United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman

Supreme Court of the United States
1975 U.S. LEXIS 110, 421 U.S. 837, 44 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An instrument is not a "security" under federal securities laws just because it is labeled "stock"; rather, the determination depends on the economic realities of the transaction. A share in a non-profit housing cooperative purchased for the primary purpose of acquiring personal living space is not a security if it lacks the essential characteristics of an investment, such as the potential for capital appreciation or profits derived from the managerial efforts of others.

Facts:

United Housing Foundation (UHF) sponsored the development of Co-op City, a massive non-profit housing cooperative in New York, organized under the state's Mitchell-Lama Act to provide affordable housing.
To acquire an apartment, prospective residents were required to purchase 18 shares of stock in the Riverbay Corporation for each room at a fixed price of $25 per share.
The sole purpose of purchasing the stock was to obtain the right to occupy an apartment.
The shares could not be transferred to a non-tenant, pledged as collateral, or sold for a profit; upon leaving, residents had to offer their shares back to the cooperative at the original purchase price.
A 1965 Information Bulletin estimated the project's costs and the average monthly carrying charges residents would pay.
During construction, building costs increased significantly, forcing Riverbay to take on larger state-financed mortgage loans.
Consequently, the actual monthly carrying charges paid by residents became substantially higher than the initial 1965 estimates.
A group of 57 residents, led by Forman, claimed the 1965 bulletin was misleading and constituted fraud in the sale of securities.

Procedural Posture:

Fifty-seven residents of Co-op City sued United Housing Foundation and other related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The residents alleged that the defendants had committed fraud in connection with the sale of securities in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the shares in the cooperative were not 'securities' under federal law.
The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The residents, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the shares were securities.
United Housing Foundation and the other defendants, as petitioners, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do shares of "stock" that entitle the purchaser to lease an apartment in a state-subsidized, non-profit housing cooperative constitute a "security" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

No. An instrument's name is not dispositive; the analysis must focus on the economic realities of the transaction. These shares lack the core attributes of traditional stock: they are not negotiable, they cannot be pledged, they confer no voting rights in proportion to shares owned, they cannot appreciate in value, and they pay no dividends. The transaction also fails the 'investment contract' test from SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., which requires an investment in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits from the efforts of others. The purchasers were motivated by a desire to acquire affordable housing for personal use, not by an expectation of profit. The Court rejected three potential sources of 'profit' argued by the residents: 1) tax deductions for mortgage interest are available to any homeowner and are not profit from managerial efforts; 2) low rent resulting from state subsidies is a consumption benefit, not a financial return; and 3) potential income from leasing commercial facilities was too speculative and insubstantial to be the primary inducement for the purchase.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The property interests are securities both because they are explicitly called "stock" and because they are "investment contracts." The transaction meets the Howey test because residents had a reasonable expectation of profit derived from the efforts of management. These profits included: 1) rental reductions from income-generating commercial facilities, which are not insubstantial; 2) savings from below-market housing costs achieved through efficient management and procurement of state subsidies; and 3) tax benefits that depend on proper corporate organization and operation by management. The majority's definition of profit is too narrow, as money saved is economically equivalent to money earned. These unsophisticated investors were precisely the class of people the federal securities laws were designed to protect from misleading information.

Analysis:

This case significantly narrowed the definition of a "security" by establishing the "economic reality" test, which prioritizes the substance of a transaction over its form. It clarified that the primary motivation of the purchaser—investment for profit versus acquisition for consumption—is a critical factor. The decision limited the reach of federal securities laws into real estate transactions, particularly for housing cooperatives, by distinguishing the purchase of a home from a financial investment. This ruling solidified the Howey test's focus on profit motive and has since guided courts in analyzing whether novel financial instruments fall under federal securities regulation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"