N.J. Stat. » Title 49 — SALE OF SECURITIES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 49:3-47 (2026)

Title amended; "act" defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

30. This act amending and supplementing the "Uniform Securities Law (1967)" shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Securities Law (1997)." "Act" as used in this revision means this 1997 act amending and supplementing the "Uniform Securities Law (1967)."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Del Sontro v. Cendant Corp., Inc., 223 F. Supp. 2d 563 (D.N.J. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Del Sontro v. Cendant Corp., Inc., 223 F. Supp. 2d 563 (D.N.J. 2002). · cites it 2× “State Securities Law Claims Statute of Limitations for State Securities Law Claims Section 49:3-47 of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.”
In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litig., 501 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Finally, although New Jersey’s Uniform Securities Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 49:3-47 et seq., does not require reliance, it “requires privity in securities-fraud actions and thus will not allow [Plaintiffs] to reach the issuer of [them] shares or its officers.”
Kronfeld v. First Jersey Nat'l Bank, 638 F. Supp. 1454 (D.N.J. 1986). · cites it 2× “Defendants’ positions are essentially the same: The applicable statute of limitations is found in the New Jersey Securities Law, N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 et seq. (1970), which provides for a two year period.”
Hays & Co., as Tr. for Monge Oil Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 885 F.2d 1149 (3rd Cir. 1989). “§ 78j(b); common law claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duties, gross negligence, and conversion; claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J.S.A. § 49:3-47 to 49:3-76, the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972, 70 P.”
Floyd v. Hill (In re Hill), 495 B.R. 646 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013). · cites it 2× “1 At the heart of Floyd’s motion is a “Summary Order,” entered on November 30, 2010 by the Bureau of Securities of the State of New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 49:3-47 et seq. (the New Jersey version of the Uniform Securities Law, “NJUSL” or more generally, “USL”).”
Zola v. Gordon, 685 F. Supp. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “The New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J. Stat.Ann. §§ 49:3-47 to :3-76 (West 1970 & Supp.”
Richard Nicholas v. Saul Stone & Co. Co. LLC, 224 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “8 Plaintiffs alleged that the FCMs and their employees, by failing to make the necessary investigation, directly violated the CEA, and aided and abetted violations of the CEA; 9 breached certain contracts with the NFA of which appellants were third-party beneficiaries; violated…”
Birotte v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 1172 (D.N.J. 1979). · cites it 2× “VI THE EIGHTH COUNT AND THE NEW JERSEY UNIFORM SECURITIES LAW The complaint filed in the original action before Judge Lacey contained no allegation of violations of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 49:3-47 et seq. (West 1970).”
Grosser v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 639 F. Supp. 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “The New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 49:3-47 to 76 (West 1970), provides a two-year statute of limitations for civil actions brought under *1301 its provisions.”
A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bureau of Sec., Appellant, 163 F.3d 780 (3rd Cir. 1999). “See N.J.S.A. § 49:3-47 to 76. The Act contains three essential parts: provisions requiring the registrations of securities sold within the state; provisions requiring the registration of persons involved in the securities industry; and various antifraud provisions.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp., 775 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1991). “The plaintiffs argue that this Court should look to federal and state precedent in interpreting the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act 8 , N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 et seq. (1989), and that the Equity Building Program meets the four prong definition of an *780 investment contract under…”
Herman v. Comm'r, 84 T.C. 120 (Tax Ct. 1985). “Those physicians not having their respective corporations are still practicing medicine in New Jersey. ↩ 1. Underlining represents taxpayer-physicians.”
Show all 24 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.