California Corporate & Securities Law

Section 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines the term “dealer” to mean “any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities . . . for such person’s own account through a broker or otherwise,” but excludes “a person...

Last week, the North American Securities Administrators Association sent a letter to U.S. Senate and House committee leaders expressing concern that the appropriations process will "may be used to advance provisions in the draft JOBS Act 4.0 that...

The California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation's Broker-Dealer/Investment Adviser (BDIA) program licenses and regulates investment advisers, investment adviser representatives, broker-dealers, and broker-dealer agents. Over the last...

In 2019, I wrote about a then pending proposal, SB 496 (Moorlach), to add broker-dealers and investment advisers to the category of mandated reporters of known or suspected financial abuse of elders or dependent adults. This legislation was later...

Last week, the North American Securities Administrators Association issued a comment letter urging the Securities and Exchange Commission not to move forward on its proposal to issue a conditional order exempting finders from the requirement to...

Yesterday's big news at the Securities and Exchange Commission was a proposed exemptive order for finders. The question of whether issuers can compensate anyone other than a registered broker for finding investors has bedeviled attorneys and their...

Yesterday's post concerned possible arguments that federal law preempts Nevada's fiduciary standard for broker-dealers. At present, any preemption would have to be based on the National Securities Markets Improvement Act and/or the Dodd-Frank Act....

The 2014 Budget Act requires the Department of Business Oversight to provide a report on its broker-dealer/investment adviser program to the the Legislature and the Department of Finance by January 10 of each year. While not exactly scintillating...

Yesterday's post chided Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC for its inconsistent positions on majority rule.  Today's post tackles a foolish inconsistency in the California Codes.  Section 25217(c) of the California Corporations Code provides: