Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 451 / Act 551 of 2008
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2101 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT (2002)


Act 551 of 2008


451.2101 Short title.

Sec. 101.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "uniform securities act (2002)".

History: 2008, Act 551, Eff. Oct. 1, 2009

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of securities division of office of finance and insurance regulation from office of finance and insurance regulation to department of licensing and regulatory affairs, see E.R.O. No. 2012-6, compiled at MCL 445.2034.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: JAC Holding Enter., Inc. v. Atrium Capital Partners, LLC, 997 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
JAC Holding Enter., Inc. v. Atrium Capital Partners, LLC, 997 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “(counts III and IV); (3) the Michigan *725 Uniform Securities Act of 2002, Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2101 et seq. (counts V and VI); (4) fraudulent inducement (count VII); (5) fraudulent misrepresentation (count VIII); (6) silent fraud (count XI); (7) conspiracy and concert of…”
Pransky v. Falcon Grp., Inc, 874 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1 She argues the trial court erred when it determined that the consulting agreement did not require Falcon Group to provide any services that would require it to be registered under Michigan’s Uniform Securities Act (2002), MCL 451.2101 et seq. (the Securities Act).”
Blalock v. Hunterdon Rentals LLC (E.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 2× “Michigan Uniform Securities Act Next, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2101 , et seq. ECF 1, PgID 6–8.”
Jillson v. Elrod (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “Jilson brings claims for default in contract (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II), promissory estoppel (Count III), fraudulent inducement (Count IV), breach of fiduciary duty (Count V), minority oppression (Count VI), and, in the alternative to Counts V and VI, securities…”
Jillson v. Elrod (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “He brings claims for breach of contract (Count One), unjust enrichment (Count Two), promissory estoppel (Count Three), fraudulent inducement (Count Four), breach of 1 fiduciary duty (Count Five), minority oppression (Count Six), and, in the alternative to Counts Five and Six,…”
Palmer v. Crosscountry Mortg. (E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 1602 and a general reference to Michigan’s Uniform Securities Act (MUSA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2101 , et seq. (ECF No.”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, provides: A person that willfully violates this act or a rule adopted or order issued under this act, except section 504 or the notice filing requirements of section 302 or 405, or that willfully violates section 505 knowing the statement made to be false or misleading in a…”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, provides: A person that willfully violates this act or a rule adopted or order issued under this act, except section 504 or the notice filing requirements of section 302 or 405, or that willfully violates section 505 knowing the statement made to be false or misleading in a…”
Susan Holland v. James D Kraatz (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2509(2) of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act (MUSA), MCL 451.2101 et seq., by making intentional and fraudulent misrepresentations and by concealing material information.”
Susan Holland v. James D Kraatz (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2509(2) of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act (MUSA), MCL 451.2101 et seq., by making intentional and fraudulent misrepresentations and by concealing material information.”
Randy Atto v. Stephen Wandrie (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “1 The complaint contained claims of: (1) breach of contract, (2) “quantum merit and unjust enrichment,” (3) promissory estoppel, (4) fraud and intentional misrepresentation, (5) fraudulent concealment, (6) innocent misrepresentation, (7) negligent misrepresentation, (8)…”
La Developers LLC v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “The circuit court reversed, however, holding that the Reves test conflicted with existing Michigan law and the instrument at issue was not a security.”
Show all 14 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.