首页> 外文期刊>The Business Lawyer >Testing the Limits of NSMIA Preemption: State Authority to Determine the Validity of Covered Securities and to Regulate Disclosure
【24h】

Testing the Limits of NSMIA Preemption: State Authority to Determine the Validity of Covered Securities and to Regulate Disclosure

机译:测试NSMIA优先购买权的限制:国家机关确定涵盖证券的有效性并监管披露

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The National Securities Market Improvements Act of 1996 ("NSMIA") significantly limited the scope of state securities regulation under blue sky laws. NSMIA preempted state authority over the registration and qualification of securities offerings deemed "national" in character and established categories of "covered securities" for the purpose of setting those limits. NSMIA includes among "covered securities" those securities offered and sold pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933. Recent state and federal courts have determined that the issuer must show the actual validity of, and not mere reliance on, the exemption and, just as important, have recognized that states may determine whether the exemption applies and exercise registration-related enforcement authority where the exemption is ruled invalid. At the same time, NSMIA expressly preserves general state antifraud enforcement authority. Some courts have upheld the state's exercise of antifraud enforcement authority to prohibit specific fraudulent issuer disclosure documents within the state in an offering of NSMIA "covered securities." These two sets of cases set up a confrontation between the historic mission of blue sky laws and the intended scope of NSMIA preemption that opens the door to reconsideration of the purpose of NSMIA. We call for a balance of federal and state regulatory authority that is consistent with the actual realignment of roles that NSMIA was designed to accomplish.
机译:1996年的《国家证券市场改善法》(“ NSMIA”)极大地限制了蓝天法律下的州证券监管范围。为了设定这些限制,NSMIA抢占了国家机关对登记为“国家”性质的证券发行的注册和资格以及确定“涵盖证券”类别的权限。 NSMIA将根据1933年《证券法》 D规则第506条提供和出售的那些证券包括在“发现的证券”中。最近的州和联邦法院已确定发行人必须表明发行人的实际有效性,而不仅仅是依靠发行人的真实性。豁免,并且同等重要的是,已经认识到各州可以确定该豁免是否适用,并在裁定为无效的地方行使与登记相关的执法权限。同时,NSMIA明确保留了一般州反欺诈执法权。一些法院支持该州行使反欺诈执法权力,以禁止在NSMIA“发现的证券”发行中在该州内部特定的欺诈性发行人披露文件。这两套案例在蓝天法律的历史使命和NSMIA优先购买权的预期范围之间建立了对抗,这为重新考虑NSMIA的宗旨打开了大门。我们要求在联邦和州监管机构之间取得平衡,这与NSMIA旨在完成的角色的实际调整保持一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号