Since it first enacted the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in 2012, Congress has continued to modify the original JOBS Act as part of an ongoing effort to try to boost small businesses and business startups. For example, in 2015, Congress acted to expand a number of the JOBS Act’s provisions. On July 17, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed what has been referred to as the JOBS Act 3.0. By a vote of 406-4, the House passed the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018, which is designed to further encourage capital formation and market access for small business enterprises. The House Financial Services Committee’s July 17, 2018 statement about the legislation can be found here.
Continue Reading House Passes JOBS Act 3.0
Is Over-Regulation Really the Reason There are Fewer IPOs?
One of the recurring themes of financial commentators has been the decline in the number of IPOs compared to prior years. Articles about the dearth of IPOs are something of a staple in the financial press. The decline in the number of IPOs has also drawn the attention of Congress. One of the intended purposes of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 was to try to encourage more companies to go public. A number of other initiatives to try to encourage more IPOs are currently circulating through Congress. The premise behind these various legislative initiatives is that if the regulatory burdens can be eliminated and costs reduced, more companies will go public. Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee recently testified before a Congressional committee about these latest initiatives. His testimony is set out in a May 29, 2018 CLS Blue Sky Blog article entitled “The Irrepresssible Myth That SEC Overregulation Has Chilled IPOs” (here), reflecting his skepticism that further deregulation alone will result in increased numbers of IPOs.
Continue Reading Is Over-Regulation Really the Reason There are Fewer IPOs?
Guest Post: Some States Have Sidestepped the JOBS Act’s Burdensome Crowdfunding Rules
In a recent post, I noted the concerns that are developing as the various provisions of the JOBS Act are staged in. These concerns are sufficiently significant that only two years after Congress passed the JOBS Act, there are proposals circulating in Congress to revise some of the JOBS Act’s provisions. Among the areas
JOBS Act: Only Two Years Old and Already Revision Proposals are Circulating
The Jumpstart our Business Startups (JOBS) Act is only just two years old but there are already apparently Congressional initiatives to revise one of the centerpieces of the legislation, the much-vaunted crowdfunding provisions that have not yet in fact even gone into effect. According to a May 1, 2014 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Frustration
Legislative Reform for the Securities Laws Before the 2010 Elections?
Over the years, legislative reforms of the U.S. securities laws have cycled back and forth, between initiatives, on the one hand, to discourage abusive litigation and, on the other hand, to restrain corporate misconduct. In the current Wall Street bailout, post-Madoff environment, sentiment may be running high for legislative reforms that could expand liabilities under
More Aiding and Abetting Liability Legislation and Other Web Notes and Updates
In an earlier post (here), I discussed legislation that Senator Arlen Specter introduced in July 2009 to legislatively overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stoneridge and allow private actions for aiding and abetting liability. Though this proposed legislation is a matter for serious concern, there was always the possibility that given everything
House Financial Reform Bill Includes Securities Law Reforms
On December 11, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by a 223-202 vote "The Wall Street Report and Consumer Protection Act of 2009," H.R. 4173 (here). The sprawling 1279-page Bill, which must be reconciled with competing financial reform legislation pending in the Senate, would institute a number of reforms and initiatives that
Specter’s “Aiding and Abetting” Bill: Why it Could Pass and Why it Matters
In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Stoneridge case followed its prior decision in Central Bank of Denver and held that there is no private right of action for "scheme liability" or aiding and abetting under the federal securities laws, ruling that Congress had reserved to the SEC the right to enforce aiding