Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
| Citation | 756 F.2d 230 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 252,365,D,s. 252 |
| Parties | , Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,952 GARY PLASTIC PACKAGING CORPORATION, a New York corporation, for itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., a Delaware Corporation and Merrill Lynch Money Markets, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. ockets 84-7541, 84-7671. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, Fla. (Mercedes C. Busto, Bailey & Dawes, Miami, Fla., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry F. Minnerop, New York City (Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell & Petty, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before NEWMAN, CARDAMONE and DAVIS *, Circuit Judges.
On this appeal we must determine whether a program devised by defendants Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Merrill Lynch Money Markets, Inc. (Money Markets), to sell bank certificates of deposit (CDs) is within the compass of the federal securities law. In Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U.S. 551, 102 S.Ct.
1220, 1221, 71 L.Ed.2d 409 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a conventional CD purchased from an issuing bank is not a security under the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Nonetheless, the Court stated that each transaction must be analyzed on the content of the particular instrument involved and the factual setting as a whole. The possibility that in certain circumstances a CD might be a security within the scope of the federal securities laws was specifically left open. Id. at 560 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. at 1225 n. 11
The complaint alleges that defendants publish the Money Market Information Bulletin, which tells prospective customers that Merrill Lynch has available negotiable, insured, and liquid $100,000 CDs, for which they will maintain a secondary market. Defendants advertise that they screen daily a large group of quality banks to provide their customers with CDs with "competitive" yields from a variety of issuers. They represent that they will monitor the creditworthiness of issuing banks on a regular basis, and they discourage potential customers from seeking to deal directly with those banks. If the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint are true, this sales message might be characterized as artful, but certainly not candid.
Plaintiff, who purchased 12 of the $100,000 CDs, claims that these certificates are not those regularly available at the issuing banks. Instead, plaintiff asserts that these CDs are specially created, issued and sold only to Merrill Lynch customers. Most significantly, plaintiff alleges that the rates of interest on the Merrill Lynch CDs were lower than the rates paid by the banks on their ordinarily issued CDs and that defendants pocketed the difference between the rates as an undisclosed commission. From the gold that flows through a broker's hands, a small shaving may be taken as commission. Yet, credibility and confidence in the market may demand that the amount of this shaving be revealed to investors. At this early stage of the litigation, before any discovery, it is difficult to discern if there is merit to plaintiff's claims against these defendants. It is sufficient to say that in our view plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action and should not have been dismissed on defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff Gary Plastic Packaging Corporation (Gary Plastic) brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, for itself and for all others similarly situated, against defendants Merrill Lynch and Money Markets. The action was transferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a), to the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J.) in December 1983. The complaint contains four counts that allege violations of Secs. 5(a) and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the SEC's Rule 10b-5. One count alleges a civil RICO violation, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). All allegations stem from the same transactions between Gary Plastic and Merrill Lynch. In its Money Market Information Bulletin, Merrill Lynch described its CD Program involving bank certificates of deposit 1 issued by both commercial and savings
and loan institutions (referred to as banks) as follows:
FULLY INSURED $100,000 NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
Merrill Lynch Money Markets Inc. (MLMMI) is offering its customers a unique opportunity to purchase $100,000 negotiable certificates of deposit that are fully insured and liquid.
This opportunity, for individuals or corporate investors with $100,000 or more to invest, has been made possible as a result of recent changes in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) regulations dealing with deposit insurance coverage. In essence, both the FDIC and FSLIC have raised their deposit insurance coverage to $100,000 from $40,000 per depositor per institution.
The extended coverage will enable an investor to purchase a $100,000 certificate of deposit from an FDIC or FSLIC insured commercial bank or savings and loan association and have the total principal amount of the investment covered by Federal deposit insurance. Carrying this a step further, one could distribute investible funds in $100,000 increments among a number of banks to ensure Federal deposit insurance coverage of the total amount. Investors can now purchase $100,000 negotiable certificates of deposit and enjoy the benefits of having their entire deposit insured by a Federal agency and at the same time take advantage of the exemption from interest rate ceilings that Regulation Q provides for certificates of deposit that are $100,000 or larger.
MLMMI will provide its investors with an opportunity to take advantage of this regulatory change by offering, on a daily basis, a broad selection of fully insured $100,000 certificates of deposit issued by domestic commercial banks and savings and loan associations in a range of maturities. Each of the issuers whose certificates of deposit are offered has been reviewed and approved by the MLPF & S Corporate Credit Department and is monitored on a regular basis. Credit reports that provide an historical analysis on each issuer will be readily available through your MLPF & S Account Executive.
The $100,000 certificates of deposit that MLMMI is offering enjoy a high degree of liquidity since they are in negotiable bearer form and are fully insured by a Federal agency. In addition, MLMMI fully intends to maintain a secondary market for its customers which would enable them to sell their certificates of deposit back to MLMMI at prevailing market rates without the significant interest rate penalties Federal banking regulations require banks to impose on the early redemption of their certificates of deposit.
The more popular alternatives would include Treasury Bills, Federal Agency Securities and Money Market Funds. With the increase in deposit insurance coverage, an investor now has the opportunity to purchase Federally insured certificates of deposit, an investment which usually carries higher yields than Treasury Bills and Federal Agency Securities. While money market funds do enjoy liquidity, they are not Federally insured and cannot guarantee a future rate of return.
Some investors may seek to purchase $100,000 certificates of deposit directly from a bank or savings and loan association. However, they can only call a few local banks at most, their alternatives are critically limited. You have no way of knowing if the banks you are calling are in the market trying to raise money at a competitive rate or if they are quoting a rate just to accommodate a depositor. Our specialized bank liability trading staff talks to a large group of pre-screened, quality banks daily before offering certificates of deposit to investors enabling MLMMI to provide the investor with certificates of deposit with competitive yields from a variety of issuers.
The interest rate penalties for early redemption imposed under Federal Banking regulations do not apply to certificates of deposit sold back to MLMMI. They do apply if you redeem your certificates of deposit prior to maturity at the issuing bank.
MLMMI intends to maintain a secondary market in these negotiable bearer certificates of deposit for its customers providing them with a source of liquidity at prevailing market rates.
In addition to the safety factor of having Federal insurance for these deposits, the highly professional MLPF & S Corporate Credit Department is monitoring, on a regular basis, those issuers whose certificates of deposit MLMMI offers and will provide a written credit analysis on each.
For additional information on this new program, contact your local Merrill Lynch Account Executive.
MERRILL LYNCH MONEY MARKETS INC.
When, in 1982, plaintiff ordered 12 CDs from Merrill Lynch, 2 Money Markets contacted financial institutions in various parts of the country, and purchased the CDs. For each certificate of deposit purchased, Gary Plastic received an order ticket and a confirmation slip from Merrill Lynch. The actual CDs were held by the "delivery agent," Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, and when they matured Gary Plastic received all principal and interest due it under the terms of the confirmation slips.
On May 20, 1983, plaintiff brought this action. The gravamen of the complaint was that the interest rates shown on the customer confirmation slips were lower than the interest rates actually paid by the banks according to the terms of the deposit certificates. The complaint further asserted that while defendants in the Money Market Information Bulletin purported to perform its services free of charge, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Bank, F.S.B. v. Burke
...investor, thereby obviating the need for the protection of the federal securities laws." Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 240 (2d Cir.1985). Further, while the defendant argues that the absence of full FDIC insurance for jumbo CDs co......
-
Liddy v. Cisneros
...L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see Lund's Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 870 F.2d 840, 851 (2d Cir.1989); see Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 236 (2d Cir.1985). At the time the defendants moved for summary judgment, discovery in this litigation had no......
-
Bradford v. Moench
...Cir.1987) (same), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 906, 107 S.Ct. 2483, 96 L.Ed.2d 375 (1987). But cf. Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir.1985) (holding that resale of federally insured certificates of deposit by a broker in the secondary......
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Telegram Grp. Inc.
...whether Howey's test is satisfied" (first citing S.E.C. v. Eurobond Exch., Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir. 1994) ; then citing Gary Plastic Packaging Corp., 756 F.2d 230 ; and then citing Glen-Arden Commodities, 493 F.2d 1027 ). The Court finds that the SEC has shown a substantial likelihood o......
-
SEC Chair Gensler Speaks on Crypto and the Securities Laws
...[15] See Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1985) (In finding that certificates of deposit were offered and sold as securities, the court stated: “Each transaction must be analyzed and evaluated on the basis of the content of t......
-
Crypto Yield Products In The Crosshairs
...find these analyses unsatisfying until the situation is more fully unfolded. Footnotes 1 Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 2 SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). 3 Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990). 4 Howey, 328 U.S. at 301. 5 Marine Bank v......
-
Crypto Yield Products In The Crosshairs
...find these analyses unsatisfying until the situation is more fully unfolded. Footnotes 1 Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 2 SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). 3 Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990). 4 Howey, 328 U.S. at 301. 5 Marine Bank v......
-
Taking the “Fun” Out of Non-Fungible Tokens: Could Securities Laws Apply to NFTs?
...see also Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1985) (a brokerage firm created investment contracts because of the manner in which it identified, sold and managed CDs, even though the objects of the scheme, CDs, had been clearly e......
-
Securities Fraud
...banking regulations provide adequate protection). But see Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 241–42 (2d Cir. 1985) (finding a certificate deposit program in question constituted a “security” within the federal securities laws, in par......
-
Securities Fraud
...banking regulations provide adequate protection). But see Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 241–42 (2d Cir. 1985) (finding that a certificate deposit program in question constituted a “security” within the federal securities laws, i......
-
The Fordham Urban Law Journal: twenty years of progress.
...438 (1st Cir. 1985); 13 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 113 (1985) noted in 771 F.2d 663, 667 (2d Cir. 1985); 10 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 469 (1982) noted in 756 F.2d 230, 241 (2d Cir. 1985); 6 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 399 (1978) noted in 752 F.2d 694, 696 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1985); 9 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 457 (1980) noted in ......
-
Securities fraud.
...regulations provided adequate protection). But see Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 241 (2nd Cir. 1985) (holding that particular certificate deposit program in question constituted a "security" within the federal securities laws ......