O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Statute text
This chapter shall be known as and may be cited as the "Georgia Uniform Securities Act of 2008."
History
(Code 1981, § 10-5-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1/SB 358.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For survey article on business associations, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 35 (2008).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Complaint alleging mishandling of stock transfer. - Trial court properly denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim because the plaintiff satisfied minimal pleading requirements necessary to survive motions by adequately alleging a deprivation of rightful ownership of 9,479 shares of stock due to the defendants' individual and collective conduct and that the defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the surrender, transfer, exchange and disbursement of shares. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. v. Jones, 348 Ga. App. 474, 823 S.E.2d 558 (2019).
Cited in Griffin v. State Bank, 312 Ga. App. 87, 718 S.E.2d 35 (2011); Cox v. Mayan Lagoon Estates Ltd., 319 Ga. App. 101, 734 S.E.2d 883 (2012); Cushing v. Cohen, 323 Ga. App. 497, 746 S.E.2d 898 (2013).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
22 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Securities Regulation, § 2 et seq. 22A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Securities Regulation, § 35 et seq.
ALR. - What gives rise to right of recession under state blue-sky laws, 52 A.L.R. 5th 491.
Investigative authority of administrative agencies in state regulation of securities, 58 A.L.R.5th 293.
State regulation of viatical life insurance programs, viatical settlements, and viatical investments, 28 A.L.R.6th 281.
Effect of asset freeze obtained by Securities and Exchange Commission on attorney's fees paid or owed by company subject to freeze, 161 A.L.R. Fed. 233.
Notes of Decisions
Cushing v. Cohen, 746 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the financial instruments at issue here are securities under the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, former OCGA § 10-5-1 et seq. The plaintiffs in both of these cases sued attorney Charles M.”
Griffin v. State Bank of Cochran, 718 S.E.2d 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” See OCGA § 10-5-1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1. Since the transactions forming the basis of the counterclaim occurred prior to July 1, 2009, Griffin relies upon the provisions of the former Georgia Securities Act of 1973.”
In Re Energy Sys. Equip. Leasing Sec. Litig., 642 F. Supp. 718 (E.D.N.Y 1986).
· cites it 2× “Count X is premised upon an alleged violation by all defendants of the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-5-1 et seq. Count XI sets forth a breach of contract claim against OEC, and Count XII seeks the recovery of attorneys fees because of defendants’ alleged bad…”
Fernandez v. WebSingularity, Inc., 681 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “1 OCGA § 10-5-1 et seq. Notably, effective July 1, 2009, this Chapter was revised and became known as the “Georgia Uniform Securities Act of 2008.”
Greenwald v. Odom, 723 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” See OCGA § 10-5-1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1. Because the Purchase Transaction occurred before July 1, 2009, Greenwald relied upon the provisions of the former Georgia Securities Act of 1973 to support his securities fraud claims.”
Garvin v. Sec'y of State, 596 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “We find no error in the determination made by the Commissioner, and affirmed by the superior court that, by collectively selling and promoting these contracts as an investment venture, Garvin sold investment contracts which were classified as securities under the Georgia…”
Cox v. Mayan Lagoon Estates Ltd., 734 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Cox also relies on facts necessary to establish Constantino’s multiple violations of the Georgia Securities Act, OCGA § 10-5-1 et seq., reflected by his convictions on Count 2, Counts 7 and 8, and Counts 15 through 17 of the indictment.”
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. v. Billy N. Jones, 823 S.E.2d 558 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “DTCC moved to dismiss Jones' complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), arguing that Jones: (1) had no contractual relationship with DTCC; (2) could not satisfy any element of conversion against DTCC; and (3) had no right of action against DTCC…”
Cohen v. William Goldberg & Co., 413 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Pretermitting all questions regarding the validity and consummation of the sale contract, we find no error in the trial court’s grant of appellees’ motion for summary judgment on the securities claims.”
Huggins v. Chapin, 503 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “alleging fraud and violation of the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, OCGA § 10-5-1 et seq. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chapin with respect to the securities violation and awarded him attorney fees under OCGA § 10-5-14 (a), in addition to the amount of his…”
Cox v. Garvin, 607 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. 2005).
· cites it 2× “For the reasons which follow, we find that the Court of Appeals set an incorrect standard for establishing a willful violation in order to impose an administrative penalty under OCGA § 10-5-13(a) (1) (A) (iv); the term “willfully” requires proof only that the defendant intended…”
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.