United States v. Leonard
2008 WL 2357233, 529 F.3d 83, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12409 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining whether an interest in a business, such as an LLC, constitutes an 'investment contract' and therefore a security, courts must look beyond the formal documents to the economic reality of the transaction. If investors are, in fact, functionally passive and dependent on the managerial efforts of others due to their lack of expertise, geographic dispersion, or other factors, the interest is a security even if the operating agreement purports to grant them significant control.
Facts:
- Paul C. Dickau and Nanci Silverstein operated sales offices that solicited investments in two LLCs, Little Giant and Heritage Film Group, which were formed to finance the production of motion pictures.
- Investment 'units' were sold for $10,000 each through telephone solicitations and mailed offering materials.
- The offering materials misrepresented that sales commissions would be 12-20%, when the actual commissions taken by the sales offices were between 42% and 45% of the investment.
- The LLCs' organizational documents stated that the investment was not passive and required members to participate in management, vote on all important decisions, and serve on committees.
- In reality, the LLCs had hundreds of investors (250-400 each) who were geographically dispersed across the country.
- The investors generally lacked any experience or expertise in the film production industry.
- The vast majority of investors did not actively participate, with only a small fraction serving on the two committees that were actually formed for each LLC.
- The film promoters made all essential pre-production decisions—including script, director, and cast—before fundraising was complete and before members' managerial rights formally began.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Dickau and Nanci Silverstein were indicted on charges of securities fraud and conspiracy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (a federal trial court).
- The defendants were tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts against both defendants.
- The District Court sentenced Dickau to 43 months' imprisonment and Silverstein to 6 months' imprisonment and ordered them to pay restitution.
- Dickau and Silverstein, as appellants, appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 membership interests in a limited liability company (LLC) constitute 'investment contracts,' and thus 'securities' under federal law, when the LLC's formal operating agreements grant investors significant management rights, but the economic reality indicates the investors are passive and unable to exercise meaningful control?
Opinions:
Majority - Katzmann, J.
Yes, the membership interests constitute 'investment contracts' because the economic reality of the transaction shows that investors were passive and dependent on the efforts of the promoters, despite formal documents granting them control. The court applied the test from SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., which defines an investment contract as an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived solely from the efforts of others. The court clarified that 'solely' is not interpreted literally and that the key inquiry is whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones. Here, the court prioritized substance over form, concluding that the managerial rights described in the LLC documents were 'hollow and illusory.' Factors demonstrating the investors' passivity included their large number and geographic dispersion, their lack of expertise in the film industry, the take-it-or-leave-it nature of the subscription agreements, and the fact that promoters made all critical decisions before investors could theoretically exercise any control. These factual circumstances left the investors unable to exercise meaningful control, making them passive investors who relied on the promoters and were therefore entitled to the protection of federal securities laws.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that courts must prioritize 'economic reality' and substance over form when applying the Howey test to determine if a financial instrument is a security. It provides a clear framework for analyzing interests in modern business structures like LLCs, which can be structured to appear as if they grant members control. By focusing on factors like investor sophistication, numerosity, and geographic dispersion, the court prevents promoters from evading securities laws simply by inserting boilerplate language about investor participation into organizational documents. This case serves as a precedent for looking past the legal formalities of an investment to its practical realities to protect investors who are, for all intents and purposes, passive.
