Open main menu

Investment Company Institute v. Camp

Court Documents
Dissenting Opinions

United States Supreme Court

401 U.S. 617

Investment Company Institute  v.  Camp

 Argued: Dec. 14 and 15, 1970. --- Decided: April 5, 1971


Petitioners in No. 61, an association of open-end investment companies and several individual such companies, attack (1) portions of the Comptroller of the Currency's Regulation 9, purporting to authorize banks to operate collective investment funds, as violative of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 and (2) the Comptroller's approval given First National City Bank to operate a collective investment fund. Petitioner in No. 59 seeks review of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) order exempting that fund from certain provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The District Court concluded in No. 61 that the challenged provisions of Regulation 9 were invalid. The Court of Appeals, after consolidating the cases, held that the Comptroller's and the SEC's actions were consonant with the relevant statutes, and affirmed the SEC's order and reversed the District Court. Held:

1. Petitioners in No. 61 do not lack standing to challenge whether national banks may legally enter a field in competition with them. Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184. Pp. 620-621.

2. The operation of a collective investment fund of the kind approved by the Comptroller, that is in direct competition with the mutual fund industry, involves a bank in the underwriting, issuing, selling, and distributing of securities in violation of §§ 16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Pp. 621-639.

420 F.2d 83, judgment reversed in No. 61, and vacated in No. 59.

G. Duane Vieth, Washington, D.C., for petitioners Investment Co. Institute, and others.

Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for respondent William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency.

Joseph B. Levin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner National Assn. of Securities Dealers, Inc.

Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for respondent First National City Bank.

Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).