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

O.C.G.A. § 10-5-50 (2019)

Unlawful practices with offer, sale, or purchase of security

✓ 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

It is unlawful for a person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security, directly or indirectly: (1) To employ a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) To make an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading; or (3) To engage in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon another person.

History

Code 1981, § 10-5-50, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1/SB 358.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Scienter not sufficiently pled. - Investors’ reliance on the defendants’ positions as directors and officers, their attendance at meetings, and access to internal documents and reports was insufficient to allege a strong inference of scienter to support their securities fraud claims under O.C.G.A. § 10-5-12(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4. Patel v. Patel, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7081 (N.D. Ga. 2011). No intent to defraud found. - Borrowers did not commit fraud upon a lender; the borrowers advised the lender

that the $150,000 the borrowers sought would fund the corporation for a few months until the borrowers secured a total of $1.5 million to build the necessary greenhouses, and the payment of salaries to themselves of $600 per week each was not inconsistent with the borrowers stated purpose. Because there was no intent to defraud, the borrowers were not liable for securities fraud under O.C.G.A. § 10-5-50. Sims v. Natural Prods. of Ga., LLC, 337 Ga. App. 20, 785 S.E.2d 659, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 248 (2016).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Sims v. Nat. Prods. of Georgia, LLC Et Al., 785 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sims v. Nat. Prods. of Georgia, LLC Et Al., 785 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “James Sims sued Richard Creasman, Robert Wilkinson, and Natural Products of Georgia, LLC (“Natural Products”) for breach of a promissory note, fraud, and violation of the Georgia Securities Act (“GSA”), OCGA § 10-5-50. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment…”
Hoipkemier v. Miller (N.D. Ga. 2024). · cites it 2× “But, here, the Plaintiffs’ Georgia RICO claim does not rely entirely on federal law because 13 the Plaintiffs also appear to allege a violation of state law—specifically state securities law under O.C.G.A. § 10-5-50 —as a separate predicate act to the RICO claim.”
Lisa Wright v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “20 See OCGA § 10-5-50 (“It is unlawful for a person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security, directly or indirectly: (1) To employ a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) To make an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material…”
Tenor Capital Partners, LLC v. GunBroker.com, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). “§ 10-5-50), which contains the same relevant language as O.”
Wang & Gao Fam. Trust v. TA Partners LLC (N.D. Ga. 2025). “§ 10-5-50 (and presumably O.C.G.A. § 10-5-20 and federal securities law).”
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.