Law Commons^™

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …