NRS
90.310 Licensing of broker-dealers, sales representatives and transfer
agents.
1. It is unlawful for any person to
transact business in this State as a broker-dealer or sales representative
unless licensed or exempt from licensing under this chapter.
2. It is unlawful for any issuer or any
broker-dealer licensed under this chapter to employ or contract with a person
as a sales representative within this State unless the sales representative is
licensed or exempt from licensing under this chapter.
3. It is unlawful for any person to
transact business in this State as a transfer agent unless licensed or exempt
from licensing under this chapter.
4. It is unlawful for a broker-dealer or
an issuer engaged in offering securities in this State to employ or contract
with, in connection with any of the broker-dealer’s or issuer’s activities in
this State, any person who is suspended or barred from association with a
broker-dealer or investment adviser by the Administrator. A broker-dealer or
issuer does not violate this subsection unless the broker-dealer or issuer
knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should know of the suspension or
bar. Upon request from a broker-dealer or issuer, and for good cause shown, the
Administrator by order may waive the prohibition of this subsection with
respect to a particular person who has been suspended or barred.
5. It is unlawful for any person licensed
pursuant to this chapter to share, divide or apportion fees with a person who
is effecting or attempting to effect purchases or sales of securities and is
not licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(Added to NRS by 1987,
2153; A 1989,
151; 1995,
1442; 2007,
1337)
Notes of Decisions
Tai-Si Kim v. Kearney, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Nev. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs respond that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the Reed Defendants brokered the Note because Ed orchestrated the Option Agreement and recommended Plaintiffs obtain the $100,000 from Kearney.”
Sheriff, Washoe Cnty. v. Fullerton, 924 P.2d 702 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 4× “460; (2) unlawfully transacting business as a broker-dealer and unlawfully transacting business as a sales representative, in violation of NRS 90.310; and (3) fraud committed by Fullerton in the offer and sale of securities, in violation of NRS 90.”
Las Vegas Land Partners LLC v. Nype C/W 70520 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that "interests in an LLC were not being sold, disposed of[,] or purchased," and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that "Nype did not engage in the performance of a…”
Las Vegas Land Partners LLC v. Nype C/W 70520 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that "interests in an LLC were not being sold, disposed of[,] or purchased," and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that "Nype did not engage in the performance of a…”
Gingold v. Itronics, Inc. (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) 15 On August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this action asserting a claim against Whitney for 16 violation of NRS § 90.310 and claims against both Defendants for breach of contract, 17 fiduciary duty and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.310(1) — 3 cases
Tai-Si Kim v. Kearney, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Nev. 2012).
“Plaintiffs respond that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the Reed Defendants brokered the Note because Ed orchestrated the Option Agreement and recommended Plaintiffs obtain the $100,000 from Kearney.”
Las Vegas Land Partners LLC v. Nype C/W 70520 (Nev. 2017).
“Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that "interests in an LLC were not being sold, disposed of[,] or purchased," and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that "Nype did not engage in the performance of a…”
Las Vegas Land Partners LLC v. Nype C/W 70520 (Nev. 2017).
“Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that "interests in an LLC were not being sold, disposed of[,] or purchased," and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that "Nype did not engage in the performance of a…”
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.