Landsman article - the effect of laughlin v. evanston hospital 1997.06blocklandsman
An article written by Laurence Landsman for the Loyola Consumer Law Reporter regarding the effect of Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital on Consumer Fraud Act Claims For Nondeceptive Unfair Acts or Practices.
Landsman article - the effect of laughlin v. evanston hospital 1997.06blocklandsman
An article written by Laurence Landsman for the Loyola Consumer Law Reporter regarding the effect of Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital on Consumer Fraud Act Claims For Nondeceptive Unfair Acts or Practices.
The unintended consequences of B-BBEE is Fronting and misrepresentation of BEE status. - President Jacob Zuma.
The new bill seeks to prosecute those who undermine governments plans of economic redress. BEE is now being used to expose corrupt practices in business. It's not corruption unless you commit a crime...well now, there you have it!
Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation goes into effect July 1, and marketers who believe that compliance with the United States’ CAN-SPAM Act also will cover their activities in Canada could be setting themselves up for a rude and expensive surprise. Unlike the opt-out approach of the United States’ CAN-SPAM Act, CASL’s opt-in orientation prohibits all commercial electronic messages (CEMs) that are sent without proper consumer consent, including e-mail, text, social media, sound and image messages.
TCPA and Contact Center Law: What's on the Horizon in 2017? Ryan Thurman
TCPA class action lawsuit filings surpassed 5,000 in 2016 alone. Top compliance strategies for dealing with the new administration at the FCC, FTC, and CFPB.
The "Your California Privacy Rights" clausetermsfeed
Why many websites include a “California Privacy Rights” clause somewhere within their Privacy Policy agreements.
More information is available on our blog post here:
https://termsfeed.com/blog/your-california-privacy-rights/
A 360 Degree Review of Penal Provisions’ Application under Competition Law ...KK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
Perhaps not many laws have been subject to so much public scrutiny as competition law either before its enactment or afterwards. Almost immediately after its enactment, just after a duly appointed Member had assumed office and before a duly appointed Chairman could enter office, the Competition Act, 2002(Act) was challenged on various counts. This resulted in a very strange situation. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) could not be called a Commission in terms of the Act which needed a minimum quorum of a Chairman and, at least, two Members for being a legally recognized Commission. So, the CCI remained a one Member body (not a full Commission) till as late as March 1, 2009 when, for the first time, a Chairman and two Members were in office and the CCI, in the eyes of law, was a full Commission. The enforcement powers to CCI came in stages. In first phase only advocacy functions were allowed. This was followed by antitrust enforcement powers being given to the Commission from May 20, 2009. Thereafter, regulations of combinations (popularly known as Merger Review) came into force with effect from June 1, 2011. There were always fears that the CCI may turn out to be as effective (or ineffective depending upon one’s perspective) as MRTPC. Now, that five years have passed since the time the CCI began to get its enforcement powers, it is high time to look back if the fears about the efficacy of the powers given to the CCI were justified or misplaced. The author, the only official in senior echelons of the CCI who not only saw the transition from a CCI doing only competition advocacy to a fully functional Commission but also played a very crucial role in this transition by way of being the very first Director General of the functional CCI, laying down the investigative framework of investigation, and later as the first head of Merger Control who gave the country its very efficient Merger Review Format, takes a look at this issue.
Expert witness CV / resume for Jason Coombs in fields of forensic engineering and expert witness services such as: derivatives trading algorithms, software, cloud computing, virtualization, information security and forensics, Internet architecture and services, software development and software analysis, electronic commerce, payments, trademarks, copyright infringement, cybercrime investigation, cybersecurity, criminal defense, patent litigation, vulnerability research, and network intrusion countermeasures.
The unintended consequences of B-BBEE is Fronting and misrepresentation of BEE status. - President Jacob Zuma.
The new bill seeks to prosecute those who undermine governments plans of economic redress. BEE is now being used to expose corrupt practices in business. It's not corruption unless you commit a crime...well now, there you have it!
Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation goes into effect July 1, and marketers who believe that compliance with the United States’ CAN-SPAM Act also will cover their activities in Canada could be setting themselves up for a rude and expensive surprise. Unlike the opt-out approach of the United States’ CAN-SPAM Act, CASL’s opt-in orientation prohibits all commercial electronic messages (CEMs) that are sent without proper consumer consent, including e-mail, text, social media, sound and image messages.
TCPA and Contact Center Law: What's on the Horizon in 2017? Ryan Thurman
TCPA class action lawsuit filings surpassed 5,000 in 2016 alone. Top compliance strategies for dealing with the new administration at the FCC, FTC, and CFPB.
The "Your California Privacy Rights" clausetermsfeed
Why many websites include a “California Privacy Rights” clause somewhere within their Privacy Policy agreements.
More information is available on our blog post here:
https://termsfeed.com/blog/your-california-privacy-rights/
A 360 Degree Review of Penal Provisions’ Application under Competition Law ...KK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
Perhaps not many laws have been subject to so much public scrutiny as competition law either before its enactment or afterwards. Almost immediately after its enactment, just after a duly appointed Member had assumed office and before a duly appointed Chairman could enter office, the Competition Act, 2002(Act) was challenged on various counts. This resulted in a very strange situation. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) could not be called a Commission in terms of the Act which needed a minimum quorum of a Chairman and, at least, two Members for being a legally recognized Commission. So, the CCI remained a one Member body (not a full Commission) till as late as March 1, 2009 when, for the first time, a Chairman and two Members were in office and the CCI, in the eyes of law, was a full Commission. The enforcement powers to CCI came in stages. In first phase only advocacy functions were allowed. This was followed by antitrust enforcement powers being given to the Commission from May 20, 2009. Thereafter, regulations of combinations (popularly known as Merger Review) came into force with effect from June 1, 2011. There were always fears that the CCI may turn out to be as effective (or ineffective depending upon one’s perspective) as MRTPC. Now, that five years have passed since the time the CCI began to get its enforcement powers, it is high time to look back if the fears about the efficacy of the powers given to the CCI were justified or misplaced. The author, the only official in senior echelons of the CCI who not only saw the transition from a CCI doing only competition advocacy to a fully functional Commission but also played a very crucial role in this transition by way of being the very first Director General of the functional CCI, laying down the investigative framework of investigation, and later as the first head of Merger Control who gave the country its very efficient Merger Review Format, takes a look at this issue.
Expert witness CV / resume for Jason Coombs in fields of forensic engineering and expert witness services such as: derivatives trading algorithms, software, cloud computing, virtualization, information security and forensics, Internet architecture and services, software development and software analysis, electronic commerce, payments, trademarks, copyright infringement, cybercrime investigation, cybersecurity, criminal defense, patent litigation, vulnerability research, and network intrusion countermeasures.
JOBS Act Rule 506(c) Federal Subpoena to Jason Coombs from Securities and Exc...Jason Coombs
Read the federal subpoena provided to Jason Coombs by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on December 18, 2013 relating to Regulation D Rule 506(c) securities offerings being advertised publicly in compliance with the JOBS Act by startups.
Smaller Reporting Companies vs. Emerging Growth Companies- The topic of reporting requirements and distinctions between various categories of reporting companies has been prevalent over the past couple of years as regulators and industry insiders examine changes to the reporting requirements for all companies, andqualifications for the various categories of scaled disclosure requirements. As I’ve
written about these developments, I have noticed inconsistencies in the treatment of smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies in ways that are likely the result of poor drafting or unintended consequences...
Periodic Reporting - Ask Securities Lawyer 101Brenda Hamilton
Companies become subject to the SEC’s periodic reporting requirements a number of ways including by filing a registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended or pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC periodic reporting rules require that publicly traded companies disclose a wealth of information to the public. Periodic reporting also requires that these reports… Read More
Public Company Reporting (Series: Securities Law Made Simple (Not Really) Financial Poise
Once public, a company is subject to a continuously evolving landscape of disclosure and reporting requirements. Recent disclosure developments have addressed everything from executive compensation to cybersecurity. In addition, the prevalence of social media has made it such that a company must now consider not only the nuances of what to disclose but also how to deliver that disclosure. Is your company tweeting its earnings reports; are you using your corporate Facebook page to make Regulation FD disclosures?
In this webinar our expert panel provides you with a high-level overview of key public company reporting and disclosure requirements, including the latest developments brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act, JOBS Act, FAST Act and, most recently, the SEC’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, as well as provide you with tangible examples and practical advice on how to comply with the ever-changing means of delivering that disclosure.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/public-company-reporting-2020/
Regulation A- On November 17, 2016, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A. Since the new Regulation A came into effect on June 19, 2015, its use has continued to steadily increase. In my practice alone I am noticing a large uptick in broker-dealer-placed Regulation A offerings, and recently, institutional investor interest...
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) just issued a press release announcing KBR, Inc. has its “first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements with the potential to stifle the whistleblowing process.”
At issue, was KBR, Inc.’s standard practice of requiring employees interviewed in internal investigations to sign confidentiality statements with the following language:
“I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during the interview, without the prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure of information may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
The SEC found those terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action that would impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.
In addition to agreeing to pay a fine of $130,000, KBR, Inc. also agreed to amend its standard confidentiality statement signed by employees interviewed during an internal investigation to read as follows:
“Nothing in this Confidentiality Statement prohibits me from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General, or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation. I do not need the prior authorization of the Law Department to make any such reports or disclosures and I am not required to notify the company that I have made such reports or disclosures.”
To read more visit www.WinWinHR.com
This presentation explains in detail and a lucid manner, all the provisions of SEBI Takeover code. Also, it deals with certain debatable issues under the code.
Comments on SEC File Number 4-692 (Accredited Investor) and S7-06-13 (Regulat...Jason Coombs
My comment letter submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to the SEC report on the review of the "Accredited Investor" definition required by the Dodd-Frank Act and pending revisions to Regulation D.
Lecture slide titled Fraud Risk Mitigation, Webinar Lecture Delivered at the Society for West African Internal Audit Practitioners (SWAIAP) on Wednesday, November 8, 2023.
2. Elemental Economics - Mineral demand.pdfNeal Brewster
After this second you should be able to: Explain the main determinants of demand for any mineral product, and their relative importance; recognise and explain how demand for any product is likely to change with economic activity; recognise and explain the roles of technology and relative prices in influencing demand; be able to explain the differences between the rates of growth of demand for different products.
The secret way to sell pi coins effortlessly.DOT TECH
Well as we all know pi isn't launched yet. But you can still sell your pi coins effortlessly because some whales in China are interested in holding massive pi coins. And they are willing to pay good money for it. If you are interested in selling I will leave a contact for you. Just what'sapp this number below. I sold about 3000 pi coins to him and he paid me immediately.
+12349014282
What price will pi network be listed on exchangesDOT TECH
The rate at which pi will be listed is practically unknown. But due to speculations surrounding it the predicted rate is tends to be from 30$ — 50$.
So if you are interested in selling your pi network coins at a high rate tho. Or you can't wait till the mainnet launch in 2026. You can easily trade your pi coins with a merchant.
A merchant is someone who buys pi coins from miners and resell them to Investors looking forward to hold massive quantities till mainnet launch.
I will leave the what's app number of my personal pi vendor to trade with.
+12349014282
Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership NetworksGRAPE
Seminar on gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks at FAME|GRAPE. Presenting novel research. Studies in economics and management using econometrics methods.
Financial Assets: Debit vs Equity Securities.pptxWrito-Finance
financial assets represent claim for future benefit or cash. Financial assets are formed by establishing contracts between participants. These financial assets are used for collection of huge amounts of money for business purposes.
Two major Types: Debt Securities and Equity Securities.
Debt Securities are Also known as fixed-income securities or instruments. The type of assets is formed by establishing contracts between investor and issuer of the asset.
• The first type of Debit securities is BONDS. Bonds are issued by corporations and government (both local and national government).
• The second important type of Debit security is NOTES. Apart from similarities associated with notes and bonds, notes have shorter term maturity.
• The 3rd important type of Debit security is TRESURY BILLS. These securities have short-term ranging from three months, six months, and one year. Issuer of such securities are governments.
• Above discussed debit securities are mostly issued by governments and corporations. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS CDs are issued by Banks and Financial Institutions. Risk factor associated with CDs gets reduced when issued by reputable institutions or Banks.
Following are the risk attached with debt securities: Credit risk, interest rate risk and currency risk
There are no fixed maturity dates in such securities, and asset’s value is determined by company’s performance. There are two major types of equity securities: common stock and preferred stock.
Common Stock: These are simple equity securities and bear no complexities which the preferred stock bears. Holders of such securities or instrument have the voting rights when it comes to select the company’s board of director or the business decisions to be made.
Preferred Stock: Preferred stocks are sometime referred to as hybrid securities, because it contains elements of both debit security and equity security. Preferred stock confers ownership rights to security holder that is why it is equity instrument
<a href="https://www.writofinance.com/equity-securities-features-types-risk/" >Equity securities </a> as a whole is used for capital funding for companies. Companies have multiple expenses to cover. Potential growth of company is required in competitive market. So, these securities are used for capital generation, and then uses it for company’s growth.
Concluding remarks
Both are employed in business. Businesses are often established through debit securities, then what is the need for equity securities. Companies have to cover multiple expenses and expansion of business. They can also use equity instruments for repayment of debits. So, there are multiple uses for securities. As an investor, you need tools for analysis. Investment decisions are made by carefully analyzing the market. For better analysis of the stock market, investors often employ financial analysis of companies.
where can I find a legit pi merchant onlineDOT TECH
Yes. This is very easy what you need is a recommendation from someone who has successfully traded pi coins before with a merchant.
Who is a pi merchant?
A pi merchant is someone who buys pi network coins and resell them to Investors looking forward to hold thousands of pi coins before the open mainnet.
I will leave the what'sapp contact of my personal pi merchant to trade with
+12349014282
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdfNeal Brewster
After this first you should: Understand the nature of mining; have an awareness of the industry’s boundaries, corporate structure and size; appreciation the complex motivations and objectives of the industries’ various participants; know how mineral reserves are defined and estimated, and how they evolve over time.
^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Duba...mayaclinic18
Whatsapp (+971581248768) Buy Abortion Pills In Dubai/ Qatar/Kuwait/Doha/Abu Dhabi/Alain/RAK City/Satwa/Al Ain/Abortion Pills For Sale In Qatar, Doha. Abu az Zuluf. Abu Thaylah. Ad Dawhah al Jadidah. Al Arish, Al Bida ash Sharqiyah, Al Ghanim, Al Ghuwariyah, Qatari, Abu Dhabi, Dubai.. WHATSAPP +971)581248768 Abortion Pills / Cytotec Tablets Available in Dubai, Sharjah, Abudhabi, Ajman, Alain, Fujeira, Ras Al Khaima, Umm Al Quwain., UAE, buy cytotec in Dubai– Where I can buy abortion pills in Dubai,+971582071918where I can buy abortion pills in Abudhabi +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Sharjah,+97158207191 8where I can buy abortion pills in Ajman, +971)581248768 where I can buy abortion pills in Umm al Quwain +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Fujairah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Ras al Khaimah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Alain+971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in UAE +971)581248768 we are providing cytotec 200mg abortion pill in dubai, uae.Medication abortion offers an alternative to Surgical Abortion for women in the early weeks of pregnancy. Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman
The Rise of Generative AI in Finance: Reshaping the Industry with Synthetic DataChampak Jhagmag
In this presentation, we will explore the rise of generative AI in finance and its potential to reshape the industry. We will discuss how generative AI can be used to develop new products, combat fraud, and revolutionize risk management. Finally, we will address some of the ethical considerations and challenges associated with this powerful technology.
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024 - Ricerca sulle Startup e il Sistema dell'Innov...Quotidiano Piemontese
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024
Una ricerca de il Club degli Investitori, in collaborazione con ToTeM Torino Tech Map e con il supporto della ESCP Business School e di Growth Capital
JOBS Act Rulemaking Comments on SEC File Number S7-11-13 Dated March 26, 2014 Part 2
1. PUBLIC STARTUP COMPANY, INC.
https://www.publicstartup.com
2360 Corporate Circle, Suite 400
Henderson, NV 89074-7739
March 26, 2014
To: Mary Jo White, Chair From: Jason Coombs, Co-Founder and CEO
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary Public Startup Company, Inc.
Charles Kwon, Office of Chief Counsel, http://twitter.com/JasonCoombsCEO
Division of Corporation Finance http://JOBS-ACT.com/Coombs.Jason
Securities and Exchange Commission http://facebook.com/publicstartup/info
100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090 http://linkedin.com/in/jasoncoombs
CC: rule-comments@sec.gov http://facebook.com/JasonCoombsCEO
Re: File No. S7-11-13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-23/pdf/2013-30508.pdf
JOBS Act legislation URL http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf
This comment addresses the 141-page Proposed Rules for revision to Regulation A pursuant to Title IV
“SMALL COMPANY CAPITAL FORMATION”, JOBS Act Section 401 & Rel. #34-71120 & #39-2493
I previously urged the SEC to formally adopt “A Bill of Rights for Securities Issuers Under The JOBS
Act” https://publicstartup.com/A_Bill_of_Rights_for_Securities_Issuers_Under_The_JOBS_Act.pdf
I have been writing letters to the SEC since 2012 when the corrupt, criminal, outrageous action of the
former Chair, Mary Schapiro, and her co-conspirators including most of the present Commissioners,
first made it clear to me that the SEC was going to continue to be the problem rather than the solution.
My previous letters have been tweeted on my Twitter account: https://twitter.com/JasonCoombsCEO
I submitted 4 comment letters previously published at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-11-13/s71113.shtml
After reviewing the other submitted comment letters published by the Commission on its website this week
regarding Title IV of the JOBS Act and the revisions to Regulation A including the new Regulation A+ Rule
codified in Section 3(b)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act, my viewpoint on the optimal final Rule has changed
slightly. I now urge the Commission to adopt a final Rule, without further delay or debate, substantially as
proposed by the Commission including the following minor modifications to accommodate State regulators:
1. The proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 should be revised to include a Tier 3 such that the proposed Tier 2 would
become the new Tier 3. The new Tier 2 would be nearly identical to Tier 3 except it would contain a lesser
annual limit on capital that can be raised through the Offering, and instead of being required to supply to the
Commission any audited financial statements at the time of filing to qualify the Offering under Tier 2 the
issuer should be expressly permitted to provide only unaudited financial statements unless audited financial
statements are otherwise available just as proposed presently by the Commission for its Tier 1 Offering. All
three Tiers could be required to supply periodic reports to the Commission, within the requirements of the
Tier through which the issuer qualified with the SEC to conduct its public offering under Regulation A+.
2. It appears necessary for the Commission to require three Tiers of auditing standard compliance to match
the principles of “small”, “medium” and “large” Regulation A+ Offerings above. Tier 1 Offerings should be
required to comply with the same follow-on reporting requirements as a Tier 2 Offering post-Offering, such
that if the final Rule requires filing with the Commission audited financial statements after the end of the
first 12 months following the date of qualification for the Regulation A+ Offering, for example, then Tier 1
Offerings should likewise be required to begin minimum reporting requirements on the same schedule.
However, Tier 1 Offerings could perhaps never require audited financial statements, but instead permit ALL
Directors and Officers of the issuer to file sworn affidavits attesting to the accuracy and truthfulness of the
2. unaudited financial statements. In this Tier 1 auditing standard (effectively a “self-auditing” by the issuer's
Directors and Officers) the sworn affidavits filed with the SEC should create criminal liability risk for fraud
if the issuer's Directors and Officers are found later to have committed perjury and filed a false document
with the Commission. Compared to the proposed Tier 1 requirement of no audited financial statements this
new “self-auditing” regime would be superior for both federal and state criminal law enforcement and also
for state securities regulators who may otherwise not even be able to easily determine who the Directors and
Officers are of a questionable issuer whose activities in their State necessitate future enforcement actions.
The new Tier 2 and Tier 3 auditing standards above my new concept of “self-auditing” should easily fit with
the various comments supplied by auditors and others along the lines of Tier 2 Offerings being eligible for
lesser audit standards (including perhaps no AICPA independence standard mandate) and no requirement
for PCAOB inspections. Tier 3 Offerings should clearly be subject to the most stringent audit standards of
PCAOB and GAAP accounting. There should also be a “safe harbor” or something promulgated by the
Commission that clearly exempts issuers from ever being required to retroactive restate, revise and re-audit
when it grows from a Tier 1 to a Tier 2 to a Tier 3 and finally to a fully-reporting registered issuer over time.
3. All three Tiers must be afforded preemption from State registration or review except for a Tier 1 Offering
in which the issuer is a local business that does not plan to operate in multiple states or does not propose to
engage in substantial inter-state commerce or otherwise is deemed by the Commission to be a “local” issuer.
The State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division comment letter submitted
on March 24, 2014 by William M. Beatty makes a very compelling case for excluding such “local” issuers
from qualifying for preemption in at least Tier 1 Offerings. I also believe that “local” issuers should perhaps
always be ineligible for preemption on any Tier in Regulation A+ Offerings if the SEC can formulate a fair
and workable policy for determining objectively what “local” issuers look like versus “national” issuers.
For “national” issuers of Regulation A+ securities to be ineligible for preemption would be an absurd final
Rule feature which would not implement the explicit requirements of Title IV of the JOBS Act nor would it
be consistent with the intent of Congress in passing the JOBS Act. Even in light of the legislative history in
terms of a previously-considered explicit preemption provision in Title IV, it is obvious that Congress could
have expressly required registration with state securities regulators as a condition of qualifying for this new
Regulation A+ Offering mechanism. Instead of inserting such language in the final legislation, Congress has
obviously left this question of preemption to the Commission to decide based on its research and expertise.
I do believe it is necessary for “local” issuers to continue to be required to register with state regulators. I
also think it would be helpful for it to be part of the final Rule to remind everyone that it is optional for
issuers to file to qualify with the SEC and that even “national” issuers who conduct business across state
lines in substantial volume can opt instead to file to register local Offerings that are regulated only by the
State or States in which the issuer has its domicile and/or its primary place of business. It is clear to me that
many people, even accredited “angel” investors, simply do not comprehend that electing federal jurisdiction
for an Offering is a choice that is made by the issuer based on their planned behavior in marketing their new
securities Offering. I believe there should be, expressly stated in the final Rule, a path for Regulation A+
Offerings to be conducted locally, within a single State or a limited number of States, without requiring any
qualifying filings with the SEC, wherein periodic reports would be filed only with the State regulators and
the new “Coordinated Review” regime being advanced by the State regulators would thus preempt federal
jurisdiction by being a “safe harbor” for sales within the States where any given local Offering is qualified.
The questions of preemption for subsequent resales of the unrestricted unregistered securities are complex,
but they could be made easier for everyone to understand and manage if the Rule 15c2-11 requirements are
deemed satisfied by periodic publication pursuant to Regulation A+ even in the case of a “local” Offering.
4. The Commission must clarify whether Regulation A+ Offerings can be offered and sold through brokers.
5. Investors must be required to certify they're sophisticated and have visited the INVESTOR.GOV website.
Without at least minimal requirement for self-certification of investor qualification, the final Rule is flawed.