Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 90 - SECURITIES (UNIFORM ACT)
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.570 (2026)

Offer, sale and purchase

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 90.570  Offer, sale and purchase.  In connection with the offer to sell, sale, offer to purchase or purchase of a security, a person shall not, directly or indirectly:

      1.  Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud;

      2.  Make an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading in the light of the circumstances under which they are made; or

      3.  Engage in an act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 2178; A 1989, 160)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Sec'y of State v. Tretiak, 22 P.3d 1134 (Nev. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sec'y of State v. Tretiak, 22 P.3d 1134 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 27× “11 In support of their argument, respondents contend that NRS 90.570 parallels Securities and Exchange Commission Rule lob-5, 12 which requires a plaintiff to prove reliance and scienter in a *308 private action alleging federal securities fraud.”
Nanopierce Tech., Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 168 P.3d 73 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 4× “Each alleged misrepresentation provides the basis for appellants' separately asserted causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and securities fraud under NRS 90.570. Regardless of the state of mind necessary,…”
G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P'ship v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “Notwithstanding the discussion in Section 1(E), the Court also finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce civil liability for the alleged violations of Section 90.570 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.”
In Re Stratosphere Corp. Sec. Litig., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Nev. 1998). · cites it 2× “sections 90.570 and 90.660, must be dismissed due to Plaintiffs’ failure to prove a 10(b)-5 claim under the Exchange Act against the Underwriters.”
Harrington v. Off. of the Mississippi Sec'y of State, 129 So. 3d 153 (Miss. 2013). · cites it 3× “2001) (like scienter, reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in actions initiated under NRS 90.570(2) and (3)); 9 Esser Distrib. Co.”
Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Nev. 2005). “by means of false pretenses” as well as “[a]ny violation of NRS 90.570” prohibiting fraud, déceit, and materially false or misleading statements “in connection with the offer to sell, sale, offer to purchase or purchase of a security .”
State v. Hancock, 955 P.2d 183 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 2× “380 (obtaining money under false pretenses) and/or NRS 90.570(2) (committing securities fraud by making untrue statements or omitting statements of material fact in connection with the offer to sell a security) by defrauding (or attempting to defraud) Desiano, Kanes, and…”
G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P'ship v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (D. Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “Violations of Nevada Securities Law (Claim 8) Although the Court finds that Plaintiff stated sufficient facts to state a predicate RICO act for violations of Section 90.570 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, it holds that Plaintiff lacks standing under Section 90.”
Sheriff, Washoe Cnty. v. Fullerton, 924 P.2d 702 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 2× “310; and (3) fraud committed by Fullerton in the offer and sale of securities, in violation of NRS 90.570. The complaint sought: injunctive relief against the respondents and the named corporations enjoining them and Fullerton's agents from transferring or dissipating the assets…”
In Re Stratosphere Corp. Sec. Litig., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Nev. 1999). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs, in conjunction with their federal claims, have asserted state securities fraud claims under Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 90.570 and 90.660 (1997).”
West v. Innotrac Corp., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Nev. 2006). “”) Rule 10b-5 (Tenth Claim); violation of NRS 90.570 and NRS 90.660(1) (material untrue statements in relation to the sale of a security), NRS 90.”
Beauregard v. Sampson (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 11× “12, 2023); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.570 . 11 2. As defined in Section 90.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.570(1) — 1 case
Sec'y of State v. Tretiak, 22 P.3d 1134 (Nev. 2001). “11 In support of their argument, respondents contend that NRS 90.570 parallels Securities and Exchange Commission Rule lob-5, 12 which requires a plaintiff to prove reliance and scienter in a *308 private action alleging federal securities fraud.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.570(2) — 6 cases
Sec'y of State v. Tretiak, 22 P.3d 1134 (Nev. 2001). “11 In support of their argument, respondents contend that NRS 90.570 parallels Securities and Exchange Commission Rule lob-5, 12 which requires a plaintiff to prove reliance and scienter in a *308 private action alleging federal securities fraud.”
Harrington v. Off. of the Mississippi Sec'y of State, 129 So. 3d 153 (Miss. 2013). “2001) (like scienter, reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in actions initiated under NRS 90.570(2) and (3)); 9 Esser Distrib. Co.”
State v. Hancock, 955 P.2d 183 (Nev. 1998). “380 (obtaining money under false pretenses) and/or NRS 90.570(2) (committing securities fraud by making untrue statements or omitting statements of material fact in connection with the offer to sell a security) by defrauding (or attempting to defraud) Desiano, Kanes, and…”
Georgiou Fam. Trust v. Ruthen (M.D. Ga. 2025).
Hable v. Godenzi (D. Nev. 2023).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.570(3) — 1 case
Sec'y of State v. Tretiak, 22 P.3d 1134 (Nev. 2001). “11 In support of their argument, respondents contend that NRS 90.570 parallels Securities and Exchange Commission Rule lob-5, 12 which requires a plaintiff to prove reliance and scienter in a *308 private action alleging federal securities fraud.”
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.