Cases from cite.case.law:

GRAVES, v. STATE, 248 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); against any state attorney elected pursuant to s. 27.01 . . .

IN RE PRIMERA ENERGY, LLC, Ed LLC J. A. J. A. DC v. K. LLC LLC LLC, A LLC s LLC,, 579 B.R. 75 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . Attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, costs for copies of depositions and costs of court pursuant to § 27.01 . . . Code § 27.01(a). . . . Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01(a) provides the elements for statutory fraud in a real estate . . . Code § 27.01(a)). . . . Attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, costs for copies of depositions and costs of court pursuant to § 27.01 . . .

LOHR, v. GILMAN D. PhD. LLC LLC,, 248 F. Supp. 3d 796 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

. . . . § 27.01(a) (setting forth elements of a cause of action for statutory fraud). . . . Code Ann. § 27.01(a); .The elements of common law fraud are; (1) the defendant made a representation . . .

BARGAS, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . use Plaintiffs salary during the April 24, 2011 to May 5, 2012 pay period ($1,080.38 per week, or $27.01 . . .

IN RE PALMAZ SCIENTIFIC INC. In In ABPS LLC, In ABPS LTD., 562 B.R. 331 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . In their Complaint, Respondents state claims for fraud under the Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . .

IN RE DANG, In v., 560 B.R. 287 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . Code § 27.01, is another basis for the jury award that makes the damages dischargeable. . . . The bankruptcy court did not explain why the damages for statutory fraud under § 27.01, covered in Questions . . . Under Texas’s DTPA § 27.01, a plaintiff need not establish the defendant’s actual awareness of the falsity . . . plaintiff need not prove a knowing or intentional violation of § 17.50(a)(3) (unconscionable conduct) or § 27.01 . . .

IN RE PRIMERA ENERGY, LLC, v. K. LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC, a LLC s LLC,, 560 B.R. 448 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2016)

. . . Fraud in a Real Estate Transaction Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01(a) provides the elements . . . Code § 27.01. . . . are considered to be real property in Texas. “ ‘For fraud in a transaction to be actionable under § 27.01 . . . Code § 27.01 because there is no conveyance of real estate, even where the partnership is organized to . . . Code § 27.01. IV. . . .

NAVARRO, v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY,, 637 F. App'x 150 (5th Cir. 2016)

. . . loan, even a loan secured by real property,, do not give rise to a statutory fraud claim under section 27.01 . . .

W. CAMPBELL, v. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INCORPORATED, 628 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01. . . .

MURCHISON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L. P. Dr. MD v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,, 625 F. App'x 617 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . contract, breach of the implied covenant 'of good faith and fan-dealing, and statutory fraud under section 27.01 . . .

B. WELLS, v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, GSAMP OCWEN L. L. C., 587 F. App'x 158 (5th Cir. 2014)

. . . court concluded that the statute underlying this cause of action Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 applies to fraudulent statements made to induce a person to . . .

CHIH SHEN CHEN, v. INTEPLAST GROUP, LTD., 11 F. Supp. 3d 824 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Inteplast's statutory fraud claim is brought pursuant to Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce . . . Sl Com.Code § 27.01(a). . See id., at 22-23. . . .

FOWLER v. U. S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N. A. N. A. N. A. a KH L. P., 2 F. Supp. 3d 965 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . with regard to their claims for common-law fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, and statutory fraud under § 27.01 . . .

FREILICH, v. GREEN ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., 297 F.R.D. 277 (W.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, constructive fraud, and for violations of Section 27.01 . . .

De STOLTS, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,, 31 F. Supp. 3d 876 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . The cases Plaintiff cite all relate to Texas Business & Commerce Code § 27.01, which “by its own terms . . .

MASSEY v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, JP JP N. A., 546 F. App'x 477 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . “The elements of statutory fraud under section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code are essentially . . . identical to the elements of common law fraud except that section 27.01 does not require proof of knowledge . . . The district court correctly dismissed the Masseys’ statutory fraud claim because § 27.01 “applies only . . .

DAVIS, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 976 F. Supp. 2d 870 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . Collection Act; the DTPA; and the “statutory fraud” provisions of Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a) (West 2013). . . . Unfortunately for Plaintiffs — even accepting these allegations as true — courts have held that section 27.01 . . . pet. denied) (“A loan transaction, even if secured by land, is not considered to come under [section 27.01 . . .

In BOUNDS,, 491 B.R. 440 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2013)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01 (West 2012). . . . Bus. & Com.Code sec. 27.01(a) (West 2009) provides that: Fraud in a transaction involving real estate . . .

AKERBLOM, v. EZRA HOLDINGS LIMITED L. L. C., 509 F. App'x 340 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . Subsea: breach of contract; common-law fraud; statutory fraud under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . .

In H. RHEE, s Wu, s v. H. s, 481 B.R. 880 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . Joon Rhee’s actions constitute: (i) fraud in a real estate transaction in violation of § 27.01 of the . . . Bus. & COMMERCE Code § 27.01(a). . . . Bus. & COMMERCE Code § 27.01(b). The amount of actual damages is $20,000.00. . . . Bus. & Commerce Code § 27.01(c). . . . Bus. & Commeroe Code § 27.01(d). . . .

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, v. TEXAS REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC,, 901 F. Supp. 2d 884 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01(a)(1); SMB Partners, Ltd. v. Osloub, 4 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Tex.App. . . .

FINE FURNITURE SHANGHAI LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES,, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . and Yuhua; a 2.25% rate to Fine Furniture; a 2.25% all others rate for cooperating companies; and a 27.01% . . .

In FANNIE MAE SECURITIES LITIGATION. v. H. v. v. Co., 891 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . the CIS Underwriters violated the Texas Fraud in Real Estate and Stock Transaction statute, Section 27.01 . . . Section 27.01 violations To bring a statutory fraud claim under Section 27.01, CIS must allege that the . . . In the alternative, CIS alleges that the CIS Underwriters are liable under Section 27.01(d). . . . “Section 27.01(d) addresses secondary liability.” See Haralson v. E.F. . . . Since CIS has not stated a claim for primary liability, its Section 27.01(d) claim for aider and abettor . . .

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, v. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 685 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2012)

. . . Thomas et al., New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition § 27.01[7][f] (2010) (summarizing Rhode . . . characterizing the CPC Int’l Rhode Island standard as a manifestation trigger of coverage); Thomas, supra § 27.01 . . .

In BASE HOLDINGS, LLC, L. P. v. LLC,, 487 B.R. 727 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012)

. . . against Landlord-Center, including: (1) statutory fraud under the Texas Business & Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . (a); (2) statutory fraud under the Texas Business and ■ Commerce Code § 27.01(a)(2); (3) common law fraud . . . Section 27.01(a) of the Texas Bus. & Comm.Code provides that a plaintiff must prove that either (1) there . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a) (West 1983). . . .

In PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 851 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . See Allen, supra, § 27.01 (recognizing that "some courts and commentators have viewed the Chapter 75 . . .

REMY ASSOCIATES, L. L. C. v. WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, INC., 460 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . The first, section 27.01, is entitled “Continuation of Business.” . . . designated” requirement as applying to permanent store closures, section 6.03 would conflict with section 27.01 . . . Co., 414 Mich. 686, 327 N.W.2d 286, 289 (1982)), and because the conflict between section 27.01 and section . . . Section 27.01 provides that the remedy for Whole Foods’ permanent closure of its store after the first . . . specified in section 6.08 on account of Whole Foods’ permanent closure of its store pursuant to section 27.01 . . .

J. O HARE, TDF L. L. C. R. TDF L. L. C. v. F. GRAHAM C., 455 F. App'x 377 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 27.01). . . .

STATE v. VALERA,, 75 So. 3d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . the latter’s authority is derived from article V, section 17 of the Florida Constitution and section 27.01 . . .

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DOUBLETREE PARTNERS, L. P., 866 F. Supp. 2d 604 (E.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Code § 27.01(a). . . . Describing the predecessor statute to § 27.01, the Court in Byrd held that the transaction “between [ . . . “For fraud in a transaction to be actionable under § 27.01, the contract must actually effect the conveyance . . .

PRUDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL COMPANY, L. L. C. P. M. C. F L. L. C. v. FAIDI I, P. B. I. In v. L. L. C. P. M. C. F L. L. C., 444 F. App'x 732 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . filed suit against Faidi for breach of contract, common law fraud, and statutory fraud under section 27.01 . . .

PRUDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL COMPANY, L. L. C. P. M. C. F L. L. C. v. FAIDI I, P. B. I. In v. L. L. C. P. M. C. F L. L. C., 444 F. App'x 732 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . filed suit against Faidi for breach of contract, common law fraud, and statutory fraud under section 27.01 . . .

VAL- COM ACQUISITIONS TRUST, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED,, 421 F. App'x 398 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 27.01. . . .

TOWNSEND, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP LP,, 783 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . complaint the plaintiff asserts causes of action for common law fraud, fraud in a real estate transaction (27.01 . . .

MYRIAD DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. ALLTECH, INC., 817 F. Supp. 2d 946 (W.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Code; (11) brought under the Texas Proprietary School Act; (12) brought under Section 9.507 or Section 27.01 . . .

PROSPECT ENERGY CORPORATION, v. DALLAS GAS PARTNERS, LP, GP, LLC,, 761 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . . & Com: Code § 27.01(a)(2)(B). . . . Code § 27.01(a)(2)(B) (requiring proof of an “intention of not fulfilling [a false promise to act]” when . . .

In ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION. v. v. LLP,, 762 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . (2) the Texas Fraud in Real Estate And Stock Transactions statute, Texas Business & Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Code § 27.01. 7-Eleven Inc. v. . . . Bus. & Comm.Code § 27.01, encompassing both a primary and a secondary violation. . . . There is no mention of a duty to disclose under § 27.01(d). . . . Section 27.01(d). See Dentler v. Perry, No. 04-02-00034-CV, 2002 WL 31557302, *8 (Tex.App. . . .

ROLING v. E TRADE SECURITIES, LLC,, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . Foregoing the opportunity to save $27.01, $40 less the $12.99 trade fee, by executing a trade every quarter . . . opportunity cost of the time spent researching, planning and executing a trade may well be worth more than $27.01 . . .

In MIRANT CORPORATION, MC LLC, v. LP LP Co., 613 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01. . . .

In MIRANT CORPORATION, MC LLC, v. LP LP Co., 613 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01. . . .

In PROJECT ORANGE ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 432 B.R. 89 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . and the defaults had not been cured, Syracuse asserted that the Lease had terminated under Section 27.01 . . .

In S. W. BACH COMPANY, S. W. v. RBC A RBC RBC f k a RBC, 425 B.R. 78 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . false representation with an awareness of its falsity and committed the fraud described in Section 27.01 . . .

In R. COOPER M. G. v. R., 426 B.R. 227 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . Cooper is liable for fraud pursuant to Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01. . . . of the Sale Order, in order to rise to the level of fraud under either common-law fraud or section 27.01 . . . Likewise, the Trustee has not proved the required elements of common-law fraud or fraud under section 27.01 . . .

LONE STAR FUND V U. S. L. P. LLC, v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Code § 27.01; and common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. . . . .

LONE STAR FUND V U. S. L. P. LLC, v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . Code § 27.01; and common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. . . . .

PRIME INCOME ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. v. ONE DALLAS CENTRE ASSOCIATES LP,, 358 F. App'x 569 (5th Cir. 2009)

. . . CODE § 27.01(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(D) (statutory fraud); Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. . . .

In Re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION. v. v. J. P., 623 F. Supp. 2d 798 (S.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Rev. art. 531-33), statutory fraud (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 27.01), common law fraud, and civil . . . Under section 27.01(b), “A person who makes a false representation ... commits the fraud described in . . . (a), and that section 27.01(b) states that a person who commits the fraud described in section 27.01( . . . then show Defendant’s secondary violation under section 27.01(d). . . . , and benefits from it commits the fraud described in section 27.01(a); section 27.01(b) states that . . .

In R. COOPER M. G. v. R., 405 B.R. 801 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009)

. . . Bus & Com.Code § 27.01, for the Debtor’s alleged false representations and promises concerning the Nonexempt . . .

DORSEY, On v. PORTFOLIO EQUITIES, INC. P. Jr. B., 540 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . Barnes, and the “corporations under their domination and control” violated section 27.01 of the Texas . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a)(1). . . . dismissal of Dorsey’s federal securities fraud claims, his Texas statutory fraud claims pursuant to section 27.01 . . .

