Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 23-2-2.5-27 (2026)
Fraud or deceit unlawful
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 27. It is unlawful for any person in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any franchise, or in any filing made with the commissioner, directly or indirectly: (1) to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) to make any untrue statements of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (3) to engage in any act which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
Formerly: Acts 1975, P.L.262, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: Enservco, Inc. v. Indiana Sec. Div., 623 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 1993).
Enservco, Inc. v. Indiana Sec. Div., 623 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 1993). “The complaint alleged that respondents offered and sold a franchise in violation of the antifraud provision of the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Act, Ind.Code Ann. § 23-2-2.5-27 (West 1989). The charges of franchise fraud stem from alleged misrepresentations and omissions in…”
Moll v. South Cent. Solar Sys., Inc., 419 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). ““The second major protective mechanism in the law is the private civil remedy provided in section 23-2-2.5-27. [Footnote omitted.] This section is a general antifraud provision, apparently drafted to parallel rule 10b-5 adopted under the Security Exchange Act of 1934.”
Cont'l Basketball Ass'n v. Ellenstein Enter., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. 1996). “" Ind.Code § 23-2-2.5-27. 6 . 17 § 240.10b-5 (1995).”
Motor City Bagels, L.L.C. v. Am. Bagel Co., 50 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D. Maryland 1999). “Ind.Code § 23-2-2.5-27. In Enservco, Inc.”
Cook v. Little Caesar Enter., Inc., 972 F. Supp. 400 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “Section 27 of the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Act, Ind.Code § 23-2-2.5-27, provides: It is unlawful for any person in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any franchise, or in any filing made with the commissioner, directly or indirectly: (1) to employ any device,…”
Hacienda Mexican Restaurant of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Grp., Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “The Court held that "[to prove section 27(1) franchise fraud, one must show the alleged violator employed a 'device, scheme or artifice' with the knowledge or intent that it might defraud another." Enservco, 623 N.E.”
Hardee's of Maumelle, Arkansas, Inc. v. Hardee's Food Sys., Inc., 31 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 1994). “The district court held a bench trial on the remaining claims alleging fraud under the IFA, Ind.Code § 23-2-2.5-27, and FTC disclosure rules; Indiana common law; Arkansas common law; and fraudulent concealment and constructive fraud under Arkansas law.”
Nidia Martinez, on Behalf of Herself & Others Similarly Situated v. Stratus Franchising, LLC (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Section 23-2-2.5-27 of the Act provides: It is unlawful for any person in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any franchise, or in any filing made with the commissioner, directly or indirectly: (1) to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) to make any…”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.5-27(2) — 1 case
Enservco, Inc. v. Indiana Sec. Div., 623 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 1993). “The complaint alleged that respondents offered and sold a franchise in violation of the antifraud provision of the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Act, Ind.Code Ann. § 23-2-2.5-27 (West 1989). The charges of franchise fraud stem from alleged misrepresentations and omissions in…”
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.