Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2001 (2026)

Voidable sale or contract for sale of securities; remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A sale or contract for sale of any securities to any purchaser in violation of section 44-1841 or 44-1842 or article 13 of this chapter is voidable at the election of the purchaser, and the purchaser may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover the consideration paid for the securities, with interest, taxable court costs and reasonable  attorney fees, less the amount of any income received by dividend or otherwise from ownership of the securities, on tender of the securities purchased or the contract made, or for damages if the purchaser no longer owns the securities.

B. A person against whom an action for a violation of section 44-1991 is brought is not liable under subsection A of this section if the person sustains the burden of proof that the person did not know and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known of the untrue statement or misleading omission.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Grand v. Nacchio, 147 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grand v. Nacchio, 147 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 20× “We presume the Trust refers to A.R.S. § 44-2001, which allows an award of attorney fees when a plaintiff proves a violation of Arizona securities law encompassed by that statute.”
Stand. Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “§ 44-2003, however, an action under A.R.S. § 44-2001 may be brought against any person, including any dealer, salesman or agent, who made, participated in or induced the unlawful sale or purchase.”
Grand v. Nacchio, 217 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 15× “Section 44-2003(A) identifies those against whom an action pursuant to § 44-2001 may be brought: “any person ...”
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 599 P.2d 777 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 8× “" A.R.S. § 44-2001 delineates the remedies that a purchaser may pursue when a violation of A.”
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas, 570 P.2d 1268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 12× “A.R.S. § 44-2001 states: “A sale or contract for sale of any securities to any purchaser in violation of any provision of §§ 44-1841, 44-1842 or article 13 of this chapter, is voidable at the election of the purchaser, who may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction…”
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Co., 295 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 5× “¶ 20 As noted above, the legislature did not expressly authorize secondary liability for aiding and abetting in either the sections setting forth the types of actionable fraudulent practices under the Act, A.”
Trimble v. Am. Sav. Life Ins., 733 P.2d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “It further argues that A.R.S. § 44-2001, allowing a purchaser of a voidable security to “recover the consideration paid for the securities, with interest thereon,” permits an award of prejudgment interest even on unliquidated claims.”
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 694 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. §§ 44-2001 to -2005 (1974 & Supp. 1974-1984).”
Grand v. Nacchio, 236 P.3d 398 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 4× “Section 44-2003(A) thus applies the § 44-2001 rescissory remedy to those other than the seller of the securities.”
Hayes v. Cont'l Ins., 872 P.2d 668 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 44-2001 to 44-2005; 44-2036; 44-2037; see also Kotz v.”
Siporin v. Carrington, 23 P.3d 92 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 44-2001(A) (Supp.2000)'. ¶ 17 During the period relevant to this appeal, the statutory definition of “security” did not expressly include viatical settlements.”
R & L Ltd. Investments, Inc. v. Cabot Inv. Props., LLC, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Ariz. 2010). · cites it 4× “2008) (holding that plaintiff purchasers, but not defendants, may recover attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 44-2001(A)). The Arizona Court of Appeals noted that “the legislature intended to protect purchasers of securities while simultaneously penalizing those who engage…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2001(A) — 19 cases
Grand v. Nacchio, 147 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “We presume the Trust refers to A.R.S. § 44-2001, which allows an award of attorney fees when a plaintiff proves a violation of Arizona securities law encompassed by that statute.”
Stand. Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 44-2003, however, an action under A.R.S. § 44-2001 may be brought against any person, including any dealer, salesman or agent, who made, participated in or induced the unlawful sale or purchase.”
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Co., 295 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2013). “¶ 20 As noted above, the legislature did not expressly authorize secondary liability for aiding and abetting in either the sections setting forth the types of actionable fraudulent practices under the Act, A.”
Siporin v. Carrington, 23 P.3d 92 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “See A.R.S. § 44-2001(A) (Supp.2000)'. ¶ 17 During the period relevant to this appeal, the statutory definition of “security” did not expressly include viatical settlements.”
Grand v. Nacchio, 236 P.3d 398 (Ariz. 2010). “Section 44-2003(A) thus applies the § 44-2001 rescissory remedy to those other than the seller of the securities.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2001(A)(l) — 1 case
Allstate Life Ins. v. Robert W. Baird & Co., 756 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Ariz. 2010).
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.