KITCHELL, v. ASPEN EXPLORATION, INC., 562 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code gives a claim to those who have been victimized . . . Bus. & Comm.Code § 27.01(a) (Vernon 2006). . . . There, the court held that the purchase of partnership interests did not implicate Section 27.01, even . . . , the purchase and sale of such cannot serve to support a claim for real estate fraud under Section 27.01 . . . Stat. art. 4004, predecessor to Section 27.01, is inapplicable to a contract for title insurance because . . .

In ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION. v. v., 540 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . actionable misrepresentation nor material non-disclosure by the RBC Defendants;© violation of Section 27.01 . . . The burden to show “justifiable” reliance under § 27.01 is lighter than that for “reasonable reliance . . . Common law fraud is very similar to Section 27.01 except that the statutory cause of action does not . . . Section 27.01(d) RBC argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under § 27.01(d) of the Texas Business . . . did have knowledge, Plaintiff can recover exemplary damages under § 27.01(c). . . . .

In ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION. v. v., 490 F. Supp. 2d 784 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code For a primary violation of the statute the elements . . . Unlike common law fraud, Section 27.01 does not require proof of a defendant’s knowledge or recklessness . . . (“Sec. 27.01 is generally less demanding than common law fraud, imposing liability upon the maker of . . . Plaintiffs bring their claims against Merrill Lynch and Tilney under § 27.01(d) for aiding and abetting . . . Moreover, because their claim under ¶ 27.01(d) is based on nondisclosure, to be actionable Plaintiffs . . .

In L. WEBBER, v. L., 350 B.R. 344 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . Code § 27.01 (Vernon 2005). 1. . . . holding that justifiable reliance is the applicable standard under the Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Code § 27.01. . . .

S. MARKOWITZ, v. HARPER, B., 197 F. App'x 387 (6th Cir. 2006)

. . . P. 5.01, 12.01, 27.01(2), 30.02, 33.01, 56.04). . . .

In UAL CORPORATION, v. U. S. BNY HSBC USA, 346 B.R. 456 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006)

. . . The first section of Article XXVII, § 27.01, provides that the City will not treat any other airline . . .

MARKETIC, v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., 436 F. Supp. 2d 842 (N.D. Tex. 2006)

. . . Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code provides a statutory cause of action for those . . . Bus. & Com.Code §§ 27.01(a)-(b). . . . “Section 27.01 only applies to misrepresentations of material fact made to induce another to enter into . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. LACY, Jr., 234 F.R.D. 140 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(b). . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(c). . . . Code Ann. § 27.01(a). . . . Id. §§ 27.01(b), (e). . . . Id. § 27.01(c). . . . .

D. PAOLINO, Jr. v. ARGYLL EQUITIES, L. L. C., 401 F. Supp. 2d 712 (W.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Argyll), Accounting (Argyll), Conversion (Argyll), and violations of Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . conspiracy, fraud and fraudulent inducement, and violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code section 27.01 . . .

In Re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE ERISA LITIGATION v. SM R v. J. P., 388 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . under Texas law: (1) common law fraud; (2) statutory fraud under the Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . for their state law causes of action differs from that for federal securities claims; specifically § 27.01 . . . claim for statutory fraud in a corporate stock transaction under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Specifically, § 27.01, addressing fraud involving corporate stock transactions, provides in relevant . . . The Court finds no reason not to apply the same rationale to § 27.01(d) of the Texas Securities Act. . . .

SUNWEST OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, v. CLASSIC OIL GAS, INC. B. Jr. L., 143 F. App'x 614 (5th Cir. 2005)

. . . Tompkins Lease and a 27.01 acre tract covered by the A.T. . . .

In HUNT, v., 323 B.R. 665 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2005)

. . . Practice § 27.01 (1998). . . .

ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC. v. GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, 364 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.N.H. 2005)

. . . On-the other hand, if it were a smaller number, say $27.01 million, then only the Gulf policy would be . . .

TEXAS FIRST NATIONAL BANK Wu, v. WU,, 347 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . judgment regarding the rightful owner of shares, (6) fraud in a stock transaction in violation of section 27.01 . . .

TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. v. PINKMONKEY. COM INC. v., 375 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2004)

. . . . & Com.Code art. 27.01; and negligent misrepresentation. . . . Greene was found liable for statutory stock fraud under Section 27.01 of the Texas Business & Commerce . . . Here, Greene’s advantage resulted from his violation of § 27.01. . . . The remedies for a violation of § 27.01 include the equitable remedy of rescission, which requires the . . . performance because § 27.01 allows for recision). . . .

SUNWEST OPERATING COMPANY, L. L. C. v. CLASSIC OIL GAS, INC. L. B. Jr., 303 F. Supp. 2d 827 (E.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Tompkins Lease and a 27.01 acre tract of land covered by the A.T. . . . Tompkins Lease and a 27.01 acre tract out of the A.T. . . .

GWYNN, v. CLUBINE, v., 302 F. Supp. 2d 151 (W.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01. Id. at lb-20. . . . Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01. . . . Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01(e), as well as for breach of contract claims, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. . . . Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01(e). . . .

BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC. v. J. M. HUBER CORPORATION,, 343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003)

. . . , breach of the contractual warranty found in § 3.7 of the Agreement and statutory fraud based on § 27.01 . . . Statutory fraud claims under § 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code can also be based on false . . . Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code provides in relevant part: (a) Fraud in a transaction . . .

HERRMANN HOLDINGS LTD. v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., 302 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . claims for breach of contract and violations of article 581-33 of the Texas Securities Act and section 27.01 . . . also maintain that the district court erred in dismissing their statutory fraud claim under section 27.01 . . . Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 27.01(a) (Vernon Supp.2001). . . . The first of these assertions, the claim that Lucent was liable under section 27.01(a)(1), was dismissed . . . With regal’d to the Herrmanns’ second assertion, the claim based on section 27.01(a)(2), the district . . .

In STERLING FOSTER CO. INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, To L. v. J., 222 F. Supp. 2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . his sixth claim for relief, Price alleges statutory fraud under Texas Business and Commerce Code Sec. 27.01 . . . “Section 27.01(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code imposes civil liability for false representations . . . To establish fraud under Section 27.01(a), a plaintiff must allege (1) a false representation of a past . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a); U.S. Quest, 228 F.3d at 406. . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a) (providing that statutory fraud in a securities transactions includes . . .

COLLETON COUNTY COUNCIL Dr. a H. F. P. K. F. I. N. M. A. L. Jr. V. M. R. W. v. F. McCONNELL, H. H. K. H. W. Jr. v. F. H. F. H. v. H. F. H. F., 201 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D.S.C. 2002)

. . . Senate districts is 48.16%, with District 46 overpopulated by 21.15% and District 43 underpopulated by 27.01% . . .

E. ELBAOR, MD PA, E. MD PA E. s v. TRIPATH IMAGING, INC. a a LP, a a F. LP, 279 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01 against Nelson and ap-pellees Branston, Parallax Group LP, Tandem Management Inc . . . Tripath did not contend, however, that it could lose defenses to the fraud or Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01 . . . demonstrate that it would be prejudiced by the unconditional dismissal of the fraud or Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01 . . .

AES CORPORATION, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,, 157 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Del. 2001)

. . . Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Texas Securities Act, a claim under section 27.01 . . .

GUTIERREZ, S. A. a v. DELOITTE TOUCHE, L. L. P. W. R. R. E. G. W., 147 F. Supp. 2d 584 (W.D. Tex. 2001)

. . . under five causes of action pursuant to Texas law: common law fraud, statutory fraud under section 27.01 . . .

U. S. QUEST LTD. v. KIMMONS GK, 228 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . Section 27.01(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code imposes civil liability for false representations . . . Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 27.01(a). . . . Section 27.01(a) also applies only to situations where there is an actual conveyance of the stock, and . . . This narrow reading of Section 27.01(a) is consistent with the Supreme Court of Texas’ interpretation . . .

A. ROANE, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D. Kan. 2000)

. . . materiality standard applied to the plaintiffs’ Texas claims of common-law fraud and the violation of § 27.01 . . . judgment in this case except for “the Texas Plaintiffs’ claims under state common law fraud and section 27.01 . . . the Texas plaintiffs, and their only legal theories remaining are Texas common law fraud and section 27.01 . . .

