State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.
1920 Minn. LEXIS 553, 177 N.W. 937, 146 Minn. 52 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An instrument constitutes an 'investment contract' or 'security' under 'Blue Sky Laws' if it involves the placing of capital with a just expectation of receiving income or profit from its employment, regardless of its explicit declaration to the contrary or inclusion of auxiliary services; furthermore, an indictment is not bad for duplicity if it charges multiple distinct acts of the same offense that are connected to a single continuous transaction.
Facts:
- Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. issued certificates to individuals, appointing them as agents to assist in the sale of its tires and tubes.
- Certificate holders paid $50 and promised to render promotional assistance to Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.
- In consideration, Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. promised to divide pro rata 10% of the net price of tires and tubes sold by its representatives in the holder's specified location, distributed quarterly for 20 years.
- Certificate holders were also entitled to a 10% discount on personal purchases of Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.'s goods.
- Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. additionally promised to annually set aside all excess earnings (after operating expenses, fixed charges, and dividends to stockholders) as a bonus, to be distributed at its option in the form of preferred stock.
- The certificates were transferrable upon notice to Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. and explicitly stated they were not to be construed as certificates of stock, security, or investment contracts.
- Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. sold these certificates to E. H. Huhner, J. H. Haines, Julius E. Loeber, O. L. Anderson, John Lustig, Otis T. Johnson, and others.
- Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. did not obtain a license from the State Securities Commission to sell such instruments.
Procedural Posture:
- An indictment was returned against Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. in a trial court, charging it with violating the "Blue Sky Law" by selling securities without a license.
- Gopher Tire & Rubber Co. filed a demurrer to the indictment.
- The trial court overruled Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.'s demurrer.
- At Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.'s request, the trial court certified three questions for determination by the Minnesota 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:
1. Is an indictment alleging multiple sales of unregistered securities bad for duplicity if the sales are connected to one continuous transaction and are of the same grade/class of offense? 2. Do certificates that promise a share in company profits in exchange for an initial payment and promotional services constitute an "investment contract" or "security" requiring a license under Minnesota's "Blue Sky Law"?
Opinions:
Majority - Lees, C.
No, an indictment alleging multiple sales of unregistered securities is not bad for duplicity if the sales are connected to one continuous transaction and are of the same grade/class of offense. At common law, the rule against duplicity applied primarily to felonies, not misdemeanors, and the offense charged here is a gross misdemeanor. While Minnesota's statute generally prohibits charging more than one offense, the reason for the rule—to prevent a defendant from being embarrassed in making a defense—does not apply when the alleged acts are part of the same transaction or are incidents of one continuous act, such as selling securities without a license. In such cases, the trial court retains the power to compel the state to elect which specific sales it will rely upon for conviction if the defendant's defense is genuinely prejudiced. Yes, certificates that promise a share in company profits in exchange for an initial payment and promotional services constitute an "investment contract" or "security" requiring a license under Minnesota's "Blue Sky Law." The statute's purpose is to protect the public from speculative schemes and should be broadly construed to include all securities not specifically exempted. An "investment" is commonly understood as the placing of capital or money with a just expectation of receiving income or profit from its employment. If purchasers paid money expecting profit, the statute applies. The certificates in question involve purchasers paying $50 and agreeing to assist in sales, while being promised a share in the company's profits from both local sales and overall excess earnings. This structure aims to obtain capital and market goods. The legislature's use of "securities" in a broad sense, encompassing "investment contracts," means the explicit declaration within the certificates that they are not securities is not determinative. The economic reality, where certificate holders share in corporate profits akin to stock, albeit with purely speculative value and no interest in tangible assets, brings them squarely within the statute's scope.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for its early, expansive interpretation of 'investment contract' under 'Blue Sky Laws,' establishing that the economic realities of a transaction, rather than its form or the issuer's self-serving declarations, govern its classification as a security. It broadened the scope of investor protection, anticipating and influencing later federal securities regulations like the Howey Test by focusing on the 'expectation of profit from the employment of capital.' This precedent made it more difficult for unscrupulous entities to circumvent regulations by structuring investment schemes as something other than traditional stocks or bonds, thereby enhancing public protection against speculative ventures and 'get-rich-quick' schemes.
