Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1999

Controlling persons; liability

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Every person who, by or through stock ownership, agency or otherwise or who pursuant to or in connection with an agreement or understanding with one or more other persons by or through stock ownership, agency or otherwise controls any person liable under this article, other than section 44-1991 or 44-1992, is liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as the controlled person to any person to whom the controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person had no knowledge of or reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability of the controlled person is alleged to exist.

B. Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable for a violation of section 44-1991 or 44-1992 is liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as the controlled person to any person to whom the controlled person is liable unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act underlying the action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2003) arizctapp · cites it 23× “4 The Commission further alleged that Cheng, Yuen, Tokyo, Tam, and Zhang were liable under A.R.S. § 44-1999 (Supp.1998) 5 as controlling persons of FISC, and that Sharma, EVGL, Wing, and Tak were liable under the same statute as controlling persons of EVFL.”
Grand v. Nacchio (2009) arizctapp · cites it 10× “5 *503 Secondary Liability ¶ 14 The complaint also alleges secondary liability under theories of aiding and abetting and the “control person” liability statute, A.R.S. § 44-1999. The trial court determined that the “participated in” requirement from § 44-2003(A) applied to these…”
Lustgraaf v. Behrens (2010) ca8 · cites it 2× “509 (7), and Arizona, Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-1999, respectively. The district court held that Nebraska law requires a plaintiff to allege that a broker-dealer provided material aid to the primary violator in order to state a claim for control-person liability.”
Wojtunik v. Kealy (2005) azd · cites it 4× “It contains eight counts: (1) CounN-Violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Director Defendants and Beiriger; (2) Count II — Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Insider Director Defendants and the Officer…”
Allstate Life Insurance v. Robert W. Baird & Co. (2010) azd · cites it 4× “(3) Allstate Has Stated a Claim Pursuant to Section 44-1999. Allstate has stated a claim against Global Entertainment, Kozuback, Treliving, and the Fain Group for control person liability pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute § 44-1999(B).”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015) arizctapp · cites it 4× “The Division further alleged Appellants were jointly and severally liable for the violations of Radical Bunny, as controlling persons, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1999(B). In April 2010, Radical Bunny signed a consent and decision order agreeing to pay restitution in the amount of…”
Grand v. Nacchio (2010) ariz · cites it 2× “¶ 28 The Trust also asserts that MeMaster and Nacchio are liable under A.R.S. § 44-1999(B) (2003) because they “controlled” KPNQ.”
Facciola v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP (2011) azd “The Arizona Securities Act attaches vicarious or *923 secondary liability to “controlling persons” as it does to a person or entity that commits a primary violation of §§ 44-1991 or 1992.”
Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp. (2016) ca9 “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1999 (B) (“Every person who .”
Rincon Etal Investments Incorporated v. Coughran (2022) azd · cites it 11× “§ 44-1991, 21 that Coughran was a control person under A.R.S. § 44-1999, and that Defendants are 22 therefore jointly and severally liable for the prohibited conduct under Arizona's controlling 23 person statute.”
Rincon Etal Investments Incorporated v. Coughran (2022) azd · cites it 11× “Objection #2: Control-person liability under A.R.S. § 44-1999 2 Defendants argue the Magistrate Judge incorrectly concluded Plaintiffs stated a 3 securities claim under Arizona law because Plaintiffs have not: (1) established a primary 4 violation or (2) alleged facts to…”
Simmons v. Acc (2019) arizctapp · cites it 10× “See A.R.S. §§ 44-1999. The Act imposes “presumptive control liability on those persons who have the power to directly or indirectly control the activities of those persons or entities liable as primary violators” of the Act’s anti-fraud provision.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1999(B) — 16 cases
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2003) arizctapp “4 The Commission further alleged that Cheng, Yuen, Tokyo, Tam, and Zhang were liable under A.R.S. § 44-1999 (Supp.1998) 5 as controlling persons of FISC, and that Sharma, EVGL, Wing, and Tak were liable under the same statute as controlling persons of EVFL.”
Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission (2015) arizctapp “The Division further alleged Appellants were jointly and severally liable for the violations of Radical Bunny, as controlling persons, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1999(B). In April 2010, Radical Bunny signed a consent and decision order agreeing to pay restitution in the amount of…”
Lustgraaf v. Behrens (2010) ca8 “509 (7), and Arizona, Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 44-1999, respectively. The district court held that Nebraska law requires a plaintiff to allege that a broker-dealer provided material aid to the primary violator in order to state a claim for control-person liability.”
Allstate Life Insurance v. Robert W. Baird & Co. (2010) azd “(3) Allstate Has Stated a Claim Pursuant to Section 44-1999. Allstate has stated a claim against Global Entertainment, Kozuback, Treliving, and the Fain Group for control person liability pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute § 44-1999(B).”
Grand v. Nacchio (2010) ariz “¶ 28 The Trust also asserts that MeMaster and Nacchio are liable under A.R.S. § 44-1999(B) (2003) because they “controlled” KPNQ.”
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.