Private Placements and Public Offerings Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Private Placements and Public Offerings - Essay Example When it comes to securities, two types of basic methods are used by companies to offer those to investors. One of the methods used for this is called Initial Public Offering (IPO) or Public Offering. In this particular method securities are offered for sale to general public. Any one can be an investor in the case of initial public offering. Actually it is the first time when a corporation starts to offer a registered security to public. This practice helps companies to get immediate cash to increase their equity base along with positively affecting the stock value appreciation (Initial Public Offering (IPO). Private Placement is the other method used to offer securities. The basic difference in this particular method as compared to the other one is about selling the shares without the involvement of intermediary of a stockbroker. Both these methods are used in real world to achieve different types of objectives. Actually, the use of a particular method is directly related to the situations being faced by a corporation. By contemplating more on the details related to both these methods, it becomes quite evident that there are quite a few differences, advantages and disadvantages of using a particular method. A critical comparison of both these methods will help you to understand those advantages and disadvantages in a much better way. Let's start off with Public or Initial Public... It is the duty of SEC to set regulations and specific standards for the investment market to function in a right way. Due to these standards and regulations, it is essential for a corporation to reveal a lot of information before making any offering. The information may be about inner workings of a corporation and the plan about using the funds obtained through the offering. Here, a corporation has to wait for the approval of SEC after setting a sales price for the offering along with providing the other necessary information. Now when you will compare this particular aspect of providing extensive information to SEC with the other method of Private Placement, you will understand why this other method is preferred by most of the corporations. Herein, such securities can be offered which may not be registered with SEC. What it means is that there will be no need to provide extensive information to Securities and Exchange Commission, which is unlike IPO. Since companies making use of this method exploits Securities Act of 1933, there remains no need to follow the rule of quarterly reporting. But, it is significant to mention that a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) is not exempt from Anti-fraud provisions and state law. It implies the fact that though there will be no need to provide as much details as required in Public Offering but you will have to disclose enough information so an investor may become able to make an informed and rational decision. Apart from this particular aspect, it is important to compare the basic way in which both these methods actually work. While comparing the working process of both these methods, it is easy to see few important differences. For Private Placement, it is obligatory for a company to use Private Placement Memorandum which

American Prison Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 8250 words

American Prison Law - Essay Example Citizens, who had been wrongly accused or unjustly sentenced, could challenge such actions. It was the bounden duty of the federal government to implement a system of checks-and-balances in the system so that the correction department did not infringe the fundamental liberty of citizens. This endeavor was assisted significantly by librarians who acted in an unbiased manner within the purview of the standards established by the American Association of Law Libraries. This was to ensure that the policies of institutions and departments, and authorizations from the United States Supreme Court and local jurisdictions were observed2. In the 1977 case of Bounds v. Smiths, the right of an offender to access the judiciary was established by the US Supreme Court. Moreover, the court held that prison inmates should be provided with access to state and federal court systems. It also directed the correctional facilities to allow offenders to access law libraries and to provide legal assistance to their illiterate inmates, so that they could avail themselves of professional assistance while preparing their pleadings. The objective of this decision was to enable prisoners to access the court systems. However this ruling created a lot of consternation amongst the correctional personnel, librarians and library science professionals as it required them to implement new strategies in order to provide prison inmates with access to the appropriate legal documents3. The applicants in Casey v Lewis were prison officials of the Arizona DOC. The DOC had argued that the US District Court of Arizona had been mistaken in deciding that the department had breached Bounds. It also claimed that the court's order deprived the lawful remedies of the department. The respondents in the case were twenty - two inmates imprisoned in various correctional facilities of the DOC4. The respondents collectively filed a class - suit on behalf of all offenders who had been imprisoned and also on behalf of future offenders. In their application they have accused the DOC of depriving them of the right to access the courts and counsel. These provisions had been assured by the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Constitutional amendments. The district court held that the prisoners had a constitutional right of access to the courts and that such access was to be adequate and effective5. Moreover, the court held that the DOC had failed to act in accordance with constitutional standards. The court also found that the DOC was not in a position to meet the offenders' needs in areas such as providing the inmates with appropriate training so as to utilize the library. It also held that the library had failed to obtain updated legal materials and that it had not provided prisoners with photocopying facilities6. Moreover, the court observed that prisoners belonged to two groups and that these offenders had not been provided with adequate services. The first group was composed of offenders on a lockdown status or in other words it was composed of offenders who had been deprived of the bodily right of entry to the law library. Such offenders were on occasion denied access to the courts. The second group consisted of offenders who either could not speak English or who were illiterate7. The court accepted the