Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XV Chapter 110A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110A, § 101 (2026)

Sales and Purchases

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 101. It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly

(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or

(3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Pearce v. Duchesneau Grp., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Mass. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pearce v. Duchesneau Grp., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Mass. 2005). · cites it 5× “The defendants also urge the Court to apply 9(b)’s standards to the plaintiffs claim under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 110A § 101, 410(a)(“Blue Sky Law”), arguing that, although fraud is not a required element of the statutory claim, the Count V…”
Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411 (Mass. 2005). “The plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Massachusetts “blue sky” laws, G. L. c. 110A, §§ 101 and 410; negligent misrepresentation; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; interference with advantageous relations;…”
Wang v. Xinyi Liu, Yuanlong Huang, Zhaonan Wang, Bling Entm't, LLC, 584 B.R. 427 (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 6× “(Count VI), violation of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act ("MUSA"), Mass. Gen. L. c. 110A, § 101 (Count VII), demand for accounting (Count VIII), professional malpractice (Count IX), breach of contract (Count X) and unjust enrichment (Count XI).”
Kravitz v. Pressman, Frohlich & Frost, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 203 (D. Mass. 1978). “§§ 78j, 78o and Rules 10(b)(5), 15(c)(l)(2) and 15(c)(l)(7)(a); in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110A, § 101; and in violation of the National Association of Securities Dealers’ Rules of Fair Practice, Ar- *211 tide III, Section 2.”
Massaro v. Vernitron Corp., 559 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Mass. 1983). “G.L. c. 110A, § 101, is without legal merit and is barred by the statute of limitations; (8) the plaintiffs’ common law deceit claim in Count IV must fail because the plaintiffs *1073 cannot show that the statements made by Vernitron officers concerning the defendant’s intention…”
Silvia v. Sec. Div., 810 N.E.2d 825 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The Securities Division (division) of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) charged the plaintiff with violations of G. L. c. 110A, §§ 101, 1 102, 2 201, 3 and 301, 4 in the following respects: transacting business in securities without being registered as a…”
Arent v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 770 (D. Mass. 1985). · cites it 2× “In addition, plaintiff alleges claims under Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 110A, §§ 101, 102 and ch.”
Birch v. Choinski (In Re Choinski), 214 B.R. 515 (1st Cir. BAP 1997). “*523 vide that a seller, as well as a person in control of a seller, who sells a security “by means of any untrue statement” of "material fact" or "any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which…”
Gaudette v. Panos, 644 F. Supp. 826 (D. Mass. 1986). “Count II alleges a violation of Massachusetts Blue Sky Law, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 110A, §§ 101 and 102, Count III alleges breach of fiduciary duty.”
Fenoglio v. Augat, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 1999). “Massachusetts Securities Fraud Claim Plaintiff further alleges that defendants violated Mass.”
Dawe v. Main Street Mgmt. Co., 738 F. Supp. 36 (D. Mass. 1990). “ffs eight-count complaint alleges: 1) violations of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on material omissions and deceptive statements; 2) violations of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 based on the theory of "fraud on the market;” 3) violations of § 12(2)…”
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Salerno, 445 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Mass. 2006). “In their Statement of Claim, defendants asserted that Citigroup and its former securities analyst, Grubman, had failed to disclose alleged conflicts of interest prior to their purchase of WorldCom stock and, therefore, all such purchases should be rescinded for alleged…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110A, § 101(1) — 1 case
Am. Microtel, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 479 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110A, § 101(l) — 1 case
Am. Microtel, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 479 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995).
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.