Summary

Tcherepnin v. Knight — Opinion of the Court

In short, the various factors highlighted by the Court of Appeals in concluding that the withdrawable capital shares are not an 'instrument commonly known as a 'security" serve only to distinguish among different types of securities. They do not, standing alone, govern whether a particular instrument is a security under the federal securities law.
The Court of Appeals thought it highly significant that the term 'evidence of indebtedness' appears in the definition of security in the 1933 Act but was omitted from the definition in the 1934 Act.
Source: Wikisource

Tcherepnin v. Knight — Opinion of the Court

Petitioners are participants in a common enterprise-a money-lending operation dependent for its success upon the skill and efforts of the management of City Savings in making sound loans. Because Illinois law ties the payment of dividends on withdrawable capital shares to an apportionment of profits, [20] the petitioners can expect a return on their investment only if City Savings shows a profit. If City Savings fails to show a profit due to the lack of skill or honesty of its managers, the petitioners will receive no dividends.
Source: Wikisource

Tcherepnin v. Knight — Opinion of the Court

The Court of Appeals' emphasis on the omission of 'evidence of indebtedness' from § 3 (a) (10) flowed from its conclusion that the petitioners' 'relationship with the enterprise is much more that of debtor-creditor than investment.' 371 F.2d, at 377. That assertion, however, overlooks the fact that, under Illinois law, the holder of a withdrawable capital share does not become a creditor of a savings and loan association even when he files an application for withdrawal.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature