契约自由与证券法:通过私人协议选择退出证券监管

Elaine A. Welle
{"title":"契约自由与证券法:通过私人协议选择退出证券监管","authors":"Elaine A. Welle","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.183354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers whether parties should be permitted to waive coverage of the securities laws. Several securities law scholars have called for selective securities law deregulation. The article examines these proposals from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The thesis of this article is that the reform initiatives present more than a choice of rules over standards, certainty over flexibility, and law over facts--they present a choice of values. The article also challenges the premise that bright-line rules, such as opting out by entity type or waiver, promote fairness, equity, equality, predictability, efficiency, and utility better than the current regulatory regime. Finally the article questions whether we should permit parties to waive their rights and bargain away their statutory protections. Particularly, since the reform initiatives would result in the adoption of industry-protective terms that indivdual investors would have little or no power to change.","PeriodicalId":10000,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of Contract and the Securities Laws: Opting Out of Securities Regulation by Private Agreement\",\"authors\":\"Elaine A. Welle\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.183354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers whether parties should be permitted to waive coverage of the securities laws. Several securities law scholars have called for selective securities law deregulation. The article examines these proposals from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The thesis of this article is that the reform initiatives present more than a choice of rules over standards, certainty over flexibility, and law over facts--they present a choice of values. The article also challenges the premise that bright-line rules, such as opting out by entity type or waiver, promote fairness, equity, equality, predictability, efficiency, and utility better than the current regulatory regime. Finally the article questions whether we should permit parties to waive their rights and bargain away their statutory protections. Particularly, since the reform initiatives would result in the adoption of industry-protective terms that indivdual investors would have little or no power to change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.183354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.183354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文探讨是否应允许当事人放弃证券法的适用范围。一些证券法学者呼吁有选择性地放松证券法管制。本文从理论和实践两方面对这些建议进行了探讨。本文的论点是,改革举措不仅仅是规则对标准的选择,确定性对灵活性的选择,法律对事实的选择——它们是价值观的选择。文章还挑战了这样一个前提,即明确的规则,如根据实体类型选择退出或放弃,比现行监管制度更能促进公平、公平、平等、可预测性、效率和效用。最后,文章质疑我们是否应该允许当事人放弃他们的权利,放弃他们的法定保护。特别是,由于改革举措将导致采用行业保护条款,而个人投资者几乎或根本没有权力改变这些条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Freedom of Contract and the Securities Laws: Opting Out of Securities Regulation by Private Agreement
This article considers whether parties should be permitted to waive coverage of the securities laws. Several securities law scholars have called for selective securities law deregulation. The article examines these proposals from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The thesis of this article is that the reform initiatives present more than a choice of rules over standards, certainty over flexibility, and law over facts--they present a choice of values. The article also challenges the premise that bright-line rules, such as opting out by entity type or waiver, promote fairness, equity, equality, predictability, efficiency, and utility better than the current regulatory regime. Finally the article questions whether we should permit parties to waive their rights and bargain away their statutory protections. Particularly, since the reform initiatives would result in the adoption of industry-protective terms that indivdual investors would have little or no power to change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misaligned Incentives in Markets: Envisioning Finance That Benefits All of Society Enforcement Against the Biggest Banks Perspectives on U.S. Financial Regulation Transatlantic Extraterritoriality and the Regulation of Derivatives: The Need for an Integrated Approach between Washington and Brussels, the Uncertainties of BREXIT and New Directions in the US Corporate Governance Oversight and Proxy Advisory Firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1