefore, anticompetitive collective action taken without affording procedural fairness, such as notice and an opportunity to be heard, violates the Sherman Act.
Facts:
- Harold J. Silver established two non-member securities firms, Municipal Securities and Municipal Securities, Inc. (petitioners), that dealt in municipal and over-the-counter corporate securities.
- To operate effectively, Silver's firms arranged for direct private telephone wire connections to the trading departments of ten member firms of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
- As required by NYSE rules, the member firms applied for approval of these connections, and the Exchange granted "temporary approval" in the summer of 1958.
- On February 12, 1959, without any prior notice to Silver or his firms, the NYSE's Department of Member Firms decided to disapprove the applications.
- The NYSE ordered its member firms to disconnect the wires, and the firms complied with the directive.
- Silver repeatedly sought an explanation from the NYSE for its decision but was consistently told that it was the Exchange's policy not to disclose the reasons for such actions.
- Following the removal of the wires, Silver's firms experienced a substantial decline in business volume and profits, leading one firm to cease operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Silver and his firms (petitioners) sued the New York Stock Exchange (respondent) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Sherman Act.
- The petitioners moved for summary judgment on the antitrust claim related to the private wire connections.
- The District Court, as the court of first instance, granted summary judgment for the petitioners, holding that the Exchange's action was a per se antitrust violation not justified by the Securities Exchange Act.
- The New York Stock Exchange, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court, holding that the Exchange was exempt from the Sherman Act because it was exercising a power required by the Securities Exchange Act.
- The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 the New York Stock Exchange violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act when it directs its member firms to remove private wire connections to a non-member broker-dealer without providing the non-member with notice of the reasons for the action or an opportunity to be heard?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Goldberg
Yes, the New York Stock Exchange's action violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Exchange's directive constituted a group boycott, which is a per se violation of the Sherman Act. While the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes a duty of self-regulation on exchanges, it does not create a blanket immunity from antitrust laws. An implied repeal of the antitrust laws exists only to the minimum extent necessary to make the Exchange Act's regulatory scheme work. Because the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lacks jurisdiction to review particular instances of an exchange's rule enforcement against non-members, antitrust courts must serve as a check on anticompetitive behavior. An exchange's self-regulatory action cannot be justified under the Exchange Act if it is conducted without procedural fairness. By denying Silver notice and an opportunity to be heard, the NYSE exceeded the scope of its self-regulatory authority, and its anticompetitive action is therefore not shielded from antitrust liability.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No, the New York Stock Exchange's action does not violate the Sherman Act. The majority improperly uses the antitrust laws to enforce its own concept of fair procedure under the Securities Exchange Act, a completely separate statute. The core issue of an antitrust claim is not whether a defendant's conduct was arbitrary or procedurally unfair. The proper inquiry should be whether the Exchange's action was taken in good faith to effectuate its statutory duty of self-regulation. The Securities Exchange Act should be interpreted to grant antitrust immunity for such good-faith actions, otherwise the constant threat of treble-damage lawsuits will hamstring the Exchange's ability to effectively and swiftly police the market to protect the public interest.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes that regulated industries are not wholly immune from antitrust laws simply because they are subject to a separate regulatory scheme. The court created a framework for reconciling the two statutory schemes, holding that antitrust immunity is implied only where there is a clear conflict and only to the 'minimum extent necessary.' The case is highly significant for introducing a procedural fairness requirement as a prerequisite for an exchange to claim its self-regulatory actions are justified and thus immune from an antitrust challenge. This 'balance wheel' approach ensures that powerful self-regulatory organizations do not exercise their authority arbitrarily or in an anticompetitive manner beyond the scope of their statutory mandate, creating a form of judicial oversight where no administrative review exists.
