Uniform Securities Act


Also found in: Acronyms, Wikipedia.

Uniform Securities Act

Model legislation for regulating securities at the state level. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws originally drafted the Uniform Securities Act in 1930; it has periodically updated the Act and recommends that state legislature enact it. The Act deals with security issues not subject to SEC regulation. As of 2009, 12 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted a form of the most recent update of the Act, which was composed in 2002.

Uniform Securities Act

A 1956 act designed to bring uniformity to state regulation of securities. The Act deals with fraud and the registration of securities and dealers. States are free to adopt all, parts, or none of the Act.
References in periodicals archive ?
For example, section 101 of the Uniform Securities Act makes it unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly
Section 410 of the Uniform Securities Act expressly provides a private right of action against one that offers or sells securities through "any untrue statement of a material fact.
While Section 410(h) of the Uniform Securities Act expressly prohibits a court from implying that right of action, many states have not adopted this portion of Section 410(h).
In 2002, the Uniform Law Commission released a Revised Uniform Securities Act, or RUSA, which it hoped would be adopted by many states and become a de facto standard for state securities regulation.
It was believed that adoption of a more modern and uniform securities act would promote legitimate capital formation and improve the state's reputation among investment managers and entrepreneurs as a place to do business.
In 2002, a combination of federal pre-emptive legislation, significant changes in the technologies of securities trading and regulation, and substantial increases in the interstate and international aspects of securities prompted the NCCUL to promulgate the modernized Uniform Securities Act (2002).
The court found as a matter of law that Rock, Goodell, Water & Gold and Kohutka each made misrepresentations in connection with the purchase of a security in violation of Section 61-1-1, Fraud Unlawful, of the Utah Uniform Securities Act.
27, 2004, Oak Ridge commenced an action against Rock, Goodell, Water & Gold and Kohutka, asserting claims against these individuals for violations of Utah's Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code Ann.
27, 2004, Oak Ridge commenced an action against defendants Rock, Goodell, Water & Gold and Kohutka, asserting claims against these individuals for violations of Utah's Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code Ann.
On December 21 and December 22, 2004, the Court found that Oak Ridge had established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claims that defendants Rock, Goodell, Water & Gold and Kohutka had violated Utah's Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code Ann.
The Complaint asserted the following claims: (i) violation of Section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933; (ii) violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934; (iii) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (iv) violation of Sections 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and 15 of the securities Act of 1934; (v) violation of West Virginia Uniform Securities Act, W.
The complaint charges certain senior officers and directors of Keystone and the Company's outside auditor's during the relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, Section 32-1-101 of West Virginia Uniform Securities Act, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Full browser ?