Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It's Thursday, 01/29/2026 at 02:15 in the afternoon. So we're here to go over an amendment proposal from Representative Olson on H-six 48. Six forty eight is a fraction this afternoon, second reading. This will be an amendment for third reading. But apparently there were some things that were spotted by, was it you, Herb, or was it to but anyway, his maiden name's Monique Priestley.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. It was me. No.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's the exact surgery. She'll explain, but it was a real puzzle reading section for you as to what exactly meant. Okay. So we have our legislative council with us, Royal, who will walk us through the amendment and explain the things, the issues that she found and how we're going to corrupt them.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, Maria Royal with Legislative Counsel. And this really is a clarification. It's not really a change to the substance of what you've already reviewed. There are two changes in section 48. And so the first amendment is you see on line 12 changing from 25 to 10 purchasers, expanding. Let me go back. So this statute deals with securities transactions that are exempt from registration filings and notice filings with the state. And there's a whole list of them. And so subdivision 14 deals with a specific type of single issue of securities. And so then on line 12, if not more than 10 purchasers are present in state. That's the same as what you reviewed before, so no change there. What was a little bit confusing was it's now in subdivision b. This is new language, but the way it was drafted before so these are exempt transactions. And so the way it was drafted before, it said, except if you are exempt under federal law, and then it's cited the federal law. So it was kinda confusing to, like, understand why that exemption applied and what you were trying to actually get at. And I understand those who are who live in this world. I think it made sense to them, but it was very hard to follow when I went back to just try to understand. So I proposed some new language, which I shared with the department, and they seemed fine with it. So, the way it reads now is, the exemption specified in this subdivision 14 shall not apply to a federal covered security that is otherwise subject to a notice filing under Vermont law. Because those federal covered securities under federal law are exempt from registration filings, and then it's pretty much up to the state whether they want to require notice filings. So DFR still wants them to do the notice filings, basically, was their intent. And that's why they're exempt from the exemption. That makes it's a little confusing, but I think this is actually a little bit easier to follow, but it's the same substance.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I would say that the amendment that Maria is proposing may sound a little convoluted, but it's much clearer than the other one, which I couldn't really understand. That's it. That's it. Is there any questions for Maria? Everybody gets it.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: There is mud.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Probably what we'll do would to have Joe come in and make sure we have DFR on the record for supporting him.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Jon, I think he's out today. He might be able to join by Zoom or a man is Amanda the deputy of securities I'm the deputy commissioner of securities. I can reach out to I can reach out to all of them. We don't want somebody for We
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: can't either Zoom in today. They we can get them in first thing in the morning
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Before we take up the struggle. Okay.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll send an email too.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: K. Yeah. Just tag in a brief survey. Yes. Okay. Which passes for We need to take the strap off first. Or do we tell the court here's the amendment? If we want it if we want it in the calendar for tomorrow, we have to vote it today. Right? Oh, no. You can you can offer the amendment. I could have offered the amendment. The amendment. We can vote it today or tomorrow. Okay. So I'll take Probably, we have to wait until it's wind up at the calendar. Then is that the time it's offered?
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: You have to wait till it's in the calendar. You can take a straw poll now, and then representative Olson, when he's on the floor, can say, you know, the committee heard this and we voted. You know?
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And it is Jonathan Tomorrow. Not today.
[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Tomorrow. Yeah. It would go on the calendar for tomorrow. They're agreed. Yeah.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Monique and Jonathan are online. We just don't have a date.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Sorry.
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Don't know if she's still But we can take a struggle down on it now and just hear from DFR making sure. Find out where Monique is. In a sec. Well, I wanna see if Monique's here. Okay. Then we'll do a motion. Motion.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Does that get recorded, or is
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it the straw? It would be a straw, but it would be recorded on.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Right. No. No. I was just because if I was just curious if
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: For a remote
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Right. That and because that would eat up one of
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: their remote boats. But a straw boat does.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: But if we make it's more of like
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I did have that same question. Sorry? I did have that same question.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So but if we if Herb makes a motion, that that would require an actual vote. It's gonna be
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: a struggle, not making a recorded vote. That's a record for the I'm just I don't think you have to make I'm just gonna make the amendment.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: That's what I was trying
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: to say. Say, you know, all in favor of Herb's amendment to a 6.8 raise your hand.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. Because if he makes a motion, then we have to record it on the paper, and then it requires them to use one of their votes. That's all. That I can't believe that was very I didn't mean to be Robert Ruhl ish, I guess, or whatever. Is that Mason? Mason's here. Oh, Mason, sorry. I'm assuming it's the same thing,
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's similar.
[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Well, but I mean, I'm assuming if there was an actual motion. I mean, you know, we're live, but it's
[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We go off live for a moment to hear back from the lead committee to hear back from someone from the FIR.