Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 233
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 76A (2026)

Authenticated copies of documents filed with securities and exchange commission

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

Section 76A. Photostatic or other copies of applications, reports, books, records, returns, papers or documents filed with the federal securities and exchange commission, or any successor thereof, pursuant to the provisions of the act of congress known as the Securities Act of 1933, or the act of congress known as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as heretofore or hereafter amended, if authenticated by the attestation of the officer or person who has charge of the same together with a certificate of any one of the members of said commission, or of the secretary to said commission, or of any successor thereof, that such attestation is in due form and by the proper officer or person, shall be competent evidence in all cases equally with originals thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Pamela L. Owens, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of William a Owens v. Crescent Hill Partners, LLC, & Raymond Martin (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pamela L. Owens, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of William a Owens v. Crescent Hill Partners, LLC, & Raymond Martin (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 2× “See G.L. c. 233, § 76A. In the Superior Court, judges expect all parties to stipulate to the authenticity of their own documents—whether the party has produced the document during discovery or filed it with a regulatory agency like the SEC—unless there is an actual dispute as to…”
Giul, LLC v. Shenghuo Med., LLC, D/B/A K2 Med.; Michael J. Antonoplos, Richard P. Blumberg, Mark L. Faupel, & Mark S. Pearlstein (Mass. 2024). “The statements by GTI in these 10-K and 10-Q filings are not hearsay because the Court is considering them not for the truth of those statements, but only to understand the nature of the financial and business disclosures by GTI to which Antonoplos had directed Conte.”
Maura Healey, in Her Off. Capacity as Attorney Gen. for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Uber Tech., Inc. & Lyft, Inc. (Mass. Super. Ct. 2021). “If Uber or Lyft were to object to the Court taking judicial notice of their recent 10-K filings, the Court would allow the Attorney General to amend her complaint to quote and attach relevant excerpts from these documents. -4- employee wage and benefit statutes.”
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.