Network Firm News

Monday, February 10, 2014

Aiding, Abetting Liability Not Added

Joel Hoxie, Joseph G. Adams and Kelly A. Kszywienski (Snell & Wilmer)
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.1 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 2003(A) of the ASA.2 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.

Firm Blogs

Health Law Rx HR Defense
TN Labor Talk
IP Law Alert News Real Property and Environmental Law E-Discovery Law Alerts Employment Law Alerts
AL Appellate Watch White Collar Wire (Twitter)
Litigation Law IP Law
Affordable Housing Energy and Environment Hot Topics in the Middle Market Legal Diagnostics Life Sciences NP Privacy Partner Taxes
Professional Liability Midwest HOA Longterm Care Defense Missouri Property Tax Fire Science Law CPA Law Employer Law Bad Faith Physician Law Trucking Defense Wealth Planning
SWIPLit Emerging Business Labor & Employment and the Law