Home > Policy > Legal Briefs

Legal Briefs

NASAA plays an important role in representing the membership’s position, including as amicus curiae, in significant legal proceedings that may have a widespread impact upon securities regulators and the rights of investors.

An index of all NASAA legal briefs is below.

January 31, 2013

NASAA’s brief to the New York Court of Appeals in People of the State of New York v. Greenberg, arguing that the New York Attorney General is not preempted by NSMIA or SLUSA from pursuing an enforcement action that includes a claim for money damages based on harms to investors.

October 12, 2012

NASAA and Maryland Securities Commisioner’s joint brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals in Mathews v. Cassidy Turley, Inc.

March 6, 2012

NASAA’s Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction to the Ohio Supreme Court in State of Ohio v. Willan, arguing that: (1) a finding of reliance is not required to support a securities fraud conviction; (2) a statement made for the purposes of registering a securities offering is material if a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding whether to invest; and (3) registration and licensing regulations are to be construed broadly in order to protect the investing public.

February 10, 2012

NASAA’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction in Mitchell v. Securities America, arguing against a Federal District Court enjoinder of a state enforcement action under the All-Writs Act.

January 9, 2012

NASAA’s brief to the Colorado Supreme Court in Mathers Family Trust, et al. v Cagle, et al.,arguing that public policy and the anti-waiver provision of the Colorado Securities Act preclude the use of a forum selection clause.

November 7, 2011

NASAA’s Brief to the Colorado Court of Appeals in support of a Final Cease and Desist Order in which the Colorado Securities Commissioner refused to apply a rigid presumption that interests in a general partnership are not securities, in favor of a fact-based “economic realities” approach.

August 31, 2011

NASAA’s Brief to the Oregon Supreme Court in Support of the State of Oregon’s Brief on the Merits in Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., arguing that the Oregon Court of Appeals erred by holding that: (1) antifraud claims under Blue Sky statutes prohibiting misrepresentations and omissions require proof of reliance; and (2) reliance cannot be presumed under the “fraud on the market” doctrine based on the general investment market’s reliance on the misstatements or omissions.

May 23, 2011

NASSA’s Brief in Support of the State of Oregon’s Petition for Review to the Oregon Supreme Court in opposition of the Oregon Court of Appeals’ holding that Oregon’s anti-fraud law requires proof of reliance.

March 15, 2011

NASAA Brief in Billitteri v. Securities America Opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement

March 1, 2011

NASAA and AARP amicus brief arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s requirement that a plaintiff prove loss causation by a preponderance of the evidence prior to class certification creates an insurmountable hurdle that will close the door to the private securities actions that Congress embraced under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC implemented through Rule 10b-5. (Erica p. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., et al)