North American Co. v. SEC

Last updated
North American Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 15, 1945
Decided April 1, 1946
Full case nameNorth American Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Citations327 U.S. 686 ( more )
66 S. Ct. 785; 90 L. Ed. 945; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2990
Case history
Prior133 F.2d 148 (2d Cir. 1943); cert. granted, 318 U.S. 750(1943).
Holding
Order under the Public Utility Holding Company Act for holding company to divest companies other than a single integrated public utility system did not violate the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy  · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge  · Harold H. Burton
Case opinion
MajorityMurphy, joined by Stone, Black, Frankfurter, Rutledge, Burton
Douglas, Jackson, Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Public Utility Holding Company Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 79 et seq.

North American Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 327 U.S. 686 (1946), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) order under the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) directing a public utility holding company to divest its securities of all companies except for one electric company did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]

Contents

Background

PUHCA was one of a number of trust-busting and securities regulation initiatives that were enacted in response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression, including the collapse of Samuel Insull's public utility holding companies. By 1932, the eight largest utility holding companies controlled 73 percent of the investor-owned electric industry. [2] Their complex, highly leveraged, corporate structures were very difficult for individual states to regulate. PUHCA required electric company holding companies to register with the SEC, and authorized the SEC to limit a holding company to a single integrated electric system through the divestiture of its other public utility and unrelated companies.

The North American Company, formed in 1890, was a holding company in a system that by 1940 contained 80 companies operating in seventeen states and the District of Columbia. These included the Union Electric Company, which operated an electric system around St. Louis, Missouri, and subsidiaries in Illinois and Iowa, the Washington Railway and Electric Company, and the North American Light and Power Company with systems in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa and its subsidiaries Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Detroit Edison Company. In addition, North American also owned an investment trust company and West Kentucky Coal Company. Together the various electric systems served more than 3,000,000 customers in a service territory of 165,000 square miles.

North American initially challenged the constitutionality of PUHCA and requested an injunction against its enforcement, but the Supreme Court in Landis v. North American Co., [3] held that the case was premature and that North American should register and then litigate the constitutionality of PUHCA after the SEC conducted its proceeding. North American then registered in 1937 as a holding company with the SEC, reserving its right to challenge the validity of the remaining portions of PUHCA. After initiating an administrative proceeding, the SEC issued an order requiring divestiture of North American's securities in companies other than the Union Electric Company. North American appealed, but in 1943 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the order. [4] Arguing that ownership of securities was not interstate commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause and that the divestiture ordered by the SEC was a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, North American appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Opinion

The opinion by Justice Murphy first concluded that North American was engaged in interstate commerce and through its substantial stock ownership dominated its subsidiaries. The opinion then noted that North American's argument that PUHCA's divestiture provision was invalid because ownership of securities was not commerce had been previously rejected by the Court in the anti-trust case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States . [5] Under its authority under the Commerce Clause, Congress could regulate to protect the freedom of interstate commerce using any means that were lawful and not prohibited by the Constitution. Under Northern Securities, Congress could deal with and affect the ownership of securities to protect the freedom of commerce, which it did in fashioning the divestiture remedy in PUHCA.

Lastly, the Court dismissed the takings argument, noting that Congress had weighed the benefit to shareholders of efficient, common management of diversified companies against the actual and potential harm to the public, investors, and consumers from the use of pooled investments, and determined that the economic advantages of a holding company atop an unintegrated, sprawling electric system were not commensurate with the resulting economic disadvantages. In addition, it was not clear that there would be a loss necessary for a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. PUHCA does not require the dumping or forced liquidation of the securities on the market for cash, so the stock of the companies ordered divested could be distributed to the shareholders or sold under a plan that protects shareholder rights. The Court determined that it could not conclude that North American shareholders were disadvantaged by the operation of the divestiture provision of PUHCA.

Justices Reed, Douglas and Jackson did not participate in the consideration of the case. Although Chief Justice Stone had initially recused himself for a disclosed reason, but when he discovered that his disqualification plus those of the other justices would result in the lack of a quorum, he reversed his position. [6]

Subsequent events

PUHCA was repealed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 effective February 8, 2006. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The case represented a major expansion in the Court's interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation.

Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935

The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), also known as the Wheeler-Rayburn Act, was a US federal law giving the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to regulate, license, and break up electric utility holding companies. It limited holding company operations to a single state, thus subjecting them to effective state regulation. It also broke up any holding companies with more than two tiers, forcing divestitures so that each became a single integrated system serving a limited geographic area. Another purpose of the PUHCA was to keep utility holding companies engaged in regulated businesses from also engaging in unregulated businesses. The act was based on the conclusions and recommendations of the 1928-35 Federal Trade Commission investigation of the electric industry. On March 12, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released a report he commissioned by the National Power Policy Committee. This report became the template for the PUHCA. The political battle over its passage was one of the bitterest of the New Deal, and was followed by eleven years of legal appeals by holding companies led by the Electric Bond and Share Company, which finally completed its breakup in 1961.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

North American Company

The North American Company was a holding company incorporated in New Jersey on June 14, 1890, and controlled by Henry Villard, to succeed to the assets and property of the Oregon and Transcontinental Company. It owned public utilities and public transport companies and was broken up in 1946, largely to comply with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. 245 (1829), was a significant United States Supreme Court case regarding the definition of the Commerce Clause in Article 1 sec. 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Willson, the owner of a sloop who was licensed under federal navigation laws, the Sally, broke through a dam that blocked his passage which was built by the Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. and had been authorized to do so by Delaware law. The company brought a case against Willson, claiming Delaware authorized the building of the dam through a law which was passed under the police power of the state in order to clean up a health hazard and there was no legislation by Congress dealing with the same subject matter. Willson claimed that the law authorizing the building of the dam was a violation of the commerce clause. He believed he had a constitutional right to navigating coastal streams and Delaware's actions were motivated by private profits. Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the lower court's decision, that because no federal law dealt specifically with the situation, and the state law did not violate Congress' Dormant Commerce Clause power, the state law was valid. He did note, however, that the dam might interfere with interstate commerce.

Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Dormant Commerce Clause, used to prohibit states from limiting interstate commerce.

The North American Light and Power Company was a utility holding company formed in South Bend, Indiana and run since 1916 by its President, Clement Studebaker, Jr., of the family famous for the Studebaker automobiles. The utility company remained a major subsidiary of the North American Company, until that conglomerate's 1940s breakup by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress’ power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing.

George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the state statute under which the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued certificates of public convenience and necessity to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Entergy Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 539 U.S. 39 (2003), is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a federal administrative agency approved public utility tariff preempted a state public utilities commission rate order under the filed rate doctrine.

Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), is an opinion from the United States Supreme Court which denied a motion from the State of Arizona seeking authorization to file suit against the State of New Mexico by invoking the original jurisdiction of the court.

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New Mexico tax on the generation of electricity was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Snead was the director of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department.

Natural Gas Act of 1938

The Natural Gas Act of 1938 was the first occurrence of the United States federal government regulating the natural gas industry. It was focused on regulating the rates charged by interstate natural gas transmission companies. In the years prior to the passage of the Act, concern arose about the monopolistic tendencies of the transmission companies and the fact that they were charging higher than competitive prices. The passage of the Act gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) control over the regulation of interstate natural gas sales. Later on, the FPC was dissolved and became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC continues to regulate the natural gas industry to this day.

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

Electric Bond and Share Company

The Electric Bond and Share Company (Ebasco) was a United States electric utility holding company organized by General Electric. It was forced to divest its holding companies and reorganize due to the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Following the passage of the Act, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) selected the largest of the U.S. holding companies, Ebasco to be the test case of the law before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court case known as Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company was settled in favor of the SEC on March 28th 1938. It took twenty-five years of legal action by the SEC to break up Ebasco and the other major U.S. electric holding companies until they conformed with the 1935 act. It was allowed to retain control of its foreign electric power holding company known as the American & Foreign Power Company (A&FP). After its reorganization, it became an investment company, but soon turned into a major designer and engineer of both fossil fuel and nuclear power electric generation facilities. Its involvement in the 1983 financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System's five nuclear reactors led to Ebasco's demise because of the suspension of nuclear power orders and lawsuits that included numerous asbestos claims. The U.S. nuclear industry stopped all construction of new facilities following the 1979 nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, going into decline because of radiation safety concerns and major construction cost overruns.

Electric Bond Share Company v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 303 U.S. 419 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld the constitutionality of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

References

  1. ↑ North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U.S. 686 (1946).
  2. ↑ Hyman, Leonard S. (1988). "America's Electric Utilities: Past, Present and Future". Public Utility Reports: 74.
  3. ↑ Landis v. North American Co., 299U.S.248 (1936).
  4. ↑ North American Co. v. SEC, 133F.2d148 ( 2d Cir. 1943).
  5. ↑ Northern Securities Co. v. United States , 193U.S.197 , 334-35(1904).
  6. ↑ Stempel, Jeffrey W. (1987). "Rehnquist, Recusal and Reform". Brooklyn Law Journal. 53: 589, 618–19.
  7. ↑ Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 - 2006): Energy Policy Act of 2005, Library of Congress, retrieved 16 July 2012
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.