The Sell Decision: Aiding, Abetting Liability Not Added

more+
less-
more+
less-

In Sell v. Gama, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the Arizona Securities Act (the “ASA”) does not authorize a secondary liability claim for aiding and abetting another’s primary securities fraud. In so holding, the Supreme Court followed the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal securities laws, and rejected the plaintiff’s and amici curiae’s argument that aiding and abetting liability was authorized under Section 200 (A) of the ASA. Section 2003(A) provides that a securities fraud action “may be brought against any person, including any dealer, salesman or agent, who made, participated in or induced the unlawful sale or purchase.”

This article discusses the Sell Court’s holding, explains why it is consistent with both the text of the ASA and prior constructions of Section 2003, and how Sell affects claims under the ASA.

Originally published in Arizona Attorney - February 2014.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Aiding and Abetting, Fraud, Securities Fraud

Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Securities Updates

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.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »