Exclusion of Bona Fide Investment Publications from the Investment Advisers Act: Lowe v. SEC

Exclusion of Bona Fide Investment Publications from the Investment Advisers Act: Lowe v. SEC

Introduction

Case: Lowe et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 1985

The landmark case of Lowe et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) addresses the scope of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The central issue revolves around whether publishers of investment newsletters offering nonpersonalized investment advice fall within the statutory definition of "investment adviser" and are thus subject to regulation and enforcement by the SEC. The petitioner, Christopher Lowe, along with his corporations, sought to continue publishing investment newsletters after being barred from associating with any investment adviser due to prior criminal convictions. The SEC contended that their publications constituted investment advisory services requiring registration under the Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Stevens, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court held that the petitioners' newsletters qualify for the statutory exclusion under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for "bona fide publications" of general and regular circulation. Consequently, neither the petitioners' unregistered status nor the SEC's order barring Lowe from associating with investment advisers justified injunctive relief against their publication activities. The Court emphasized that the newsletters were impersonal, non-tailored, and circulated widely, distinguishing them from personalized investment advisory services.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • NEAR v. MINNESOTA (1931): Established that freedom of the press protects against prior restraints.
  • Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938): Reinforced that licensing and censorship of the press infringe upon First Amendment rights.
  • SEC v. Wall Street Transcript Corp. (1970): Interpreted "bona fide newspapers" to exclude publications primarily distributing investment advice.
  • OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN. (1978): Discussed the regulation of commercial speech.
  • Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union (1984): Affirmed that opinion expression about commercial products is protected.

The Court relied heavily on these precedents to delineate the boundaries between regulated investment advisory services and protected press activities. Notably, Near and Lovell were pivotal in shaping the understanding of press freedoms, ensuring that commercial regulations do not impinge upon First Amendment protections.

Legal Reasoning

The Court undertook a thorough statutory interpretation of the Investment Advisers Act, focusing on the exclusion for "bona fide publications." The term was understood to mean genuine publications that provide impersonal investment information, distinguishing them from personalized advisory services. The Court emphasized the legislative history, indicating Congress's intent to regulate personalized investment advice while exempting traditional press publications to safeguard First Amendment rights.

Justice Stevens highlighted that the petitioners' newsletters were disinterested, regularly circulated, and intended for the general public, thereby fitting the statutory exclusion. The Court criticized the Court of Appeals for adopting a content-based approach that diverged from the objective criteria established in the statute and legislative history.

The dissenting opinion by Justice White argued against this construction, suggesting that the exclusion should not be interpreted so broadly as to undermine the SEC's regulatory intentions. However, the majority upheld the exclusion, prioritizing constitutional protections over expansive regulatory interpretations.

Impact

This judgment significantly clarified the scope of the Investment Advisers Act by affirming that nonpersonalized investment publications are excluded from the Act's definition of "investment adviser." This ruling ensures that free press activities, even when dealing with investment topics, remain protected under the First Amendment, provided they do not constitute personalized advisory services.

Future cases involving investment publications will reference this precedent to determine whether such publications fall within the SEC's regulatory framework or enjoy First Amendment protections. Additionally, the decision underscores the necessity for the SEC to demonstrate a clear connection between the regulated activity and potential for fraud or manipulation when seeking injunctions against publishers.

Moreover, this case reinforces the principle that statutory exclusions must be interpreted in alignment with constitutional mandates, preventing regulatory overreach into constitutionally protected speech.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Investment Adviser

An "investment adviser" is defined under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 as any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others about the value or advisability of investing in securities. This includes direct advice and advice provided through publications.

Bona Fide Publication

A "bona fide publication" refers to genuine newspapers, news magazines, or financial publications that are of general and regular circulation. These publications provide impersonal investment information and are not tailored to individual clients, thus excluding them from being classified as investment advisers.

Regular and General Circulation

This term implies that the publication is widely distributed and follows a consistent schedule, making its content accessible to a broad audience rather than targeting specific individuals or groups.

First Amendment Protections

The First Amendment safeguards freedom of speech and the press. Regulations that restrict publication must not infringe upon these protections unless they meet stringent criteria, such as preventing fraud or protecting public interest.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Lowe et al. v. SEC reinforces the delicate balance between governmental regulation of professional activities and constitutional protections of free speech. By affirming that bona fide investment publications are excluded from the Investment Advisers Act's regulatory scope, the Court upheld the principles of the First Amendment while acknowledging the need to protect investors from fraudulent personalized advice.

This ruling serves as a benchmark for distinguishing between regulated investment advisory services and protected journalistic endeavors, ensuring that legitimate press activities remain free from undue regulatory constraints. It underscores the importance of precise statutory language and the need for regulatory bodies to operate within clearly defined boundaries to respect constitutional liberties.

Case Details

Year: 1985
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

John Paul StevensByron Raymond WhiteWilliam Hubbs Rehnquist

Attorney(S)

Michael E. Schoeman argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners. Solicitor General Lee argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne, Daniel L. Goelzer, Paul Gonson, Jacob H. Stillman, Alan Rosenblat, David A. Sirignano, and Gerard S. Citera. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg and Laurence Gold; for the Association of American Publishers, Page 183 Inc., by R. Bruce Rich; and for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. by Nancy J. Bregstein, Benjamin W. Boley, and Robert J. Brinkmann. Michael R. Klein filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Harry F. Tepker, Jr., filed a brief for the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Comments