NRS
90.660 Civil liability.
1. A person who offers or sells a security
in violation of any of the following provisions:
(a) Subsection 1 of NRS 90.310;
(b) NRS 90.460;
(c) Subsection 10 of NRS 90.500;
(d) Subsection 2 of NRS 90.570;
(e) Subsection 2 of NRS 90.610; or
(f) A condition imposed in subsection 8 or 9 of NRS 90.500,
Ê is liable to
the person purchasing the security. Upon tender of the security, the purchaser
may recover the consideration paid for the security and interest at the legal
rate of this State from the date of payment, costs and reasonable attorney’s
fees, less the amount of income received on the security. A purchaser who no
longer owns the security may recover damages. Damages are the amount that would
be recoverable upon a tender less the value of the security when the purchaser
disposed of it, plus interest at the legal rate of this State from the date of
disposition of the security, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees determined by
the court. Tender requires only notice of willingness to exchange the security
for the amount specified.
2. A person who offers or sells a security
in violation of subsection 2 of NRS 90.570
is not liable under subsection 1 of this section if:
(a) The purchaser knew that a statement of a
material fact was untrue or that there was an omission of a statement of a
material fact; or
(b) The seller did not know and in the exercise
of reasonable care could not have known of the untrue statement or misleading
omission.
3. A person who willfully participates in
any act or transaction in violation of NRS
90.580 is liable to a person who purchases or sells a security, other than
a security traded on a national securities exchange or quoted on a national
automated quotation system administered by a self-regulatory organization, at a
price that was affected by the act or transaction for the damages sustained as
a result of the act or transaction. Damages are the difference between the
price at which the securities were purchased or sold and the market value the
securities would have had at the time of the person’s purchases or sale in the
absence of the act or transaction, plus interest at the legal rate of this
State from the date of the act or transaction and reasonable attorney’s fees.
4. A person who directly or indirectly
controls another person who is liable under subsection 1 or 3, a partner,
officer or director of the person liable, a person occupying a similar status
or performing similar functions, any agent of the person liable, an employee of
the person liable if the employee materially aids in the act, omission or
transaction constituting the violation, and a broker-dealer or sales
representative who materially aids in the act, omission or transaction
constituting the violation, are also liable jointly and severally with and to
the same extent as the other person, but it is a defense that the person did
not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the
existence of the facts by which the liability is alleged to exist. With respect
to a person who directly or indirectly, controls another person who is liable
under subsection 3, it is also a defense that the controlling person acted in
good faith and did not, directly or indirectly, induce the act, omission or
transaction constituting the violation. Contribution among the several persons
liable is the same as in cases arising out of breach of contract.
(Added to NRS by 1987,
2182; A 1989,
160)
Notes of Decisions
In Re Integrated Resources Real Est. Ltd. Partnerships Sec. Litig., 850 F. Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
“-670 states: *1138 A person may not sue under NRS 90.660 [the Securities Act civil liability provision] unless suit is brought within the earliest of 1 year after the discovery of the violation, 1 year after discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable care, or…”
G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P'ship v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (D. Nev. 2006).
· cites it 4× “570 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, it holds that Plaintiff lacks standing under Section 90.660 of the Nevada Re *1242 vised Statutes to bring a separate and independent claim for civil enforcement.”
West v. Innotrac Corp., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Nev. 2006).
· cites it 2× “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 21× “” 22 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660 (1)(d). After analyzing the statute, the Court reaffirms that it permits 23 Plaintiffs an award of attorneys’ fees.”
Beauregard v. Sampson (D. Nev. 2024).
· cites it 11× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660 (4). 13 3. Evidence produced at trial fully established that Clayton Sampson and Elisha Sampson are 14 the co-owners and co-managers of EnvyTV.”
Baroi v. Platinum Condo. Dev., LLC, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2012).
· cites it 4× “670 Count fifteen of the Third Amended Complaint asserts that Defendants issued unregistered securities and, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 90.660, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount they paid for the securities.”
Coleman (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 2× “41 (“loan was 17 securitized without proper disclosure or trust assignment resulting in material 18 misrepresentations and omissions in violation of Securities Act” (emphasis 19 added)).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660(1) — 2 cases
West v. Innotrac Corp., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Nev. 2006).
“570 and NRS 90.660(1) (material untrue statements in relation to the sale of a security), NRS 90.”
Baroi v. Platinum Condo. Dev., LLC, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2012).
“670 Count fifteen of the Third Amended Complaint asserts that Defendants issued unregistered securities and, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 90.660, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount they paid for the securities.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660(1)(d) — 2 cases
Beauregard v. Sampson (D. Nev. 2024).
“” 22 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660 (1)(d). After analyzing the statute, the Court reaffirms that it permits 23 Plaintiffs an award of attorneys’ fees.”
Beauregard v. Sampson (D. Nev. 2024).
“Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660 (4). 13 3. Evidence produced at trial fully established that Clayton Sampson and Elisha Sampson are 14 the co-owners and co-managers of EnvyTV.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660(3) — 1 case
West v. Innotrac Corp., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Nev. 2006).
“570 and NRS 90.660(1) (material untrue statements in relation to the sale of a security), NRS 90.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660(4) — 2 cases
Beauregard v. Sampson (D. Nev. 2024).
“Nev. Rev. Stat. § 90.660 (4). 13 3. Evidence produced at trial fully established that Clayton Sampson and Elisha Sampson are 14 the co-owners and co-managers of EnvyTV.”
Baroi v. Platinum Condo. Dev., LLC, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2012).
“670 Count fifteen of the Third Amended Complaint asserts that Defendants issued unregistered securities and, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 90.660, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount they paid for the securities.”
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.