About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

4 Bull. Sec. Corp. Banking & Bus. L. 1 (1965-1966)

handle is hein.journals/txjbus4 and id is 1 raw text is: 




                         BULLETIN

                         OF   THE  SECTION     ON   CORPORATION, BANKING &             BUSINESS     LAW



VOLUME 4                                        OCTOBER, 1965                                         NO. 1


                                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
          On  behalf of the entire Section on Corporation, Banking and Business Law, the Bulletin wishes
      to express appreciation to Mr. Marvin Sloman for his years of excellent work in its behalf. Because
      of the increasing burden of other work, Mr. Sloman asked not to be reappointed as Chairman of the
      Committee  on Information for the year 1965-1966. Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Sloman for
      the materials contained in this issue, most of which were supplied from his files.
          The change in the editorship has required a change in printers, and in this connection two expres-
      sions of gratitude are in order. Thanks must first be given to Warlick Printing Company of Dallas
      for the many years of excellent service which they have contributed to this publication, without
      compensation, and without which the publication would not have been possible. Equal thanks must
      now be given to Thos. De La Rue, Inc. of Houston who have printed this issue and have agreed to
      continue the publication on the same fine basis as it has been done in the past.

                                        RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS
          Texas Securities Act - Small Offering Exemptions - Public Solicitation and Advertisements.
      In the first reported Texas case dealing with the question, the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals
      construed the terms public solicitation and advertisements used in Sec. 5.I of the Texas Securities
      Act as in effect prior to the 1963 amendments to the Act.
          Plaintiff sued the defendant corporation for his commission for selling its common stock. Although
      less than 35 persons actually purchased stock, the corporation defended on the grounds that plaintiff
      was not a licensed securities dealer or salesman and that he used public solicitation or advertising
      in selling the stock. Plaintiff was not a registered dealer or a licensed salesman and in offering the
      stock had solicited some 250 persons to whom he exhibited a brochure containing the usual data as
      to the proposed capital stock, nature of the project, estimated income and otherwise amounting to a
      detailed prospectus.
          The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on jury issues in his favor, including the finding
      that the sale was accomplished without the use of advertisements or public solicitation. The Beaumont
      Court reversed and rendered.
          Tumbleweed  Bowling Corporation v. Matise, 388 S.W. 2d 479 (Tex. Civ. App., 1965).
          Sec. 5.1 of the Act was amended in 1963 and now provides for the so-called 35 man, the employee
      option, and the 15-a-year exemptions, all conditioned upon the absence of any public solicitation or
      advertisement.' No reasons appear why the holding of the Beaumont Court would not be applicable
      to this section of the Act as now in effect.
          In defining public solicitation, the Court stated that a sale of securities is offered to the public
      when several people are asked if they will not buy and are urged to buy such stock. Obviously,
      the number of permissible offerees under the Act must be at least equal to the respective numerical
      limits (35 and 15) on purchasers or holders, and, logically, must be somewhat greater than these
      numbers.2 In addition, there is no numerical limit imposed by Sec. 5.1 on the number of employees
      to whom stock options may be granted. Thus, it would seem that stock issued pursuant to options
      offered to 250 employees, for example, would not constitute a public solicitation under the Texas
      Act and destroy the exemption for this reason. Accordingly, it should require more than an offer
      to several people in order to constitute public solicitation under Sec. 5.1. However, the holding
      of the Court on this particular point does not seem subject to question, where, as was the fact, the
      offer was made to some 250 persons.

      1  Bromberg, Texas Small Offerings Exemptions, 18 SW. L.J., 537 (1965).
      2  Ibid at page 552, footnote 65.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most