Law Commons^™

Regulation A: Small Businesses’ Search For “A Moderate Capital”, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Small businesses are an important part of our national economy, accounting for as much as 40% of our total economic activity and providing society with important services and products.

Small businesses face daunting economic, structural, and legal impediments when they attempt to acquire external capital. The absence of financial inter-mediation services means that they are almost always on their own to find investors. Their small capital needs mean that their relative offering costs are often sky high. Federal and state securities rules significantly exacerbate these economic and structural disadvantages by imposing onerous and unwarranted conditions on their search for external …

Business Law Reform In The United States: Thinking Too Small?, Douglas C. Michael

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Dean Johan Henning presents the South African experience with business entity reform as one part of a coordinated whole. It included, for example, government funding for business, tax reforms, accounting and securities changes. Henning says that these reforms, though multi-faceted, had a uniform purpose: to use small business as an engine to improve the economy and to move “historically and socially disadvantaged groups” into the mainstream of the economy and the society.

These are noble goals and far reaching efforts, and a lot to ask of business entity reform. But because the South African experience was nonetheless successful by all …

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 …

Untenable Status Of Corporate Governance Listing Standards Under The Securities Exchange Act, Douglas C. Michael

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

United States securities markets operate under a system of supervised self-regulation created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). That system includes substantive regulation of the traders and the issuers of securities traded in those markets through the use of listing standards.

These listing standards have a unique status. They are part of a self-regulatory system, but are not classic self-regulation. The markets do not govern the traders of which it consists; rather, it governs outsiders—the issuers. The markets and the Securities and Exchange Commissions have sought to control issuers in ways not clearly related to trading in …

The Plight Of Small Issuers (And Others) Under Regulation D: Those Nagging Problems That Need Attention, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Regulation D traces its roots to section 4(2) and section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. Both of these sections are designed to relieve an issuer from the pains of registration under the 1933 Act in situations where Congress deemed such registration inappropriate. Therefore, under section 4(2), no registration is required for "transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering." Section 3(b) is not a self-executing exemption but instead permits the Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules and regulations exempting issuers from registration requirements "if it finds that ... [registration] is not necessary in the public interest …

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. V. Green: An Analysis Two Years Later, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In 1977, the Supreme Court decided Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green. Although the outcome of that decision should have surprised no one, since the trend of the Court clearly had been to constrict the scope of the federal securities legislation, the case was a major decision that will have a substantial impact on the development of corporate law in this country. Indeed, it may turn out to be one of the most significant corporate cases decided by the Supreme Court in recent years. Since by this point the dust has settled from the case, it seems appropriate to …

Definition Of Control In Secondary Distributions, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Act) generally subjects the sale of securities by a person "controlling an issuer" to the same rules that govern the sale of securities by an issuer. Accordingly, before a "control" person may sell the securities he holds in the controlled corporation he must either register them with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) or qualify for an exemption from the registration requirement. While the Act clearly requires that a "control" person either register or qualify for an exemption, it fails to define "control." Thus, the task of defining has fallen to the …