Lincoln Law Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lincoln Law Review Volume 43 Articles A Time to Change: A Proposal on a New Accredited Investor Standard…………………………………………………………………... Kyle Gaughan Never Refuse a Breath Mint: Change Implementation For Law Schools: An Insider’s Correlation Between Change Management Tools and How to Tailor Them to Meet the “New Normal”……………………………………………...…..………..David J. F. Lockard A Crucial Inadequacy of California’s Mandatory and Conciliation Provision and What Can be Done to Improve It…………………………………………………………….…Brandon Hamparzoomian Decision-Making During Interrogation: Towards a New Approach for Determining the Propensity of Deceptive Police Techniques to Produce False Confessions……………………………………...Sean Janda Bullying – It’s Not Just About the Children: An Overview to Why Current Policies are Ineffective and Suggestions to Evolve Beyond Schoolyard Solutions……..……………………………………Grainne Callan LINCOLN LAW SCHOOL OF SAN JOSE Volume 43 2015-2016 LINCOLN LAW REVIEW Published at Lincoln Law School of San Jose San Jose, California In publication since 1966 Address orders to: Lincoln Law Review Attn: Subscriptions 384 S Second St San Jose, CA 95113 Or order by email: [email protected] Pursuant to a seventy-five year tradition and to the injunction of Title IX, Part 86 of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Publ. L. 92-318, and other Civil Rights legislation, Lincoln Law School of San Jose does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, color, age, or national and ethnic origin in reference to its educational programs and activities, employment therein, or admission thereto. Inquiries concerning the Lincoln Law School of San Jose’s application to Title IX may be addressed to Lincoln Law School of San Jose, 384 S Second St, San Jose, CA 95113. © 2016 Lincoln Law School of San Jose NOTICE TO AUTHORS: Lincoln Law Review accepts submissions of Law Review articles on all topics of concern and interest to the legal community. The general format for presentation of articles is best provided by an examination of an issue of the Law Review. Footnotes and other citations should follow the style exemplified in the Harvard Law Review Association’s A Uniform System of Citation (“The Bluebook”). The general writing style for presentation of articles is provided by the guidelines in The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style by Bryan A. Garner, Editor-in-Chief of Black’s Law Dictionary. Manuscripts should either be typed or computer printed on one side of 8½ x 11 inch paper, or submitted in electronic format. For typed manuscripts, footnotes should be listed after the body of the manuscript and not within the article. Articles for which a copy can be provided in electronic format via email in a major word processing program should have the footnotes within the body of the text. The complete title of the article, the author’s name, and complete address should be typed on a separate sheet, which should be prepared as the first page of the manuscript. Authors must keep the Law Review informed of their latest address and phone number. The second page should contain a short autobiographical statement. Except under unusual circumstances, it is the policy of the Law Review not to publish articles that have appeared or are to appear in any other publications. Authors must immediately inform the Law Review if their articles have been accepted by another publication. All manuscripts should be submitted with the under- standing that the Lincoln Law Review possesses non- exclusive right to publication as well as the right to edit any article. If and when the manuscript is published, it becomes the property of the Law Review and all copyrights will be taken out in the name of the Lincoln Law Review. Submissions, or inquiries regarding submissions, should be emailed to [email protected] or addressed to: Lincoln Law Review Attn: Articles Editor 384 S Second St San Jose, CA 95113 LINCOLN LAW SCHOOL Volume XLIII 2015-2016 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Rod Diridon, Sr., Chair James F. Barbic, E.A. Willie D. Brown, Treasurer David Cortese Sarwat S. Fahmy Honorable Teresa Guerrero-Daley, Secretary Josué Garcia Susan Fish Sharon Hightower Kathleen King Teresa Hung Robert S. Kieve Joseph H. Moless, Jr. James Rees Carmen Sigler TRUSTEES EMERITI James F. Boccardo (1911-2003) Peter Carter (1943-2013) Craig E. Needham LeRoy J. Neider Barry Swenson LINCOLN LAW SCHOOL Volume XLIII 2015-2016 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS Laura A. Palazzolo Dean Farzin Forooghi Associate Dean of Academic Counseling Cindy Ruggiero Registrar Mindy Cho Registrar Kathleen Dong Chief Recruiter Angela Hassan Administrative Assistant Michelle Diaz-Garza Administrative Assistant Madonna Ebrahimof Administrative Assistant LINCOLN LAW SCHOOL Volume XLIII 2015-2016 Moses Alajajian Phillip B. Rose Tyler Atkinson Sue Saign William Baker Britten Sessions Georg Behrens P. Carlos Singh Bradley A. Bening Steven Studulski J. Michael Bewley Jonathan J. Sweet Alison P. Buchanan Miguel Valdovinos Lance B. Burrow Honorable Arthur Weissbrodt, Ret. Bryan W. Butler United States Bankruptcy Judge Steven DalPorto Eric Yi-Ching Yap Adam Davis Albert