An adverbial phrase indicating that a rate, amount, or obligation is measured or accrues by or for each year.
See Our Sources· 13 primary sources
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Lawyer Tracks Annual Pro Bono Hours
Phoebe Park aspires to meet the professional responsibility goal by devoting time each year to eviction defense for low-income tenants. She logs her uncompensated work at fifty hours per annum to satisfy the aspirational standard. The firm records the hours as qualifying service without fee.
Executive Order Seizes Steel Mills
The President issues an order directing federal seizure of steel production facilities during a labor dispute. Owners of Youngstown Sheet & Tube challenge the action as exceeding executive power. The dispute centers on annual production capacity measured per annum.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer343 U.S. 579 (1952)
In the latter part of 1951, a dispute arose between steel companies including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. and their employees represented by the United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O., over terms and conditions to be included in new collective bargaining agreements. Long-continued conferences failed to resolve the dispute. On December 18, 1951, the union gave notice of an intention to strike when the existing agreements expired on December 31. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service intervened without success. On December 22, 1951, President Truman referred the dispute to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable terms of settlement.
The Board's report resulted in no settlement. On April 4, 1952, the union gave notice of a nationwide strike to begin at 12:01 a.m. on April 9. The President believed that the proposed work stoppage would immediately jeopardize national defense because steel is an indispensable component of substantially all weapons and other war materials. A few hours before the strike was to begin, on April 8, 1952, the President issued Executive Order 10340 directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of the steel mills and keep them running. The Secretary immediately issued possessory orders calling upon the presidents of the seized companies to serve as operating managers for the United States.
Obeying the Secretary's orders under protest, the companies brought proceedings against him in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provision and asked the court to declare the orders invalid and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Government opposed the motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the President had inherent power supported by the Constitution, historical precedent, and court decisions. On April 30, 1952, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary from continuing the seizure and possession of the plants.
On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. Deeming it best that the issues be promptly decided by the Supreme Court, the Court granted certiorari on May 3, 1952, and set the cause for argument on May 12.
Chevron challenges a Hawaii statute capping rent increases on dealer leases. The law limits annual rent adjustments to a fixed percentage per annum. The Court examines whether the cap effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Lingle, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005)
In 1997, the State of Hawaii had a highly concentrated wholesale oil market due to its small size and isolation over 1,600 miles from the mainland, with only two refineries and six gasoline wholesalers operating in the state. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was the largest refiner and marketer, controlling 60 percent of the in-state gasoline market and 30 percent of the wholesale market on Oahu. Gasoline was sold at retail through approximately 300 service stations, about half leased by oil companies to independent lessee-dealers.
Chevron operated 64 such lessee-dealer stations under arrangements where it leased land, constructed stations, and leased them to dealers while setting wholesale prices and requiring supply contracts. In June 1997, the Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 257, which capped the rent oil companies could charge lessee-dealers at 15 percent of gross profits from gasoline sales plus 15 percent of other product sales, and imposed other restrictions on station ownership.
Thirty days after enactment, Chevron filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against the Governor and Attorney General, challenging the rent cap. The parties stipulated that the cap would reduce aggregate rent on 11 of Chevron's stations by about $207,000 per year but allow increases on the remaining 53, potentially raising overall rental income by nearly $1.1 million annually, and that Chevron had not recovered station maintenance costs through rent alone over the past 20 years.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Chevron. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case. After a one-day bench trial featuring competing expert economists, the District Court entered judgment for Chevron. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2004.
TSC Industries shareholders sue over a proxy statement that fails to disclose material facts about a proposed merger. The omitted information would have affected the annual dividend projections per annum. The Court defines the standard for materiality in disclosure.
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.426 U.S. 438, 449, 96 S. Ct. 2126, 48 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1976)
In February 1969 National Industries, Inc. acquired 34% of TSC Industries, Inc.'s voting securities from Charles E. Schmidt and his family. Schmidt, TSC's founder and principal shareholder, resigned from the board along with his son. Five National nominees then joined TSC's board. Stanley R. Yarmuth, National's president and chief executive officer, became chairman of the TSC board. Charles F. Simonelli, National's executive vice president, became chairman of the TSC executive committee.
On October 16, 1969, the TSC board, with the National nominees abstaining, approved a proposal to liquidate and sell all of TSC's assets to National in exchange for National Series B preferred stock and warrants. On November 12, 1969, TSC and National issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholders recommending approval of the proposal. The proxy solicitation succeeded. TSC entered liquidation and dissolution, and the share exchange was completed.
Northway, Inc., a TSC shareholder, filed suit on December 4, 1969, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TSC and National. The complaint alleged that the joint proxy statement violated section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9. It claimed the statement failed to disclose that the Schmidt interests transfer had given National control of TSC. It also claimed the statement omitted material facts concerning the degree of National's control over TSC and the favorability of the transaction terms to TSC shareholders.
The District Court denied Northway's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether National had acquired control through the Schmidt purchase. This precluded summary judgment on the Rule 14a-3 claim. But the court reversed on the Rule 14a-9 claims and ordered partial summary judgment for Northway. It held that certain omissions were material as a matter of law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the standard of materiality applied by the Court of Appeals.
Phillips Petroleum withholds royalty payments from out-of-state lessors in a gas lease dispute. The class seeks recovery of interest calculated at six percent per annum on the withheld amounts. The Court addresses personal jurisdiction over absent class members.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts472 U.S. 797 (USSC 1985)
Phillips Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma, produced or purchased natural gas from leased land in 11 states during the 1970s.
It sold most of the gas in interstate commerce at prices regulated by the Federal Power Commission, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Beginning in the mid-1970s Phillips proposed price increases. It collected higher amounts subject to refund with interest if disapproved. Phillips suspended royalty payments to lessors until final Commission approval. It paid the suspended royalties of $3.7 million in 1976, $4.7 million in 1977, and $2.9 million in 1978 without interest after the increases were approved.
In 1979 the Commission began investigating overcharges. In 1983 it issued an opinion ordering refunds. Royalty owners Irl Shutts, a Kansas resident, and Robert and Betty Anderson, Oklahoma residents owning leases in Oklahoma and Texas, filed suit in Kansas state court seeking interest on the suspended royalties. They sought to represent a class of 33,000 royalty owners later reduced to 28,100 members after 3,400 opted out and 1,500 could not be notified. Fewer than 1,000 class members resided in Kansas and only about one-quarter of one percent of the leases were located there.
The Kansas trial court certified the class under a state statute modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on an opt-out basis. It sent first-class mail notice describing the action and the right to opt out. The court applied Kansas law to award interest at Commission rates followed by the Kansas post-judgment rate of 15 percent. After the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1984.
Residents sue town officials over a zoning decision that allegedly reduces property values. The complaint alleges annual tax assessments will rise by several thousand dollars per annum. The Court requires plaintiffs to show particularized injury for standing.
3 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What does per annum mean in legal instruments?
It means that a rate or obligation is measured or accrues by or for each year. Courts and statutes routinely use the phrase to express annual interest, rent adjustments, or service hours.
How is per annum applied to interest calculations?
It fixes the annual rate at which interest accrues on a principal sum. Mortgage notes and judgments commonly state interest at a stated percentage per annum, with compounding or payment terms specified separately.
Does per annum appear in professional responsibility rules?
The Model Rules use the synonymous phrase per year when stating the aspirational goal of fifty hours of pro bono service. The underlying concept is the same annual measurement.
…building cantilevered above the Terminal building. During the period of construction, UGP would pay Penn Central $1 million
per year
. Upon completion, UGP would rent the building for 50 years, with an option for another 25 years, at a guaranteed minimum rental of $3 million