Sign-up for our Free Newsletter, Whitepaper and SEC and FINRA Updates as they occur.

by Laura Anthony, Esq.

House Continues To Push For Reduced Securities Regulation

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

House Appropriations Bill

The House continues its busy activity of passing legislation designed to reduce securities and market regulations. In early July, the House passed H.R. 2995, an appropriations bill for the federal budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. No further action has been taken.  The 259-page bill, which is described as “making appropriations for financing services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes” (“House Appropriation Bill”), contains numerous provisions reducing or eliminating funding for key aspects of SEC enforcement and regulatory provisions.

Earlier this year, I wrote this BLOG about three House bills that will likely never be passed into law. The 3 bills include: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. None of the bills have been passed by the Senate as of yet.

The new House Appropriations Bill also contains the text of H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC. The Bill prohibits the SEC from expending any funds under the Dodd-Frank act or to finalize, issue or implement any rule related to the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax-exempt organizations, or dues paid to trade associations.

The Bill also requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations for both the House and Senate detailing the costs of implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).

The Financial Choice Act

The House Financial Services Committee has also drafted The Financial Choice Act, which has not yet been passed by the House. This Act is as extreme as the current presidential election and likely will never go further than its publication by the House Financial Services Committee. The Executive Summary for the Financial Choice Act lists the following seven key principles of the Act:

  1. Economic growth must be revitalized through competitive, transparent, and innovative capital markets;
  2. Every American, regardless of their circumstances, must have the opportunity to achieve financial independence;
  3. Consumers must be vigorously protected from fraud and deception as well as the loss of economic liberty;
  4. Taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions must end and no company can remain too big to fail;
  5. Systemic risk must be managed in a market with profit and loss;
  6. Simplicity must replace complexity, because complexity can be gamed by the well-connected and abused by the Washington powerful; and
  7. Both Wall Street and Washington must be held accountable.

The Act focuses on dismantling Dodd-Frank. On the bank-specific side, the Act would eliminate bank prohibitions on capital distributions and limitations on mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions of assets or control to the extent these limitations relate to capital or liquidity standards or concentrations of deposits or assets.

Related to bailouts, the Act would in summary:

  1. Repeal the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate firms as systematically important financial institutions (i.e., too big to fail).
  2. Repeal Title II of Dodd-Frank and replace it with new bankruptcy code provisions specifically designed to accommodate large, complex financial institutions. Title II of Dodd-Frank is the orderly liquidation authority, granting authority to the federal government to obtain receivership control over large financial institutions; and
  3. Repeal Title VIII of Dodd-Frank, which gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council access to the Federal Reserve discount window for systematically important financial institutions (i.e., gives the federal government the money to bail out financial institutions) as well as the authority to conduct examinations and enforcement related to risk management;

Related to accountability from financial regulators, the Act would:

  1. Make all financial regulatory agencies subject to the REINS Act related to appropriations and place all such agencies on an appropriations process subject to bipartisan control;
  2. Require all financial regulators to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis for all proposed regulations (provisions analogous to this are already required, but this would be more extreme);
  3. Reauthorize the SEC for a period of 5 years with funding, structural and enforcement reforms (i.e., dismantle the current SEC and replace it with a watered-down version);
  4. “Institute significant due-process reforms for every American who feels that they have been the victim of a government shakedown.”
  5. Repeal the Chevron Deference doctrine.  Under this doctrine, a court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of statues and rules.
  6. Demand greater accountability and transparency from the Federal Reserve; and
  7. Abolish the Office of Financial Research.

Under the heading “[U]leash opportunities for small businesses, innovators, and job creators by facilitating capital formation”, the Act would:

  1. Repeal multiple sections of Dodd-Frank, including the Volker Rule (which restricts U.S. banks from making speculative investments, including proprietary trading, venture capital and merchant bank activities);
  2. Repeal the SEC’s authority to either prospectively or retroactively eliminate or restrict securities arbitration;
  3. Repeal non-material specialized disclosure; and
  4. Incorporate more than two dozen committee- or House-passed capital formation bills, including H.R. 1090 – Retail Investor Protection Act (prohibiting certain restrictions on investment advisors), H.R. 4168 – Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act (requiring prompt SEC action on finding of the annual SEC government business forum), H.R. 4498 – Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (directing the SEC to amend Regulation D expanding the allowable use of solicitation and advertising), and H.R. 5019 – Fair Access to Investment Research Act (expanding exclusion of research reports from the definition of an offer for or to sell securities under the Securities Act).

Thoughts

The House regulatory activity gives insight into the behind-the-scenes political pressure facing the SEC in recent years. We have seen the most dramatic changes in capital formation regulations and technological developments in the past 30 years, if not longer. Significant capital-formation changes include: (i) the creation of Rule 506(c), which came into effect on September 23, 2013, and allows for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings where the purchasers are limited to accredited investors; (ii) the overhaul of Regulation A, creating two tiers of offerings which came into effect on June 19, 2015, and allows for both pre-filing and post-filing marketing of an offering, called “testing the waters”; (iii) the addition of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act, which came into effect in April 2012, permitting emerging-growth companies to test the waters by engaging in pre- and post-filing communications with qualified institutional buyers or institutions that are accredited investors; and (iv) Title III crowdfunding, which came into effect May 19, 2016, and allows for the use of Internet-based marketing and sales of securities offerings.

At the same time, we have faced economic stagnation since the recession, a 7-year period of near-zero U.S. interest rates and negative interest rates in some foreign nations, nominal inflation and a near elimination of traditional bank financing for start-ups and emerging companies. If bank credit was available for small and emerging-growth companies, it would be inexpensive financing, but it is not and I do believe that Dodd-Frank and over-regulation are directly responsible for this particular problem.

Small companies and start-ups are the backbone of the American economy, and without investment in these companies, our economy will continue to be stagnant or worse: we could have another recession. These companies are relying almost exclusively on the sale of securities to investors (both private and public, debt and equity) for financing, all of which is under the supervision of the SEC.

The SEC is then balancing its ability to support the U.S. economy by facilitating capital formation for small and emerging companies while at the same time protecting investors from fraud and dealing with the pressure of extreme divergent political views. Something has to give, and I suspect that we will continue to see dramatic changes in the regulatory environment for the foreseeable future while this economic revolution plays out.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout House Continues To Push For Reduced Securities Regulation

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016

Copy of Logo