S.E.C. v. Commodity OptionsIntern., Inc.
Decision Date | 10 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 75-2385,75-2385 |
Citation | 553 F.2d 628 |
Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,072 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMODITY OPTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, Double Option Systems, Inc., a California Corporation, Josef Rotter, Individually and as president and director of Commodity Options International, Inc., and Double Option Systems, Inc., C. R. Richmond & Co., a California Corporation, and Curtis R. Richmond, Individually and as president and director of C. R. Richmond & Co., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Darrell L. Johnson, Lindholm & Johnson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
David Ferber, Frederic T. Spindel, Howard B. Scherer, Attys., Securities Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., Charles R. Hartman, III, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for plaintiff-appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before MERRILL, ELY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether naked double options to buy and sell commodity futures contracts are investment contracts and thus are "securities" as defined by § 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77b(1). 1 Contending that they are securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought an injunction to prevent appellants from offering and selling such options until a registration statement as to them was in effect as required by the Act. 2 The injunction was granted by the district court and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Commodity Options International, Inc. (COI), and Double Option Systems, Inc. (DOS), are California corporations, operated substantially as a single entity, with their principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. Josef Rotter is president of COI and controlling shareholder of both COI and DOS. Both corporations engage in the business of issuing double options to buy or sell commodity futures contracts. Appellant C. R. Richmond & Co. (CRR), is a California corporation engaged in securities transactions as broker-dealer. It is charged in this action with acting as agent for COI and DOS in the sale of double options. Appellant Curtis R. Richmond is its president and sole stockholder. 3 From July, 1972, until March, 1973, CRR offered and sold about 125 naked double options to about 100 customers by use of means and instruments of transportation and communications in interstate commerce and of the mails. Appellants did not write the options themselves. COI and DOS wrote the options and paid CRR commissions on their sales. Appellants transmitted all funds received from their customers for the purchase of the options to COI and DOS, and when customers "exercised" or liquidated their options the appellants transmitted funds from COI and DOS to the customers.
A closer examination of the particular options offered and sold by appellants first requires a general description of trading in commodities and commodity futures contracts:
. 4
The commodity futures market operates through futures contracts and dealing in these contracts has become the most active aspect of commodities exchanges. One article explains the reason in this fashion:
One need not resort to actual purchase of a futures contract in order either to hedge one's position or to speculate. Options to purchase or to sell futures contracts are now extensively dealt in. By paying a premium the purchaser can obtain either a "call" option one to buy a futures contract at a stated price (the "striking price," usually the market price at the time the option is purchased) at any time during the period covered by the option, or can obtain a "put" option one to sell a futures contract at the striking price at any time during the option period. One writer explains the transaction as follows:
Long, The Naked Commodity Option Contract As a Security, 15 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 211, 213 (1973).
It is also possible to buy both a put and call option on the same commodity at the same time for the same striking price. Such a purchase is called a "straddle" or double option.
These options are what may be called "conventional" options in which the optionor actually has the underlying commodity futures contract to which the option relates or the right to obtain such a contract. In recent years dealing in what have come to be called "naked" options has commenced. With reference to this Professor Long has written:
Id. at 211-12. Further, he writes:
Id. at 226. See also Long, Commodity Options Revisited, 25 Drake L.Rev. 75, 82-87 (1975).
It is the naked double option with which we are here concerned; it is the naked double option that COI and DOS were engaged in selling, with CRR acting as agent. The record contains much of the promotional material used in soliciting sales of these options. From this material it appears that the double options were handled as follows by COI and DOS:
They were issued for commodities (principally sugar) that are not subject to regulation under federal commodities exchange acts. They were written for eighteen months. If exercised before that date, a rebate on the premium was paid in addition to any profit realized. The usual sale contract contemplated that when a specified profit over the amount of the premium paid has been realized through the market having either advanced or declined to the necessary extent (30...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING v. US Metals Depository
...434 F.Supp. 911, 913-14 (S.D.N.Y.1977). Similar definitions have been formulated by other courts, e. g., SEC v. Commodity Options Int'l, Inc., 553 F.2d 628, 629-31 (9th Cir. 1977); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. British American Commodity Options Corp., 77 Civ. 1822 (LPG), slip op. at ......
-
CR–RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC
...(emphasis added). 22.See also Dobbs, § 12.4(6) (collecting cases in footnote 10). 23.See, e.g., SEC v. Commodity Options Int'l, Inc., 553 F.2d 628, 631 (9th Cir.1977) (market's rise and fall specifically contemplated in the contract); Lawrance v. Elmore Bean Warehouse, 108 Idaho 892, 702 P.......
-
SECURITIES & EXCH. COM'N v. Paro
...to be "investment contracts." SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946); SEC v. Commodity Option International, Inc., 553 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1977); SEC v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 497 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1974); Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group, Inc., 494......
-
Mullis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith
...is a security is a question independent from the securities aspects of the separate parts of the program. See SEC v. Commodity Options International, 553 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1977). Furthermore, the fact that a security was traded in one of the parts of the investment program is irrelevant to......