Zecher, Jr. Chi N. Dinh John F. Domingue Francis B. Doyle Tyler G. Draa Kirsten M. Fish Farzin Forooghi Jill E. Fox Arthur J. Gemmell Johnny C. Gogo Patrick Hammon David Henningsen Gregory D. Hull Jeffrey D. Janoff Terence M. Kane (1954 - 2016) Patrick H. Kelly Anne Jones Kepner Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr. Jeffrey A. Kroeber Jeffrey S. Lawson Arthur Lin John Mlnarik Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya, Superior Court Judge Laura A. Palazzolo, Dean Mitesh Patel Richard R. Pedersen Honorable Tue Phan Quang,Ret. Immigration Law Judge Andrew Phillips William J. Purdy, III Honorable Betty Roberts Barbeito Administrative Law Judge LINCOLN LAW SCHOOL Volume XLIII 2015-2016 PATRONS Dr. Arthur J. Gemmell SPONSORS Kenneth L. MacRitchie The Lincoln Law Review would like to thank the above-named individuals and entities for their generous contributions, which have made it possible for this issue of the Lincoln Law Review to be published. The Editors and Staff LINCOLN LAW REVIEW MEMBERS Volume XLIII 2015-2016 EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Lisa Celler Assistant Editor-in-Chief Ney Montenegro Business Editor Thuy Barnes Academic Advisors Dr. Arthur J. Gemmell Staff Editors Grainne Callan Brian Langedyk Danielle Demartino Diane Sandhu Eleonor Bonemeyer Maria Mayrovich Olga Poddubnaya David Vo Note: The views expressed in the Lincoln Law Review are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Lincoln Law Review or of Lincoln Law School of San Jose. LINCOLN LAW REVIEW Volume XLIII 2015-2016 LINCOLN LAW REVIEW Volume XLIII 2015-2016 CONTENTS Articles A Time to Change: A Proposal on a New Accredited Investor Standard…………………………………………………………………... Kyle Gaughan Never Refuse a Breath Mint: Change Implementation For Law Schools: An Insider’s Correlation Between Change Management Tools and How to Tailor Them to Meet the “New Normal”……………………………………………...……………David J. F. Lockard A Crucial Inadequacy of California’s Mandatory and Conciliation Provision and What Can be Done to Improve It…………………………………………………………….…Brandon Hamparzoomian Decision-Making During Interrogation: Towards a New Approach for Determining the Propensity of Deceptive Police Techniques to Produce False Confessions……………………………………...Sean Janda Bullying – It’s Not Just About the Children: An Overview to Why Current Policies are Ineffective and Suggestions to Evolve Beyond Schoolyard Solutions……..……………………………………Grainne Callan CITED AS 43 Lincoln L.REV. (2015-2016) 1 LINCOLN LAW REVIEW Vol. 43 A TIME TO CHANGE A PROPOSAL ON A NEW ACCREDITED INVESTOR STANDARD Kyle Gaughan I. Introduction As participants in the American capital markets continue to seek new means to raise additional capital, both Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter the “SEC”) have begun to devise new laws and regulations opening the markets to more investors. For instance, the Jumpstart Our Businesses Act (hereinafter the “JOBS Act”) recently lifted the ban on general solicitation under Regulation D and Rule 506(c).1 If the general solicitation is received by “accredited investors”, then there is no limit on how many of these investors purchase securities offered by the issuer. Additionally, following the passing of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Form and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), the SEC has been instructed by Congress to consider adjustments to current definition of accredited investors. With the changes in the laws and regulations of the US capital markets, this essay argues that it is time for the SEC to adjust the definition of the accredited investor. As currently defined, the accredited investor definition (for natural persons) is too narrow and overly focuses on income and net worth. This essay proposes a two-prong standard; one that focuses on income and net worth, but also introduces other factors (such as education and financial market knowledge) to establish other qualified investors as accredited investors under the American securities laws. To develop this thesis, this essay proceeds as follows: Part II focuses on the purpose behind establishing an accredited 1 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act § 201, H.R. 3606, 112th Cong. (2012) (enacted). 2 LINCOLN LAW REVIEW Vol. 43 investor standard, Part III explains the current definition of the accredited investor, Part IV proposes changes to the definition of accredited investors for natural persons and Part V concludes. II. Purpose of Defining Accredited Investors A. Generally In general, the Securities Act of 1933 (hereinafter the “’33 Act”) was passed to serve two purposes: (i) to ensure that investors receive financial and other significant information about securities being offered and (ii) to prohibit deceit, misrepresentation and other fraud in the sale of securities.2 Thus, with this general background of the ‘33 Act taken into consideration, it is clear that the general purpose of the 33 Act is for the protection of investors. Much of this protection comes from the disclosure requirements promulgated under Section 5 of the ’33 Act. However, the ‘33 Act and SEC have made certain cutouts allowing the issuer to avoid some of the disclosure requirements required under the ‘33 Act.