Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 36b — · Chapter 672a — Uniform Securities Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36b-2 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 36-470). Short title: Connecticut Uniform Securities Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sections 36b-2 to 36b-34, inclusive, may be cited as the “Connecticut Uniform Securities Act”.

(P.A. 77-482, S. 1; P.A. 10-141, S. 2.)

History: Sec. 36-470 transferred to Sec. 36b-2 in 1995; P.A. 10-141 replaced reference to Sec. 36b-33 with reference to Sec. 36b-34, effective June 7, 2010.

Annotation to former section 36-470:

Cited. 219 C. 204.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Andresen, 773 A.2d 328 (Conn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Andresen, 773 A.2d 328 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “The primary issue in this appeal is whether a defendant charged with selling unregistered securities under the criminal provisions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (CUSA), now General Statutes §§ 36b-2 to 36b-33, 1 has the burden of persuasion on *315 the issue of…”
Starboard Resources, Inc. v. Henry, 177 A.3d 1168 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “defendants have violated the provisions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (CUSA), [ General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq. ], and that the .”
Gould v. Mellick & Sexton, 785 A.2d 265 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs sought summary judgments as to the defendant’s special defenses and the issue of whether the defendant may be liable as an aider and abetter under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq.”
Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Giacomi, 699 A.2d 101 (Conn. 1997). “As indicated in footnote 1 of the majority opinion, the provisions of CUSA were transferred and renumbered in 1995, and are currently codified at § 36b-2 et seq. References herein to the relevant provisions of CUSA are to their designations in effect during the period of time at…”
Lehn v. Dailey, 825 A.2d 140 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Indeed, making intent to defraud an element of subdivision (2) would render it redundant because a fraudulent statement or omission would appear already to be prohibited under either subdivision (1), employing a scheme or artifice to defraud and subdivision (3), engaging in any…”
Couldock & Bohan, Inc. v. Société Generale Sec. Corp., 93 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 2× “Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 36b-2 to 36b-33, inclusive.”
Starboard Resources, Inc. v. Henry, 196 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “[Imbruce parties had] violated the provi- sions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (CUSA), [General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq.], and that the .”
Harris v. George (In Re George), 205 B.R. 679 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 36b-2, et seq., provide that no person shall transact business as an investment advisor in Connecticut unless registered as such by the commissioner of insurance.”
Shulansky v. Rodriguez, 669 A.2d 638 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “1 In 1995, chapter 662 of the General Statutes was transferred to chapter 672a, General Statutes §§ 36b-2 through 36b-33.”
MacDermid, Inc. v. Cookson Grp., PLC, 89 A.3d 447 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “7 MacDermid II also includes a claim under Connecticut’s Uniform Securities Act, [(CUSA), General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq.]. At this juncture, there is no dispute as to the similarity of the allegations in MacDermid II and the amendment sought, though denied, in MacDermid I.”
Gorga v. Uniroyal Chem. Corp., 697 A.2d 731 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “In count three, the plaintiff incorporates count two in its entirety, further alleging that the defendants’ conduct violated CUSA, General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq. On June 21, 1996, Uniroyal Chemical and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike…”
DeSteph v. Dep't of Banking, 72 A.3d 470 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “The final decision made permanent a prior cease and desist order issued to the plaintiff relating to sale of securities *552 in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (CUSA), General Statutes § 36b-2 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder, and imposed a…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.