|
| Nonetheless several sections of this Act are identical or | substantively identical to sections of the 1956 Act or RUSA. It is | not intended that adoption of a new Uniform Securities Act will | reject earlier case decisions interpreting identical or | substantively identical sections of the 1956 Act or RUSA unless | specifically so stated in the Official Comments. |
|
| | The Act is solely a new Uniform Securities Act. It does not | codify or append related regulations or guidelines. The Act also | authorizes state administrators in Section 203 to adopt further | exemptions without statutory amendment. The Drafting Committee | did not address state tender offer or control share provisions in | its preparation of this Act. |
|
| | The Act includes subheadings within sections as an aid to | readers. Unlike section captions, subheadings are not a part of | the official text. Each jurisdiction in which this Act is | introduced may consider whether to adopt the subheadings as a | part of the statute and whether to adopt a provision clarifying | the effect, if any, to be given to the headings. |
|
| | The Drafting Committee reviewed several drafts in meetings | between 1998 and 2002. The drafts were made available on NCCUSL's | public website before the meetings. The meetings were publicly | noticed and open to all who wished to attend. The Committee had | the assistance of advisors, consultants, and observers from | several interested groups, including, among others, the American | Bankers Association, the American Bar Association, the American | Council of Life Insurers, the Certified Financial Planner Board | of Standards, the Financial Planning Association, the Investment | Company Institute, the Investment Counsel Association of America, | the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., the New | York Stock Exchange, the North American Securities Administrators | Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the | Securities Industry Association. In addition, the Reporter and | the Chair met on several occasions with committees or | representatives of these and other groups. |
|
| | In drafting the new Act, the Reporter and the Drafting | Committee recognized two fundamental challenges. First, there was | a general recognition among all involved of the desirability of | drafting an Act that would receive broad support. The success of | RUSA had been limited because of fundamental differences among | relevant constituencies on several issues. After the National | Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 preempted specified | aspects of state securities law with respect to federal covered | securities, the opportunity to draft an Act in a less contentious | atmosphere was available. Given the number of industry, investor, | and regulatory interests affected by the Act and the complexity |
|
|