Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mount Vernon Memorial Park

664 F.2d 1358 (1982)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mount Vernon Memorial Park

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
664 F.2d 1358 (1982)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Mount Vernon Memorial Park (Mount Vernon) (defendant) was a California corporation that operated as a licensed mortuary and cemetery. In the mid-1960s, Mount Vernon began to sell cemetery plots and funeral services on a pre-need basis. For these services, Mount Vernon entered into installment sales agreements with customers pursuant to which Mount Vernon agreed to provide the services for fixed fees in exchange for payments spread over a number of years. Mount Vernon was permitted to use the payments to cover general operating expenses, and if the need for the funeral services arose before payment of all installments, the amounts paid would be credited toward the price. In 1969, the California attorney general issued an opinion that effectively prohibited Mount Vernon from offering these pre-need contracts. Mount Vernon revised the pre-need sales agreements to encompass both a funeral-service contract and a subscription agreement. Under the funeral-service contract, Mount Vernon agreed to provide funeral services in the future at a fixed price so long as the purchaser made timely installment payments toward the purchase of a certain number of funeral-service debentures for $100 per debenture. The debentures bore interest that was payable either directly to the purchaser or credited against the next installment. Once the debentures were purchased, they were redeemable for funeral services or for cash at the time of maturity, 20 years after issuance. If the need for funeral services arose before maturity, the debentures could be credited toward the cost of the services. In 1976, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) issued an administrative decision finding that debentures in a similar program were face-amount certificates of the installment type and classifying the issuers of such debentures as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. Thereafter, Mount Vernon began depositing the funds generated from the program into a separate bank account. The SEC brought an action against Mount Vernon in federal court. The SEC alleged that Mount Vernon’s offering of the debentures constituted a violation of the Investment Company Act as well as the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934. Mount Vernon defended on the basis that it was not an investment company because its principal business was the offering of funeral services, not reinvestment of the proceeds of the debenture program. The district court agreed with Mount Vernon, and the SEC appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Poole, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership