RESIDENTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
So perhaps, by contrast, unnatural ''adeptness'' with securities offerings laws characterises the New Hampshireman — so much so that an offeror can feel justified shouting at those who don’t quickly grasp the minutiae. | So perhaps, by contrast, unnatural ''adeptness'' with securities offerings laws characterises the New Hampshireman — so much so that an offeror can feel justified shouting at those who don’t quickly grasp the minutiae. | ||
Or it might be the misconception that this is “important” stuff<ref>Not clear, if the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] is any guide, that a [[disclaimer]] of something for which the disclaiming party was not, in any case, responsible, needs to be said conspicuously. But that is an argument too [[tedious]] even for this contrarian to get into.</ref> that must be said [[conspicuous]]ly, and that means in capitals. But, firstly, no it doesn’t, and secondly, no it isn’t: the usual New Hampshire residents’ disclaimer | Or it might be the misconception that this is “important” stuff<ref>Not clear, if the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] is any guide, that a [[disclaimer]] of something for which the disclaiming party was not, in any case, responsible, needs to be said conspicuously. But that is an argument too [[tedious]] even for this contrarian to get into.</ref> that must be said [[conspicuous]]ly, and that means in capitals. But, firstly, no it doesn’t, and secondly, no it isn’t: the usual New Hampshire residents’ disclaimer roundly denies something which no-one was inferring, let alone implying, in the first place: | ||
:{{NH residents}} | :{{NH residents}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 15:37, 23 October 2019
|
An untutored foreigner, glancing at a few prospectuses, might be forgiven for concluding there is something wrong with the average resident of New Hampshire, for it seems they are uncommonly in need of being shouted at, at least whenever they come into contemplation in the course of a securities offering.
It isn’t, obviously, that New Hampshire residents are dense — or any denser than the rest of us, at any rate — for what they are being shouted at about seems complicated, convoluted and, in honesty, not the sort of thing that calls for such easy exasperation. Indeed, one would need to be quite the scholar in the intricacies of local securities regulation to make much sense of the New Hampshire residents’ notice at all.
So perhaps, by contrast, unnatural adeptness with securities offerings laws characterises the New Hampshireman — so much so that an offeror can feel justified shouting at those who don’t quickly grasp the minutiae.
Or it might be the misconception that this is “important” stuff[1] that must be said conspicuously, and that means in capitals. But, firstly, no it doesn’t, and secondly, no it isn’t: the usual New Hampshire residents’ disclaimer roundly denies something which no-one was inferring, let alone implying, in the first place:
- NOTICE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE RESIDENTS ONLY: NEITHER THE FACT THAT A REGISTRATION STATEMENT OR AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE UNDER THIS CHAPTER HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NOR THE FACT THAT A SECURITY IS EFFECTIVELY REGISTERED OR A PERSON IS LICENSED IN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTES A FINDING BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT ANY DOCUMENT FILED UNDER RSA 421-B IS TRUE, COMPLETE AND NOT MISLEADING. NEITHER ANY SUCH FACT NOR THE FACT THAT AN EXEMPTION OR EXCEPTION IS AVAILABLE FOR A SECURITY OR A TRANSACTION MEANS THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS PASSED IN ANY WAY UPON THE MERITS OR QUALIFICATIONS OF, OR RECOMMENDED OR GIVEN APPROVAL TO, ANY PERSON, SECURITY, OR TRANSACTION. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO MAKE, OR CAUSE TO BE MADE, TO ANY PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER, CUSTOMER, OR CLIENT ANY REPRESENTATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH.
References
- ↑ Not clear, if the Uniform Commercial Code is any guide, that a disclaimer of something for which the disclaiming party was not, in any case, responsible, needs to be said conspicuously. But that is an argument too tedious even for this contrarian to get into.