Securities and Exchange Commission v. Howey Co

Decision Date27 May 1946
Docket NumberNo. 843,843
Citation163 A.L.R. 1043,90 L.Ed. 1244,328 U.S. 293,66 S.Ct. 1100
PartiesSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. W. J. HOWEY CO. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 67 S.Ct. 27.

Mr. Roger S. Foster, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Messrs. C. E. Duncan, of Tavares, Fla., and George C. Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for respondents.

Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the application of § 2(1) of the Securities Act of 19331 to an offering of units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract for cultivating, marketing and remitting the net proceeds to the investor.

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this action to restrain the respondents from using the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in the offer and sale of unregistered and nonexempt securities in violation of § 5(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77e(a). The District Court denied the injunction, 60 F.Supp. 440, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, 151 F.2d 714. We granted certiorari, 327 U.S. 773, 66 S.Ct. 821, on a petition alleging that the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals conflicted with other federal and state decisions and that it introduced a novel and unwarranted test under the statute which the Commission regarded as administratively impractical.

Most of the facts are stipulated. The respondents, W. J. Howey Company and Howey-in-the-Hills Service Inc., are Florida corporations under direct common control and management. The Howey Company owns large tracts of citrus acreage in Lake County, Florida. Duringt he past several years it has planted about 500 acres annually, keeping half of the groves itself and offering the other half to the public 'to help us finance additional development.' Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., is a service company engaged in cultivating and developing many of these groves, including the harvesting and marketing of the crops.

Each prospective customer is offered both a land sales contract and a service contract, after having been told that it is not feasible to invest in a grove unless service arrangements are made. While the purchaser is free to make arrangements with other service companies, the superiority of Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., is stressed. Indeed, 85% of the acreage sold during the 3-year period ending May 31, 1943, was covered by service contracts with Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc.

The land sales contract with the Howey Company provides for a uniform purchase price per acre or fraction thereof, varying in amount only in accordance with the number of years the particular plot has been planted with citrus trees. Upon full payment of the purchase price the land is conveyed to the purchaser by warranty deed. Purchases are usually made in narrow strips of land arranged so that an acre consists of a row of 48 trees. During the period between February 1, 1941, and May 31, 1943, 31 of the 42 persons making purchases bought less than 5 acres each. The average holding of these 31 persons was 1.33 acres and sales of as little as 0.65, 0.7 and 0.73 of an acre were made. These tracts are not separately fenced and the sole indication of several ownership is found in small land marks intelligible only through a plat book record.

The service contract, generally of a 10-year duration without option of cancellation, gives Howey-in-the-Hills Service, Inc., a leasehold interest and 'full and complete' possession of the acreage. For a specified fee plus the cost of labor and materials, the company is given full discretion and authority over the cultivation of the groves and the harvest and marketing of the crops. The company is well established in the citrus business and maintains a large force of skilled personnel and a great deal of equipment, including 75 tractors, sprayer wagons, fertilizer trucks and the like. Without the consent of the company, the land owner or purchaser has no right of entry to market the crop;2 thus there is ordinarily no right to specific fruit. The company is accountable only for an allocation of the net profits based upon a check made at the time of picking. All the produce is pooled by the respondent companies, which do business under their own names.

The purchasers for the most part are non-residents of Florida. They are predominantly business and professional people who lack the knowledge, skill and equipment necessary for the care and cultivation of citrus trees. They are attracted by the expectation of substantial profits. It was represented, for example, that profits during the 19431944 season amounted to 20% and that even greater profits might be expected during the 1944 1945 season, although only a 10% annual return was to be expected over a 10-year period. Many of these purchasers are patrons of a resort hotel owned and operated by the Howey Company in a scenic section adjacent to the groves. The hotel's advertising mentions the fine groves in the vicinity and the attention of the patrons is drawn to the groves as they are being escorted about the surrounding countryside. They are told that the groves are for sale; if they indicate an interest in the matter they are then given a sales talk.

It is admitted that the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used in the sale of the land and service contracts and that no registration statement or letter of notification has ever been filed with the Commissioni n accordance with the Securities Act of 1933 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Section 2(1) of the Act defines the term 'security' to include the commonly known documents traded for speculation or investment.3 This definition also includes 'securities' of a more variable character, designated by such descriptive terms as 'certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement,' 'investment contract' and 'in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security." The legal issue in this case turns upon a determination of whether, under the circumstances, the land sales contract, the warranty deed and the service contract together constitute an 'investment contract' within the meaning of § 2(1). An affirmative answer brings into operation the registration requirements of § 5(a), unless the security is granted an exemption under § 3(b), 15 U.S.C.A. § 77c(b). The lower courts, in reaching a negative answer to this problem, treated the contracts and deeds as separate transactions involving no more than an ordinary real estate sale and an agreement by the seller to manage the property for the buyer.

The term 'investment contract' is undefined by the Securities Act or by relevant legislative reports. But the term was common in many state 'blue sky' laws in existence prior to the adoption of the federal statute and, although the term was also undefined by the state laws, it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for 'the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment.' State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 56, 177 N.W. 937, 938. This definition was uniformly applied by state courts to a variety of situations where individuals were led to invest money in a common enterprise with the expectation that they would earn a profit solely through the efforts of the promoter or of some one other than themselves.4

By including an investment contract within the scope of § 2(1) of the Securities Act, Congress was using a term the meaning of which had been crystallized by this prior judicial interpretation. It is therefore reasonable to attach that meaning to the term as used by Congress, especially since such a definition is consistent with the statutory aims. In other words, an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, trans- action or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical as ets employed in the enterprise. Such a definition necessarily underlies this Court's decision in Securities Exch. Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 64 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed. 88, and has been enunciated and applied many times by lower federal courts.5 It permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of 'the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.' H.Rep.No.85, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 11. It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.

The transactions in this case clearly involve investment contracts as so defined. The respondent companies are offering something more than fee simple interests in land, something different from a farm or orchard coupled with management services. They are offering an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise managed and partly owned by respondents. They are offering this opportunity to persons who reside in distant localities and who lack the equip- ment and experience...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1466 cases
  • TMJ Grp. LLC v. IMCMV Holdings Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 18 Abril 2018
    ...argue that the LLC membership interests are securities inasmuch as they are "investment contracts" as set forth by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Howey .72 Contrary to IMC Defendants' arguments, TMJ Plaintiffs aver that they did not have control over the investment and they relied completely o......
  • People v. Feno
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 1984
    ...enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party (S.E.C. v. Howey Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 293, 298-299 [66 S.Ct. 1100, 1102-1103, 90 L.Ed.2d 1244] ...) .... 'The most essential consistency in the cases which have considered the meaning of "investm......
  • People v. Black
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 2017
    ...risk-capital test was not binding because the instrument at issue satisfied a different test also applied by California courts—the federal or Howey test derived from S .E i.iC . v . Howey Co . (1946) 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (Howey ). He asserted that there was sufficient ......
  • Siry Inv., L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 2020
    ...811, 13 Cal.Rptr. 186, 361 P.2d 906 ( Silver Hills ), or (2) the "federal test" first articulated in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 ( Howey ). (See generally, People v. Black (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 889, 900, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 402.)In its operative compla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
172 firm's commentaries
  • SEC Enforcement Chief Speaks on Enforcing the Federal Securities Laws in the Age of Crypto
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 10 Julio 2024
    ...to promote ethical standards of honesty and fair dealing.”). [5] Id. [6] Securities Act § 2(a)(1). [7] See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 297 (1946); SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 350 (1943). [8] See, e.g., SEC v. Crude Oil Corp., 93 F.2d 844, 848 (7th Cir. 1937) (sa......
  • Enforcement Chief Speaks on the “Why” of SEC’s Work
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 4 Abril 2024
    ...to introduce the Enforcement panel, which will discuss some of our investor protection efforts. ENDNOTES [1] See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 297 (1946) (setting forth the test for what constitutes an “investment contract,” and therefore a security, for purposes of the federal secur......
  • Limiting Securities Litigation Risks In EB-5 Offerings: What Regional Centers And Issuers Need To Know
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 1 Diciembre 2015
    ...his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party." SEC v. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-299 (1946). Under that broad definition, most EB-5 investments, apart from those where the investor is actively involved in the manage......
  • The Investigative Authority Of The New York Attorney General Is Not Without Its Limits
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 5 Febrero 2016
    ...there is "an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others." S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 [8] See, e.g. All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Abrams, 68 N.Y.2d 81 (N.Y. 1986), People v. First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 608 (N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
121 books & journal articles
  • SECURITIES FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    ...agreement, or transaction for future delivery”). 101. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 60–61 (1990) (quoting SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 299 (1946)). 102. See infra notes 113–16 and accompanying text. 103. Section 2(1) of the 1933 Act provides: [U]nless the context otherwise re......
  • Securities Fraud
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...v. Charnay, 537 F.2d 341, 348 (9th Cir. 1976). 112. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 66–67 (1990). 113. See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298–99 (1946) (asserting that the def‌inition of an “investment contract” is based upon economic reality and not mere form). An investment......
  • Securities Fraud
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...agreement, or transaction for future delivery”). 100. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 60–61 (1990) (quoting SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 299 (1946)). 101. See infra notes 112–15 and accompanying text. 102. Section 2(1) of the 1933 Act provides: [U]nless the context otherwise re......
  • Title 18 Insider Trading.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 7, May 2021
    • 1 Mayo 2021
    ...Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. [section][section] 1-26 (2018). (140.) The open-ended standard is "investment contract." See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-99 (141.) See supra Section I.A. (142.) Andrew Verstein argues that where insider trading law creates new impositions beyond common la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Act 110, SB 588 – Uniform Securities Act of 2005
    • United States
    • South Carolina Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 2005
    ...Retirement Income Security Act of 1974." The first clause in Section 102(29)(D) is derived from the leading case of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), which has been widely followed by federal and state courts. The second clause in Section 102(29)(D) is based, in part, on the leadi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT