O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-5-5 (2019)

Electronic records and signatures

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter modifies, limits, and supersedes the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7001, et seq., but does not modify, limit, or supersede Section 101(c) of that act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7001(c), or authorize electronic delivery of any of the notices described in Section 103(b) of that act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7003(b). This chapter authorizes the filing of records and signatures, when specified by provisions of this chapter or by a rule adopted or order issued under this chapter, in a manner consistent with Section 104(a) of that act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7004(a).

History

Code 1981, § 10-5-5, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1/SB 358.

ARTICLE 2 EXEMPTIONS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1988–2012 · leading case: Bell v. Sasser, 520 S.E.2d 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bell v. Sasser, 520 S.E.2d 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 10-5-5 (a); DeBoard v. Schulhofer, 156 Ga.”
Mosley v. State, 560 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “4, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 22), five violations of OCGA § 10-5-5 (a) (1) (nos. 1, 5, 9, 14, and 19), five violations of OCGA § 10-5-3 (nos.”
Trend Star Cont'l, Ltd. v. Branham, 469 S.E.2d 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “See OCGA §§ 10-5-5 & 10-5-12 (a) (1). The named plaintiffs are among those who signed application services agreements with TSC and paid it money.”
Smith v. Saulsbury, 649 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “at 263 ; see also OCGA §§ 10-5-5; 10-5-12. 26 See Carter, supra at 264 .”
Carter v. Moody, 511 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “among other things: (1) that Moody, who was Carter’s personal certified public accountant, had breached this confidential relationship and fraudulently induced Carter into the stock agreement without fully disclosing the extent of the company’s financial difficulties and (2)…”
Garvin v. Sec'y of State, 596 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Garvin does not dispute that he was not registered to sell securities in Georgia pursuant to OCGA § 10-5-3, nor does he dispute that the contracts involved in the investment he described and sold to Kommor were not registered in Georgia as securities under OCGA § 10-5-5.”
Hicks v. State, 728 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “which security was not subject to an effective registration statement pursuant to OCGA § 10-5-5 (a) (l)-(3) [(2000)].” 3 Second, the indictment charged that Hicks “unlawfully and.”
Binder v. Gordian Sec., Inc., 742 F. Supp. 663 (N.D. Ga. 1990). · cites it 6× “O.C.G.A. § 10-5-5 provides that all securities offerings must be either registered under O.”
Thayer v. State, 375 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Four counts involved violations of OCGA § 10-5-12 (a) (1) where in a series of transactions involving instruments constituting securities within the meaning of the law, defendants failed to comply with the registration statement requirements of OCGA § 10-5-5 as to securities…”
Blue Sky L. Rep. P 73,254, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,264 T.J. Eberhardt v. James L. Waters, Lynda B. Waters, Dunwoody Med. Servs., Inc., 901 F.2d 1578 (11th Cir. 1990). “He sought to rescind the agreement based on ICE’s failure to register the security with the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office as required by O.C.G.A. § 10-5-5. Following Eberhardt’s voluntary dismissal of Peterson, the district court entered default judgments against ICE and…”
Weprin v. Peterson, 736 F. Supp. 1124 (N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 9× “The limited partnership interests offered and sold in the Capital: Maple Leaf and Maple Leaf Offerings were not registered under Section 5 of the 1933 Act nor under O.C.G.A. § 10-5-5. The Capital: Maple Leaf and Maple Leaf limited partnership interests were offered and sold in…”
Cox v. Edelson, 530 S.E.2d 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 10-5-5. In a subscription agreement and investment letter attached to the stock purchase agreement, Cox acknowledged that the shares were not registered and the company was under no obligation to register them or make application for any exemption to the Act.”
Show all 15 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.