Intrastate Offerings Under Rule 147

In an effort to publicize administrative and judicial interpretations of the exemption, to protect investors, and to provide more certainty in determining the parameters of section 3(a)(ll), the SEC has adopted rule 147. This Article, in three parts, will examine that rule. Part I is devoted to an explanation of the rule; it will indicate how the rule differs from earlier interpretations of section 3(a)(ll) and discuss the problems that the rule leaves unanswered. Part II will consider the interrelationships among the various sections of the rule, as well as interpretative issues that have not yet arisen under section 3(a)(ll). Part III will assess the rule in terms of the original purposes of the intrastate exemption

Harmonization of Disclosure Standards for Cross-border Share Offerings: Approaching an International Passport to Capital Markets? (The Earl A. Snyder Lecture in International Law)

On March 1, 2001, Professor Hicks delivered the fifth annual Snyder Lecture at the University of Cambridge in the Lauterpacht Center for International Research

Harmonization of Disclosure Standards for Cross-border Share Offerings: Approaching an International Passport to Capital Markets? (The Earl A. Snyder Lecture in International Law)

On March 1, 2001, Professor Hicks delivered the fifth annual Snyder Lecture at the University of Cambridge in the Lauterpacht Center for International Research

The Status of Track and Field Athletics in Manitoba High Schools

The purpose of thla study was to discover the and the status of track and field athletics In the hl-.h schools of Want to bn with enrollments of 150 students or wore* questionnaires were sent to 5)6 birch schools and 33 questionnaires (90.46 per cent) were returned. 3lx respondents stated tb they did not have track and field pro :rams* The questionnaires supplied information on such areas of track and field as degree of participation, amount of facilities and equipment, meet attendance, instruction, trainin\u27* methods, officiating, safety and first, aid croc*lures, finances, special problems, and methods of prorotion. The data from the returned questionnaires were tabulated and analysed, and cone of the more important conclusions drawn were as followss 1# Severity-seven {Cdj,?? per cent) of the surveyed schools participated in track and field to some do ree. 2* The majority of schools lacked equipment essential to conduct a full track and field program. 3, Over 50 per cent of the respondents reported their teams participated in two or more Indoor meets ***iS« n v* ts x 0 \u3c .i */ wo *. - • v rn) v b ouoo.no r !»©©■&» p« Jt\u3e 7-f# A T» /* «;*! •• • .\u27,. .. • V\u27 1 \u27D pox* sent of the i a oh tfe® co&eh of the ^ 1^55 OlC and field teams i mvo in phTs1c al ©duo n it ion. g*f Li ♦ /» O A Tie! a tin./\u27 of track and f lei ttrUfJ. of ZWBTfM?® OT . T* duality in 98. TL •■or \u3c 4* hr* i*j*tu*« r # Ait/ef ’■ $ per cent of the coaei !(iS Pi V. «,+■ us. In fu ’lir© In con: 7. Tj\u3e© av rack and : field p- \u27 * The b©: ere belle* iy*)d to ion tnatr* actio no\u27 r»th the boTS * and -:trla * on tun® pnysioax Bduea* pros Tans

Intrastate Offerings Under Rule 147

In an effort to publicize administrative and judicial interpretations of the exemption, to protect investors, and to provide more certainty in determining the parameters of section 3(a)(ll), the SEC has adopted rule 147. This Article, in three parts, will examine that rule. Part I is devoted to an explanation of the rule; it will indicate how the rule differs from earlier interpretations of section 3(a)(ll) and discuss the problems that the rule leaves unanswered. Part II will consider the interrelationships among the various sections of the rule, as well as interpretative issues that have not yet arisen under section 3(a)(ll). Part III will assess the rule in terms of the original purposes of the intrastate exemption