Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991
Fraud in purchase or sale of securities
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. It is a fraudulent practice and unlawful for a person, in connection with a transaction or transactions within or from this state involving an offer to sell or buy securities, or a sale or purchase of securities, including securities exempted under section 44-1843 or 44-1843.01 and including transactions exempted under section 44-1844, 44-1845 or 44-1850, directly or indirectly to do any of the following:
1. Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud.
2. Make any untrue statement of material fact, or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
3. Engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit.
B. In a private action brought pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section or section 44-1992, if the person who offered or sold the security proves that any portion or all of the amount recoverable under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section or section 44-1992 represents an amount other than the depreciation in value of the subject security resulting from the part of the prospectus or oral communication, with respect to which the liability of the person is asserted, not being true or omitting to state a material fact required to be stated or necessary to make the statement not misleading, then the amount shall not be recoverable. This subsection does not apply to any actions based on allegations of activities constituting dishonest or unethical practices in the securities industry.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Grand v. Nacchio
Grand v. Nacchio (2006)
“When the Arizona legislature enacted §§ 44-1991 and 44-2001, 1951 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State v. Gunnison (1980)
“, was found guilty of five counts involving violations of Chapter 12 (sales of securities), Title 44 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed as to three counts (Counts 23, 166 and 167) and affirmed as to Count 1, conspiracy to sell…”
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County (1979)
“Fraud in purchase or sale of securities. "It is a fraudulent practice and unlawful for a person, in connection with a transaction or transactions within or from this state involving an offer to sell or buy securities, or a sale or purchase of securities, including securities…”
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse (1997)
“SC asserted — exclusively as Union’s and United’s assignee— damages claims for auditor negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, racketeering, and violation of the Arizona Securities Act, A.R.S. § 44-1991 (1994). 1 SC claimed a net loss of $338,053,768,…”
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company (2013)
“Sell’s multi-count complaint alleged that those professional defendants were primarily liable for securities fraud under A.R.S. §§ 44-1991 and -2003 (Count One), *325 and secondarily liable for aiding and abetting others’ statutory violations (Count Two).”
Greenfield v. Cheek (1978)
“After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment against Steven Greenfield on Counts IV and VII and the claim under A.R.S. § 44-1991 alleged in Count VI for $31,248 compensatory damages and $10,000 attorneys' fees plus costs.”
Aaron v. Fromkin (2000)
“§ 44-1991 et seq.] unless brought within two years after discovery of the fraudulent practice on which the liability is based, or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
MacCollum v. Perkinson (1996)
“The definition of a security for purposes of registration is limited by the statutory language of A.”
Grand v. Nacchio (2010)
“In contrast, the ASA explicitly provides for a private cause of action for violations of § 44-1991 in § 44-2001(A), which states that a sale of securities in violation of article 13 of title 44 is “voidable at the election of the purchaser,” who may “recover the consideration…”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015)
“Furthermore, the Commission determined that, in connection with the offer and sale of these securities, Appellants violated each of the anti-fraud provisions contained within A.R.S. § 44-1991. 4 Specifically, the Commission found Appellants misled investors by: (1) providing…”
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance (1986)
“American Savings’s impressive financial statements were found to be the result of accounting practices constituting “a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and an omission to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances…”
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2003)
“The Commission determined that in connection with the offer and sales of such securities, FISC, EVFL, Simmons, and Cho also violated the anti-fraud ’ provisions of § 44-1991. Specifically, the Commission determined that EVFL salespeople misled investors by giving false…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(1) — 5 cases
State v. Gunnison (1980)
“, was found guilty of five counts involving violations of Chapter 12 (sales of securities), Title 44 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed as to three counts (Counts 23, 166 and 167) and affirmed as to Count 1, conspiracy to sell…”
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse (1997)
“SC asserted — exclusively as Union’s and United’s assignee— damages claims for auditor negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, racketeering, and violation of the Arizona Securities Act, A.R.S. § 44-1991 (1994). 1 SC claimed a net loss of $338,053,768,…”
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance (1986)
“American Savings’s impressive financial statements were found to be the result of accounting practices constituting “a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and an omission to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances…”
Hernandez v. Superior Court (1994)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(2) — 12 cases
State v. Gunnison (1980)
“, was found guilty of five counts involving violations of Chapter 12 (sales of securities), Title 44 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed as to three counts (Counts 23, 166 and 167) and affirmed as to Count 1, conspiracy to sell…”
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse (1997)
“SC asserted — exclusively as Union’s and United’s assignee— damages claims for auditor negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, racketeering, and violation of the Arizona Securities Act, A.R.S. § 44-1991 (1994). 1 SC claimed a net loss of $338,053,768,…”
Greenfield v. Cheek (1978)
“After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment against Steven Greenfield on Counts IV and VII and the claim under A.R.S. § 44-1991 alleged in Count VI for $31,248 compensatory damages and $10,000 attorneys' fees plus costs.”
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance (1986)
“American Savings’s impressive financial statements were found to be the result of accounting practices constituting “a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and an omission to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances…”
Aaron v. Fromkin (2000)
“§ 44-1991 et seq.] unless brought within two years after discovery of the fraudulent practice on which the liability is based, or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A) — 25 cases
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company (2013)
“Sell’s multi-count complaint alleged that those professional defendants were primarily liable for securities fraud under A.R.S. §§ 44-1991 and -2003 (Count One), *325 and secondarily liable for aiding and abetting others’ statutory violations (Count Two).”
Grand v. Nacchio (2010)
“In contrast, the ASA explicitly provides for a private cause of action for violations of § 44-1991 in § 44-2001(A), which states that a sale of securities in violation of article 13 of title 44 is “voidable at the election of the purchaser,” who may “recover the consideration…”
Caruthers v. Underhill (2012)
Grand v. Nacchio (2009)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(1) — 8 cases
Grand v. Nacchio (2006)
“When the Arizona legislature enacted §§ 44-1991 and 44-2001, 1951 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(2) — 20 cases
Grand v. Nacchio (2006)
“When the Arizona legislature enacted §§ 44-1991 and 44-2001, 1951 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Aaron v. Fromkin (2000)
“§ 44-1991 et seq.] unless brought within two years after discovery of the fraudulent practice on which the liability is based, or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015)
“Furthermore, the Commission determined that, in connection with the offer and sale of these securities, Appellants violated each of the anti-fraud provisions contained within A.R.S. § 44-1991. 4 Specifically, the Commission found Appellants misled investors by: (1) providing…”
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company (2013)
“Sell’s multi-count complaint alleged that those professional defendants were primarily liable for securities fraud under A.R.S. §§ 44-1991 and -2003 (Count One), *325 and secondarily liable for aiding and abetting others’ statutory violations (Count Two).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(3) — 5 cases
Grand v. Nacchio (2010)
“In contrast, the ASA explicitly provides for a private cause of action for violations of § 44-1991 in § 44-2001(A), which states that a sale of securities in violation of article 13 of title 44 is “voidable at the election of the purchaser,” who may “recover the consideration…”
Grand v. Nacchio (2009)
McCauley v. Najafi (2020)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(l) — 4 cases
Grand v. Nacchio (2006)
“When the Arizona legislature enacted §§ 44-1991 and 44-2001, 1951 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(l)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(B) — 6 cases
Grand v. Nacchio (2006)
“When the Arizona legislature enacted §§ 44-1991 and 44-2001, 1951 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Grand v. Nacchio (2010)
“In contrast, the ASA explicitly provides for a private cause of action for violations of § 44-1991 in § 44-2001(A), which states that a sale of securities in violation of article 13 of title 44 is “voidable at the election of the purchaser,” who may “recover the consideration…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.