Securities Law Commons^™

Proposed Crowdfunding Regulations Under The Jobs Act: Please, Sec, Revise Your Proposed Regulations In Order To Promote Small Business Capital Formation, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Advocacy

The Jobs Act was enacted to promote efficient access to external capital by small businesses. Title III of the Jobs Act offers small businesses the chance of efficient financial intermediation through crowdfunding. The crowdfunding exemption is not self-executing but, instead, requires regulatory implementation by the SEC.

The Commission’s first iteration of its crowdfunding rules fails to offer small businesses efficient access to external capital. Principally, this is because the proposed crowdfunding rules: (1) require excessive disclosures, especially regarding smaller crowdfunding offerings; (2) fail to offer small businesses relying on the crowdfunding exemption two-way safe harbor integration protection; and (3) fail …

Regulation A And The Jobs Act: A Failure To Resuscitate, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Regulation A offers small businesses an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. The exemption is generally consistent with the obligation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to fashion exemptions that balance investor protection and capital formation. From the perspective of small businesses, the exemption may appear to provide an efficient access to external capital.

Regulation A, however, has fallen into nearly complete disuse. The millions of small businesses in this country, all of which at some point need external capital to survive and grow, simply do not use Regulation A.

Two reasons account for small …

The Wreck Of Regulation D: The Unintended (And Bad) Outcomes For The Sec’S Crown Jewel Exemptions, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Regulation D is—or at least should be—the crown jewel of the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulatory exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. It offers businesses—especially businesses with relatively small capital requirements—fair and efficient access to vital, external capital.

In this article, I present data derived from deep samples of recent Form Ds filed with the Commission. The data show that Regulation D is not working in the way the Commission intended or in a way that benefits society The data reveal that companies attempting to raise relatively small amounts of capital under Regulation D overwhelmingly …

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 Insidious Remnants Of State Rules Respecting Capital Formation, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

As we move into the Twenty-First Century, state blue sky laws and regulations continue to govern a significant portion of the capital formation activities of our domestic businesses. As a result, state administrators, influenced by their historically informed preferences and local traditions, continue to play important roles when businesses attempt to access external capital sources.

Today, however, the effects of state blue sky laws, regulations, and administrators on capital formation are felt almost exclusively by small businesses. The capital formation activities of larger businesses generally have been freed from state control, most recently by the preemption contained in the National …

Blue Sky Laws And The Recent Congressional Preemption Failure, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Laws regarding the sale of securities may be understood as responses to perceived bargaining failures. The most extreme examples of these bargaining failures are seen in instances in which investors are intentionally misled or defrauded regarding the quality of the investments they receive for their money. Even without the presence of such culpability, however, bargaining failures are likely anytime the trading parties lack sufficient, accurate information necessary to effect value-enhancing trades. When that occurs in trades for capital, the parties to the transaction are misinformed respecting the trade, expectations are not protected, and that precious commodity, capital, may be turned …

An Open Attack On The Nonsense Of Blue Sky Regulation, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The evolution of state securities laws (hereinafter "blue sky laws") in this country is a classic example of regulation that was, perhaps, initially justified and that was apparently promulgated with the best of motives, but which now is actually harmful to society. Today, blue sky laws are ineffective, philosophically unsound, and unnecessarily expensive, and they should be substantially eliminated. Because of the vested interests that have developed, however, it is unlikely that states will respond to this problem, and it will probably take action by the United States Congress to preempt the area. Such an action is appropriate and, indeed, …

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 …