Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

For What Possible Reason Did The SEC Eschew All Consistency In Rule 144?

Like Agur, I find some things are beyond my ken.  It is, for example, beyond my understanding why the Securities and Exchange Commission thought it would be a good idea to use three different measures of time in Rule 144.   

Rule 144(b)(1) refers to the "preceding three months" while Rule 144(b)(2) refers to "90 days immediately before".  Does this simply reflect the SEC's preternatural predilection for "elegance of variation" or did the SEC intend different meanings?  The rule is further clouded by the ambiguity of the term "month".  Is the SEC referring to the preceding three calendar months or the numerically corresponding date in the third preceding month?  Rule 144(e) further muddies the water by referring to "four calendar weeks preceding". 

Share on:

Securities and Exchange Commission

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

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

RECOGNITION

NationalLawReview

badge-author-large

nominee-badge

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

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK