Search results

A pooled income fund (PIF) is one of the methods created under the 1969 Tax Reform Act whereby a taxpayer may make a tax‐deductible remainder gift to a charitable organization. The fund, established by a charitable organization to receive irrevocable gifts from at least two donors, pays current income to the individual beneficiaries for life, but at the termination of each income interest, the allocable principal must revert permanently to the charitable organization. In recent years, a number of PIFs have been offered to the public by charitable organizations through broker‐dealers or related entities. There are numerous securities‐law issues implicated by the sales of these PIFs, including: (i) whether broker‐dealers may solicit donations to such funds and receive compensation for their solicitations; (ii) the effect of the broker‐dealers’ solicitation and receipt of compensation have on securities registration for the PIF or units offered therein under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Investment Company Act of 1940; (iii) whether staff and persons affiliated with the sponsoring charity, including parties assisting them in the marketing of such pooled income funds, also should be permitted to solicit donations; (iv) whether such charities or persons, or parties assisting them in the marketing of such pooled income funds, then should be required to register as broker‐dealers; (v) what securities licenses may be required of the aforementioned parties; and (vi) whether there are ways to design the manner in which third parties other than broker dealers are compensated to resolve any potential issues arising from answers to the previous questions. This article first sets forth the applicable law involved in the analysis and then attempts to answer each of the issues presented above.

To summarize changes to the communication, registration, and offering process under the Securities Act of 1933 as adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2005 – three changes that will modify and significantly enhance the communication, registration, and offering process under the Securities Act of 1933, which according to the Commission are intended to eliminate “unnecessary and outmoded restrictions” on registered offerings. This article highlights the key provisions contained in the new rule release that are likely to affect the conduct of registered offerings.

Discusses benefits of automatic shelf registration, new provisions that will liberalize written communications before and during registered securities offerings, new disclosure liability rules, a new “access equals delivery” model, a separate requirement that investors be notified that they have purchased securities in a registered offering, a provision that allows reporting issuers to incorporate by reference previously filed Exchange Act reports into a Securities Act registration statement, a slight expansion of safe harbors available for broker‐dealers to publish research that constitutes an offer around the time of a registered offering, and changes in Exchange Act report disclosure.

The Securities and Exchange Commission intends the new rules to make the make the communication, registration, and offering process under the Securities Act of 1933 more efficient and to eliminate unnecessary and outmoded restrictions on registered offerings.

A practical guide to the new communication, registration, and offering rules.

The purpose of this paper is to survey the landscape of recent federal securities class actions filed in state court and explore arguments for removal of those cases to federal courts under the Securities Litigation Reform Act (SLUSA) or the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The paper discusses: US Congressional legislation designed to bring the bulk of securities class actions back into federal courts, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and SLUSA; CAFA, another law designed to redirect class action litigation away from state courts; recent cases that have tested the limits of SLUSA and CAFA for removal from state to federal courts; and arguments for removal under SLUSA and CAFA.

Legislative history for both SLUSA and CAFA suggests that these statutes should be read as evidence of Congressional intent to return most securities class actions to federal court. Nonetheless, plaintiffs have continued to devise legal schemes to litigate class actions in what they perceive to be friendlier forums in state courts.

Although the arguments discussed in this paper are not exhaustive, they are a starting point for defendants seeking removal once litigation arises.

The following is an overview of how the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), applies to securities professionals such as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and registered broker‐dealers who advise, manage, or trade for investment portfolios of employee benefit plans subject to ERISA. The principal focus of this outline is on securities registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), and securities of investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Many of these principles also will apply directly to unregistered securities, as well as to other investments offered by banks, insurance companies, commodity trading advisers and real estate advisers, though there may be some variation.

Considerable controversy has arisen in recent years over the management of customer‐broker conflict in the securities industry. Attention has been focused on the supposed voluntariness and neutrality of the conflict management processes. Arbitration, which is the standard form of conflict management in the securities industry, has received particularly strong criticism. This article explains the basis for customer‐broker conflicts, the controversy surrounding the use of arbitration as a means of conflict management, and the case law regulating securities disputes.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.

The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings.

The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare.

The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion.

Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The private placement is the principal alternative method of financing to an SEC registered offering. The private placement avoids registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) with its concomitant costs and delays. It also avoids periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for foreign private issuers. Issuers frequently resell their private placement securities abroad or to other qualified institutional investors. The combination of statutory exemptions, Rule 144A, Regulation S, and other SEC initiatives enable issuers to take advantage of these benefits

The purpose of this chapter is to expose the limitations of the equity-based crowdfunding provisions of the 2012 JOBS Act. These provisions have received much attention because they have the potential to open funding opportunities to countless underfunded entrepreneurs and small businesses. In addition, they can provide everyday investors with new ways to diversify their portfolios. However, the author asserts that the JOBS Act is unlikely to be successful in its current incarnation, because it overly burdens the entrepreneur with reporting and accountability requirements, among other things. The author resolves these issues by articulating a regulatory alternative to the JOBS Act.

This chapter reviews the general requirements for equity-based crowdfunding under the 2012 JOBS Act. It also reviews the various approaches individual states and other countries have taken to promote equity-based crowdfunding.

The existing law and proposed regulations for equity-based crowdfunding under the JOBS Act are overly burdensome and will impair the ability of entrepreneurs and small-businesses to successfully use equity-based crowdfunding throughout the United States. Regulators and other lawmakers need to adopt new rules focused on protecting consumers via spending limits.

Most of the research is based on theory, because the equity-based regulations have not been finalized or implemented at the federal level. However, the United States can learn much from the equity-based crowdfunding efforts of individual states and other countries.

This chapter’s critique is designed to engage lawmakers, regulators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses in a new discussion about equity-based crowdfunding regulations.

This paper aims to summarize the requirements of a new US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule regarding certain communications relating to security-based swaps in the context of the SEC’s ongoing efforts to establish its regulatory regime for such swaps.

This paper provides a close analysis of an SEC final rule that provides that certain communications relating to security-based swaps will not constitute “offers” for purposes of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, under which generally offers or sales of a security must be registered or made pursuant to an exemption from registration. The paper also analyzes the prospects for a general exemption from registration requirements for security-based swaps involving eligible contract participants, and it places the final rule in the context of the SEC’s broader efforts to establish its final rules for security-based swaps.

In addition to detailing the requirements of the final rule, this paper concludes that it is unlikely that the SEC will decide, generally, to exempt many security-based swaps from registration requirements, and that it is likely that a significant amount of time will elapse before the SEC finalizes most of its remaining rules for security-based swaps.

This paper contains valuable information regarding the regulation of security-based swaps in the context of securities regulation and the SEC’s other rules for such swaps.