Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

Silver Hills May Tarnish Crowdfunding

Both Section 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 25019 of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 provide extensional definitions of the term "security". That is, they each list everything within the term being defined.  See Why the Word "Includes" Conflates the Separation of Powers".  In each statute, the twelfth item listed is "investment contract".  In the famous case of Securities & Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), Justice Frank Murphy defined the term "investment contract" as follows:

The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.

Strictly speaking, Justice Murphy did not define a "security", but simply one type of security - an "investment contract".

In Silver Hills Country Club v. Sobieski, 55 Cal. 2d 811 (1961), California Supreme Court Justice Roger J. Traynor defined the term "beneficial interest in title to property" which was included in the definition of "security" in former Corporations Code Section 25008.  This definition became known as the "risk capital" definition. Unlike the Howey definition, the “risk capital” definition does not require an expectation of profit but instead focuses on the following questions:

  • Are the funds being raised for a business venture or enterprise?
  • Is the offering being made indiscriminately to the public?
  • Are the investors substantially powerless to affect the enterprise’s success?
  • Is the investor’s money at risk due to inadequate security?

In 1968, the legislature enacted the current Corporate Securities Law and moved the definition of "security" to Section 25019 of the Corporations Code.  Although the term "beneficial interest in title to property" is no longer included in the laundry list of items constituting a "security", Justice Traynor's risk capital definition lives on as California courts have applied both the Howey and the Silver Hills definitions either separately or alone.  See Marsh & Volk, Practice Under the California Securities Laws § 5.19[1][d] for a listing of cases. 

Although the SEC is itself in violation of the law by failing to have adopted rules implementing the JOBS Act crowdfunding exemption, it has (with no apparent sense of irony) reminded "issuers that any offers or sales of securities purporting to rely on the crowdfunding exemption would be unlawful under the federal securities laws."  In the meantime, some may be trying to crowdfund by avoiding the sale of investment contracts as defined in Howey.  In essence, they take the position that there is no expectation of profit.  Whatever the merits of this position under Howey, these early birds are not likely to get the worm in California if they have failed to consider the Silver Hills definition.

Share on:


We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.


Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy


30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith


Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy


see all