Tom Lemuel M.

Sumaway

2012-0250

The causes of action that an investor can do against the company and the dealer
would be on the company, untraceable, would produce no privities, can very well be a cause
of fraud on the market.

On the side of the dealer on the other hand are not applicable, no delivery
requirement as stated in the amendments of the prospectus delivery requirement probably
not, reasonable care defense no private cause of action.

II

A) The elimination of the prospective delivery requirement is made as to eliminate

the clutter and to afford mutual fund investors streamlined and user-friendly
information that is key to an investment decision. It lessens the requirement as
to minimize the traffic. Access equals delivery, with the elimination of the
prospectus delivery Issuers will no longer need to deliver paper copies of
prospectuses to investors in order to satisfy their Securities Act prospectus
delivery obligations.
B) This in theory would make the market more efficient but in turn in would cause a
tremendous strain in the companies to disclose information immediately since
they would be forced to sacrifice the quality of their work since they won’t have
time to analyze their data meticulously.
C) Automatic effectiveness will result in a less than desired quality and an after- the
– fact enforcement. The regulation committer would also lose its ability to require
the delivery prospectus.

III

The intrastate commerce exemption may well be available to Company. The

intrastate commerce is the act of purchasers and sellers transacting business while keeping
all transactions in a single state. However it cannot avoid all the insecurities altogether since
it requires a great restriction in doing their enterprise, it would be more strict than they
realize since you cannot offer or sell to nonresidents and the money must be intended for
use and actually used in the Philippines. Even a small implications would destroy their
exemption.