These private and governmental state sanctions, therefore, amount to a significant role for blue sky laws.
That is because prior to the effective date of NSMIA, most blue sky laws had an exemption from state registration for offerings by these companies.
As a result, although the scope of state authority has to some degree been constricted by preemption, blue sky laws continue to play a significant role in capital formation with regard to registration obligations.
Under the proposal, the federal exemption under Rule 147 requires the offering to either be registered under the state's blue sky laws or meet the requirements for the particular state's crowdfunding exemption from registration.
Although progress has been slow and somewhat messy, today's blue sky laws are considerably more efficient than in prior periods.
Blue sky laws that prohibit fraud, deception, or manipulative conduct in connection with the sale of securities make economic sense, particularly when backed up by administrative and criminal sanctions and private rights of recovery.
Blue sky laws granting states authority over registration were, prior to NSMIA, impossible to justify as promoting an economically efficient allocation of capital.
In such a case the business that was seeking capital would likely have been subject to the separate and individual registration requirements of each of the fifty-plus jurisdictions that had blue sky laws.
twenty-three states had adopted blue sky laws, and that "[a]ll but six of [those] acts were either identical with the Kansas statute or modeled upon it").
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have blue sky laws in force.
Blue Sky Laws and the Recent Congressional Preemption Failure, 22 J.