Arizona Supreme Court Follows Central Bank: No Implied Private Right Of Action For Aiding And Abetting Securities Fraud Under The Arizona Securities Act


Earlier today, in a case titled Sell v. Sewell, et al. (No. CV-12-0211-PR), the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that there is no implied private right of action for aiding and abetting securities fraud under the Arizona Securities Act (ASA).  Today’s ruling in Sell overturns the court’s ruling 34 years ago in State v. Superior Court, 599 P.2d 777 (Ariz. 1979), and continues the court’s strong policy of following the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of analogous federal securities statutes.

In its prior decision in State v. Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court implied a private right of action for aiding and abetting under the ASA, because federal courts at the time were implying such a right of action under the ASA’s “almost identical” federal counterpart.  In 1994, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the federal case law on which State v. Superior Court relied, holding that federal courts cannot imply a private right of action for aiding and abetting where the federal statute does not expressly provide for one:  "[T]he text of the 1934 Act does not itself reach those who aid and abet,” and that “resolves the case.” See Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 177 (1994). 

Shortly after Central Bank, the Arizona Legislature affirmed that the ASA, just like its federal counterpart, does not reach those who aid and abet.  Private Securities Litigation Act, ch. 197, § 11.B, Ariz. Sess. Laws 1003, 1023 (1996).  The legislature also expressly affirmed Arizona’s policy of following federal interpretations of analogous federal statutes:  “It is the intent of the legislature that in construing the [ASA], the courts may use as a guide the interpretations given by the . . . federal or other courts in construing substantially similar provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States.”  Id. ch. 197, § 11.C.

Today’s ruling is the first time the Arizona Supreme Court has confronted the question of whether Arizona will follow Central Bank.  The ruling gives full effect to the Arizona Legislature’s intent and provides clear guidance to Arizona courts (and plaintiffs) that they cannot imply a private right of action for aiding and abetting under the ASA, which significantly limits the statute’s scope and application.

Perkins Coie attorneys Michael Clyde, Todd Kerr and Tony Caliendo, each a member of the firm’s Securities Litigation practice, secured the summary judgment rulings from which Sell appealed, and also led the effort by several defendants in opposing Sell’s petition for special action review before the Arizona Supreme Court.  In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and overturning State v. Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted most, if not all, of the arguments and reasoning provided by the Perkins Coie team.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.