Wash. Rev. Code » Title 21 · Chapter 21.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.360 (2026)

Filing, registration, statement, exemption not conclusive as to truth or completeness—Unlawful representations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Neither the fact that an application for registration under RCW 21.20.050, a registration statement under RCW 21.20.180 or 21.20.210 has been filed, nor the fact that a person or security is effectively registered, constitutes a finding by the director that any document filed under this chapter is true, complete, and not misleading. Neither any such fact nor the fact that an exemption or exception is available for a security or a transaction means that the director has passed in any way upon the merits or qualifications of, or recommended or given approval to, any person, security, or transaction. It is unlawful to make, or cause to be made, to any prospective purchaser, customer, or client any representation inconsistent with this section.
[ 2016 c 61 s 11; 1975 1st ex.s. c 84 s 21; 1959 c 282 s 36.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: Bailey v. Town of Forks, 737 P.2d 1257 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bailey v. Town of Forks, 737 P.2d 1257 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “The securities regulation statute at issue, RCW 21.20.360, contains a complete express disclaimer of any duty owed to individual investors such as the plaintiff.”
Halleran v. Nu West, Inc., 123 Wash. App. 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “The investors in Baerlein claimed that the *711 Securities Division failed to exercise its regulatory authority to prevent fraudulent activity that resulted in their investment losses.”
Halleran v. Nu West, Inc., 98 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Halleran and Kaleas argue Baerlein is distinguishable because the Court relied on the statutory disclaimer of liability in RCW 21.20.360 for any inaccuracies in documents filed with the Securities Division to conclude there was no duty.”
Baerlein v. State, 595 P.2d 930 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “We believe RCW 21.20.360 gives a true statement of the duty the legislature intended to impose on the regulatory agency: Neither the fact that an application for registration under RCW 21.”
McKasson v. State, 776 P.2d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Turning to the statute in question, the securities act, the significant feature is the express disclaimer contained in RCW 21.20.360: Neither the fact that an application for registration under RCW 21.”
Honcoop v. State, 716 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 21.20.360 disclaims responsibility for the truth of a registration statement; WAC 308-132-010(1) disclaimed liability for apparent approval of misleading or deceptive advertising.”
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.