A Historical Introduction to Arizona's Securities Laws PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download A Historical Introduction to Arizona's Securities Laws PDF full book. Access full book title A Historical Introduction to Arizona's Securities Laws by Richard G. Himelrick. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 33
Book Description
The article recounts the history of Arizona's securities laws and the distinctly non-federal approach to civil liability that exists under Arizona securities law. Arizona's first securities legislation was a 1909 bucket-shop act that prohibited betting on price changes in securities and commodities. Three years later, in 1912, Arizona became the second state to enact a blue-sky law. Arizona supplemented the 1912 Act with two more blue-sky laws in 1917 and 1921. These early statutes included registration, licensing, and criminal provisions, but they did not provide for civil liability. In 1951, Arizona's legislature replaced the blue-sky laws with an entirely new securities act that included statutes that expressly provide for civil liability. The 1951 Act was enacted in the aftermath of highly publicized securities frauds for which existing securities laws provided inadequate civil remedies and criminal penalties. At the federal level, Congress has passed laws that curtail civil actions for securities fraud. Concurrently, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions that use strict-statutory interpretation and judicially identified policy considerations to curb civil liability for securities fraud. By contrast, Arizona's courts have interpreted Arizona's securities laws to expand civil liability. In interpreting Arizona's securities laws, the state's appellate courts have refused to follow federal securities law interpretations that do not advance the policy of investor protection that prompted passage of the 1951 Securities Act.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 33
Book Description
The article recounts the history of Arizona's securities laws and the distinctly non-federal approach to civil liability that exists under Arizona securities law. Arizona's first securities legislation was a 1909 bucket-shop act that prohibited betting on price changes in securities and commodities. Three years later, in 1912, Arizona became the second state to enact a blue-sky law. Arizona supplemented the 1912 Act with two more blue-sky laws in 1917 and 1921. These early statutes included registration, licensing, and criminal provisions, but they did not provide for civil liability. In 1951, Arizona's legislature replaced the blue-sky laws with an entirely new securities act that included statutes that expressly provide for civil liability. The 1951 Act was enacted in the aftermath of highly publicized securities frauds for which existing securities laws provided inadequate civil remedies and criminal penalties. At the federal level, Congress has passed laws that curtail civil actions for securities fraud. Concurrently, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions that use strict-statutory interpretation and judicially identified policy considerations to curb civil liability for securities fraud. By contrast, Arizona's courts have interpreted Arizona's securities laws to expand civil liability. In interpreting Arizona's securities laws, the state's appellate courts have refused to follow federal securities law interpretations that do not advance the policy of investor protection that prompted passage of the 1951 Securities Act.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick Publisher: ISBN: 9781685248277 Category : Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
The new sixth edition provides a comprehensive analysis of civil liability, defenses, and remedies under Arizona's securities laws. Coverage extends not only to the Arizona Securities Act but to securities claims under the Consumer Fraud Act, the Investment Management Act, and common-law theories of intentional, negligent, and fiduciary fraud. The book explains the law in each area, as well as parallel developments under the federal securities laws, which are analyzed with particular attention to differences in Arizona and federal law.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 35
Book Description
Both the Arizona Supreme Court and the Arizona legislature have approved using federal securities cases to interpret Arizona's securities statutes when federal law is settled and the Arizona and federal statutes are substantially the same. In practice though, federal law has limited utility. One reason is the U.S. Supreme Court's small volume of securities-law precedent. The Supreme Court averages only 1.3 securities cases per term. This leaves swaths of federal securities law on which the Supreme Court has not spoken and on which the lower-federal courts often disagree. The Supreme Court's decisions involve one or more of nine federal securities acts that frequently turn on uniquely federal issues of little or no relevance to state securities law. Differences in Supreme Court and Arizona securities-law policy and approaches to statutory interpretation further reduce the number of relevant federal cases. The article analyzes the 50 state and federal decisions interpreting Arizona securities law that have been reported since 1980. Through these cases, the article identifies the patterns and reasoning that have guided the courts in deciding when to rely on federal interpretations to interpret Arizona's securities statutes. The article concludes by presenting a set of interpretative principles through which truly relevant federal securities law can be identified.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 15
Book Description
Nearly all states refuse to read nonstatutory, equitable defenses into their securities statutes. Early Arizona blue-sky cases also refused to consider equitable defenses. These state cases contrast with cases under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Because liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is implied, neither the elements of proof nor the defenses are statutorily defined. Consequently, it was left to the courts to judicially define the elements and defenses. On the other hand, express-liability statutes like A.R.S. §§ 44-1991(A) and 44-2001(A) define by their words the elements of proof. They likewise are accompanied by statutes that provide defenses like the statutes of limitation, reasonable care under § 44-2001(B), and failure to tender. After introducing the treatment of equitable defenses under state securities law, the article analyzes the Arizona Court of Appeals 2014 Caruthers decision. Caruthers broke with the near-uniform body of modern-state-securities law decisions that decline to recognize equitable defense to statutory claims.
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: J. D. Nielsen
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: J. D. Nielsen
Author: Nancy Williams Bonnett
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: Richard G. Himelrick
Author: State Bar of Arizona. Continuing Legal Education
Author: William H. Edwards