Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

Just How Many Errors Can Be Found In The Securities Act?

I’ve recently completed my editing of the annual update to Marsh & Volk’s treatise, Practice Under the California Securities Laws.  One source of frustration has been to account for and explain the numerous technical errors in the securities laws.  When I refer to “errors”, I don’t mean policy decisions with which I disagree.  I mean the much more mundane mistakes of numbering and reference.

For example, Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 includes multiple references the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 even though Congress renamed that Code nearly 30 years ago.  Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.  The same mistake can be found in Section 3(a)(5) of the Securities Act.  Rules 132 and 180 under the Securities Act are also frozen in the 1950s.

Section 18 of the Securities Act is rife with problems.  For example, there are subparagraphs (D) and (F), but no subparagraph (E).  Subsection 18(b)(1)(A) continues to refer to the National Market System of the Nasdaq Stock Market even though almost a decade has passed since Nasdaq became a stock exchange.  Subsection 18(b)(4) is also terribly inconsistent.  Subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) continue to refer to Sections 4(1), 4(3), 4(4) and 4(6) of the Securities Act even though those sections are now Sections 4(a)(1), 4(a)(3), 4(a)(4) and 4(a)(6).  At the same time, subparagraph (G) refers to Section 4(a)(7).

 

 

Share on:

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

Related Articles