News & Analysis as of

Securities Act of 1933 › Corporations Code

The Securities Act of 1933 is a United States federal statute enacted in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. The Act has two primary purposes: 1) to give investors better... more +
The Securities Act of 1933 is a United States federal statute enacted in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. The Act has two primary purposes: 1) to give investors better access to material information prior to investing 2) ensure that transactions are not based on fraud. In order to effectuate its dual goals, the Act requires that any offer or sale of securities is registered with the SEC. less -
Allen Matkins

If The Shares Of A Chinese Company Are Delisted, What Happens To Trading In California?

Allen Matkins on

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal includes a story about the possible delisting of shares of Chinese companies.  Shares of companies that are listed, or authorized for listing, on a national securities exchange (or tier or...more

Allen Matkins

Does The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 Preclude Actions In State Court Under Corporations Code Section 25401?

Allen Matkins on

Section 25401 of the California Corporations Code declares generally declares unlawful to make false statements of a material fact or or omit material facts when buying or selling a security.  It is therefore similar to Rule...more

Allen Matkins

A Form D Is Not A Registration Statement And Why It Might Matter

Allen Matkins on

Securities law practitioners know that Section 5(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 generally makes it unlawful to sell a security unless a registration statement is in effect, or the security or the transaction is exempt. ...more

Goodwin

Federal Reserve Hints at Government-Backed Cryptocurrency

Goodwin on

Federal Reserve Hints at Government-Backed Cryptocurrency; Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Against Shutterfly Inc. Regarding Allegedly Misleading Financial Projections; Ninth Circuit Holds...more

Allen Matkins

Four Decades After Being Abolished, Some California Corporations Continue To Refer To "Treasury Stock"

Allen Matkins on

Treasury shares are shares that a corporation has issued and then reacquired but not retired. Hence, they are shares that have been issued but are no longer outstanding. In some states, treasury shares retain some legal...more

Allen Matkins

Woodbridge Trustee Seeks Relief In California's Corporate Securities Law

Allen Matkins on

On Monday, the trustee of the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust filed a lawsuit against numerous law firms and lawyers. The trustee's lawsuit relates to the reportedly $1.3 billion Ponzi scheme allegedly orchestrated by Robert H....more

Allen Matkins

Court Rules No Scienter Required

Allen Matkins on

Both Corporations Code Section 25401 and Rule 10b-5 concern securities fraud. Section 25401, however, was modeled on Section 12(2) (now 12(a)(2)) of the Securities Act of 1933 while Section 10b-5 was adopted under Section...more

Allen Matkins

How Close A Relation Is Section 25110 To Section 12(a)?

Allen Matkins on

Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 covers two types of civil liability. Section 12(a)(1) concerns violations of Section 5 which imposes registration and prospectus delivery requirements on the offer and sale of...more

Allen Matkins

In California Not Every Beneficial Interest In A Trust Is A Security

Allen Matkins on

California's statutory definition of "security" lists by name two types of trust certificates - collateral trust certificates and voting trust certificates. Cal. Corp. Code § 25109. Both of these certificates are also found...more

Perkins Coie

Delaware Court of Chancery Clarifies Enforceability of Corporate Forum-Selection Provisions

Perkins Coie on

Earlier this week, the Delaware Court of Chancery held in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, No. 2017-0931-JTL (Del. Ch. 2018), that corporate forum-selection provisions are ineffective as to claims under the federal Securities Act of...more

Allen Matkins

How To Avoid A Section 11 Liability In A Stock-For-Stock Merger

Allen Matkins on

John Jenkins at DealLawyers.com recently wrote about Section 11 claims being filed in state court by purchasers in stock-for-stock mergers. Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 authorizes a cause of action against...more

Allen Matkins

Buyer Liability Under The California Corporate Securities Law

Allen Matkins on

My post on October 19, 2018, post concerned liability under Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. As noted in the post, Section 12(a)(2), unlike Section 12(a)(1), is an antifraud statute. It imposes liability on any...more

A&O Shearman

Northern District Of California Denies Motion To Remand Putative Class Action Asserting Both Securities Act And State Law Claims

A&O Shearman on

On August 10, 2018, United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to remand to state court a putative securities class action...more

Allen Matkins

Fairness Hearings Are Not Just For Merger Transactions

Allen Matkins on

Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act provides an exemption from Securities Act registration for offers and sales of securities in specified exchange transactions. There are several conditions to the exemption, including...more

Allen Matkins

When An LLC Interest Is A Security

Allen Matkins on

Yesterday's post concerned U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Ann Bashant's recent ruling that a plaintiff had failed to plead adequately the existence of a security. D.R. Mason Constr. Co. v. GBOD, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS...more

Allen Matkins

Corp Fin’s New Rule 701 C&DI And California’s Compensation Plan Exemption

Allen Matkins on

Yesterday, Broc Romanek reported that Corp Fin has published a new C&DI addressing the permissibility of electronic delivery of disclosures under Rule 701(e). Readers will recall that Rule 701 is an exemption from the...more

Allen Matkins

This California Court Held That A Limited Partnership Is No Person

Allen Matkins on

In preceding posts, I commented on the multifarious definitions of “person” in the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act of 1934 and various laws within the California Corporations Code. As noted, the Corporations Code’s...more

Allen Matkins

Multifarious Meanings of “Person”

Allen Matkins on

Last Friday, I observed that the definitions of “person” found in the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act are oddly incongruous. The California Corporations Code is similarly inharmonious. Section 18 of the Code,...more

Allen Matkins

Are Limited Liability Companies “Persons”?

Allen Matkins on

Limited liability companies did not exist when Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Therefore, it should be no surprise that as originally enacted, these acts did not mention...more

Allen Matkins

Must A Security Be Written?

Allen Matkins on

In yesterday’s post, I covered some of the differences between the laundry lists of securities found in the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 and the Securities Act of 1933. Both lists seem to contemplate...more

Allen Matkins

This Ruling Appears To “Unravel The Very Fabric Of The Space-time Continuum”

Allen Matkins on

In prior posts, I’ve cast a jaundiced eye on last year’s amendment of California’s general securities fraud statute, Corporations Code Section 25401. See Die Verwandlung: How The Legislature Likely Raised The Bar On...more

21 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide