Talk:Rule 144

Cleanup

This showed up on my cleanup list today. Does anyone know what about it needs cleaning up? Alphabeter 20, April 2006 20:52 (UTC)

I ask the same. Computerjoe 's talk 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a quick look, I can't even work out what jurisdiction this is. Is it American law? British? Australian? Something else? Federal law? State law? What is the policy lying behind it? How does it relate to other relevant statutes and rules? So much really basic information seems to be missing, or hidden deep in the article, that when I went to try to clean it up I didn't even know where to start. Metamagician3000 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the very end, it appears that it is an American law of some kind, but that sort of thing should be obvious at a glance. Metamagician3000 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have done various clean-up activities. On the minor side - fixed up / inserted relevant hyperlinks and put in reference to US right at the start! On the more major side, rewrote introduction to make it look less like the start of the actual Act and be more informative. Also deleted the reference to Section 5 - not sure it really has any place here. Reg D is relevant, reg S sort of relevant so left them. Generally tried to make it clearer and less like a textbook... Probably still needs some work though. Regarding the merger with Securities Act 1933, would tend to agree. Mantrogo 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that a merger would make sense. Seems to be little need for this particular rule to have its own article, when there are potentially many morer rule 144s out there. If there are, this can become a disambiguation page. AuldReekie 15:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below in response to the Banking question

Banking

Aside from the investment world, the banking world has a "reg d" that governs savings accounts. I assume this is the same regulation, does anyone know? - Schalicto

No, these are two different Regulation Ds. The one in this entry is for Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933. It is the most widely used safe harbor for the private offering of securites in the United States, and virtually THE exemption used by all early stage companies.

In that regard, given its relevance I actually like that it has its separate wiki entry. Yes, it is technically part of the 33 Act but in reality it is very well defined as of itself i.e. it is an alternative to the Section 5 registration obligation, in that an offering has to be either registerd (Section 5), or exempt (Reg D being the primary private placement safe harbor under the 4(2) exemption). On the other hand, Rule 144 is conceptually a corollary to Section 5.

I am trying to avoid securities lawyer-speak but ... does this make any sense to you?