Law Commons^™

The Case For Federal Pre-Emption Of State Blue Sky Laws, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

State blue sky laws—state laws that regulate a company’s offer and sale of securities—are a substantial barrier to businesses’ efficient access to external capital. The registration provisions in state blue sky laws have been especially harmful to small businesses, a vital component of our economy that may account for 30% of the nation’s employment. The costs associated with complying with more than fifty separate and independent obligations to register securities often exceed what small businesses can pay and thus may foreclose small businesses from the capital market. At the same time, requiring small businesses to comply with multiple registration regimes …

The Role Of Blue Sky Laws After Nsmia And The Jobs Act, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

State securities laws—in particular, state laws requiring that securities offered by issuers be registered with the states—have been an impediment to the efficient movement of capital to its highest and best use. The pernicious effects of these laws—generally referred to as “blue sky laws”—have been felt most acutely by small businesses, a vital component of our national economy.

It has been difficult to remedy this problem. States and state regulators have been tenacious in protecting their registration authority from federal preemption. The Securities and Exchange Commission, on the other hand, has been reluctant to advocate for preemption and unwilling to …

The Sec's Regulation A+: Small Business Goes Under The Bus Again, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Title IV of the JOBS Act, which is entitled "Small Company Capital Formation," requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt new rules regarding offerings under Regulation A. The Commission has now adopted its final regulations implementing Title IV and providing a new regulatory regime for exempt offerings under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. The new regime is generally referred to as Regulation A+.

Unfortunately, history and empirical data regarding the use of Regulation A and Regulation D strongly suggest that the final Regulation A+ rules are unlikely to provide any material relief for small businesses in …

The New Regulation Of Small Business Capital Formation: The Impact—If Any—Of The Jobs Act, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) was—at least apparently—driven by the desire to promote job creation by facilitating small business capital formation. The legislation was premised on the correct assumptions that small businesses create jobs and that an efficient access to capital is essential for small businesses to emerge, compete, and survive in our competitive, market economy. It is certain that the JOBS Act will have an effect on businesses’ access to external capital. With regard, however, to the capital formation efforts of small businesses—businesses that may account for more than 25% of our national economy—the analysis offered …

The Overwhelming Case For Elimination Of The Integration Doctrine Under The Securities Act Of 1933, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The thesis of this Article is that the Securities and Exchange Commission should entirely eliminate the integration doctrine from the Securities Act of1933. Under the integration doctrine, a single "offering" or "issue" of securities cannot be split. The doctrine is expensive for society and furthers no valid policy of the 1933 Act. More specifically, the doctrine does not promote investor protection but does retard capital formation, an outcome that is contrary to the presently articulated purposes of the 1933 Act.

Part II of this Article traces the history of the adoption of the integration doctrine both by the Commission and …

The Impact Of Nsmia On Small Issuers, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Small businesses may account for 40% of the business activities in this country, but capital formation rules always have discriminated against small businesses and imposed rules that make it unreasonably difficult for small companies to exploit external sources of capital. NSMIA, through its broad statutory delegation to the SEC of the right to expand the preemption of state blue sky laws, provides a unique opportunity for the Commission to deliver much-needed and much-deserved help to small issuers engaged in capital formation and to finally break the hegemonic hold states have over the rules governing capital formation by small businesses. Society …

The Plight Of Small Issuers Under The Securities Act Of 1933: Practical Foreclosure From The Capital Market, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The thesis of this Article is simple: the Securities Act of 1933 does not work very well for small issuers, a premise which the Securities and Exchange Commission appeared to tacitly recognize in a series of announcements released early this year. Because of a combination of exorbitant costs, unmanageable levels of ambiguity, unworkable resale provisions and contamination caused by prior illegal sales of stock, a small issuer often is unable to comply with the 1933 Act. As a result it may be difficult or even impossible for a small issuer to raise capital by selling stock.

There are obvious pernicious …