Uniform Securities Act

    On October 15, 2002, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws published the final version the 2002 Uniform Securities Act. To those who represent individual investors, it seemed to be biased in favor of powerful industry interests to the detriment of the individual investor.

    The philosophical difference between the two sides can be summarized as this: Those representing investors believe that the best hope to reduce fraud in the securities industry is to encourage self-policing by the responsible firms in the industry. This means that responsible firms will have liability to investors if they fail to adequately supervise their brokers or clear fraudulent transactions. It also means that the law will not be fine-tuned to make investor actions more difficult. The industry wants to minimize the risk of paying investors for fraud by its employees and has added a number of protections for itself in the Uniform Securities Act.

    Both Oregon and Washington courts have viewed state securities laws as having a broader purpose than federal law. While federal law is designed to protect the integrity of the capital markets so business can raise capital for economic growth, state law is focused on protecting investors. The Uniform Securities Act ignores (and perhaps overrules) the unique protection provided by case law in Oregon and Washington.

	Uniform Securities Act
	National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
	USA Changing the Law of Clearing Broker-Dealer by Bob Banks
	Comparison of existing law, the Uniform Securities Act and proposed Washington modifications.
	Proposed modifications to WA Debenture Company Act with comparisons to existing law.