I. KOCH L. B. A. A. A. C. W. R. L. N. A. B D, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC. G. V. H. L. M., 203 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2000)

. . . of the Texas Business & Commercial Code (“section 27.01”). . . . Materiality under section 27.01 is also measured subjectively. . . . The Defendants have failed to alert this court to any authority that treats section 27.01’s materiality . . . This court thus concludes that section 27.01 imposes a subjective standard of materiality. . . . Unlike actions under Texas common law fraud or section 27.01, however, a fraud claim pursuant to the . . .

In J. WEISS, v. J., 235 B.R. 349 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . . & Comm.Code § 27.01; and Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code 38.01. . . .

J. MATASSARIN, v. F. F. LYNCH, ESOP C. ESOP E. ESOP a K. CPA, a Of T. W., 174 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 1999)

. . . State Securities Claims Matassarin also brought claims under Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 27.01 . . . action upon Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 581 — 33(B) and upon Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01 . . . Texas Business and Commerce Code section 27.01 applies to fraud in stock transactions. . . . Bus. & ConxCode § 27.01(a)(1). . . .

In RESERVE PRODUCTION, INC., 232 B.R. 899 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Clark and the Trust also sought imposition of a constructive trust, treble damages under 27.01 of the . . .

CLAPSADDLE v. TELSCAPE INTERNATIONAL, INC. E., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D.N.M. 1998)

. . . . § 27.01 (West 1998). . . .

I. KOCH, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1416 (D. Kan. 1998)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01 (Vernon 1983); and Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 57-60 (West 1983).” . . . Bus. & Com.Code § 27.01. . . .

In ZANGARA, G. O BRIEN, v. ZANGARA,, 217 B.R. 26 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Code § 27.01, and Section 33 of the Texas Securities Act, Tex. Stat. Ann. . . . Bus. & Com.. § 27.01(a). 14. . . . Code § 27.01(c). 15. . . . The Arbitration Panel’s reliance on Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code in issuing . . . (a) and 27.01(e), Tex. . . .

MALTZ, S. v. UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. M. R. D. MALTZ, S. v. UNION CARBIDE MARBLE CARE, INC. W. M., 992 F. Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . (Franchise Agreement at ¶ 27.01.) . . . .

I. KOCH, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., 996 F. Supp. 1273 (D. Kan. 1998)

. . . . & Com.Code § 27.01 (Vernon 1983); and Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 57-60 (West 1983).” . . .

UNITED RESOURCES EQUITY PARTNERS I, L. P. LIRO L. P. II, L. P. v. NATIONAL ENERGETICS COMPANY, E. T. C. E. P. W. P., 989 F. Supp. 479 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Articles 579 et seq., Section 27.01 of the Texas Bus. & Com.Code Ann. (West 1987), and common law. . . .

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, v. J. PERRY,, 102 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 27.01 at 27-3 (1994). . . .

QUEST MEDICAL, INC. v. J. APPRILL,, 90 F.3d 1080 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . The jury rejected Apprill’s Rule lob-5, Texas Business and Commerce Code (“§ 27.01”), and Texas Securities . . . Actual damages 1. § 27.01 and common-law fraud theories Apprill argues the record supports the jury’s . . . award of $270,000 in actual damages under his § 27.01 and common-law fraud theories. . . . One who commits fraud as proscribed by § 27.01 is liable for “actual damages.” . . . . § 27.01(b) (West 1987). The statute, however, does not define actual damages. . . .

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, v. J. PERRY,, 92 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1996)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability InsuRanoe § 27.01 at 27-3 (1994). . . .

CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. v. MONTAGUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,, 78 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . See 760 C.M.R. 27.01(4) (listing activities and entities to which the relocation payment regulations . . . See 760 C.M.R. 27.01(4). . . . .

CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. v. MONTAGUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,, 78 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . See 760 C.M.R. 27.01(4) (listing activities and entities to which the relocation payment regulations . . . See 760 C.M.R. 27.01(4). . . . . .

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, v. J. PERRY,, 886 F. Supp. 596 (W.D. Tex. 1995)

. . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 27.01, at 27-3 (Matthew Bender 1994); Couch Cyclopedia of Insurance . . . Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 27.01, at 27-3 (Matthew Bender 1994); Couch Cyclopedia of Insurance . . .

In OXFORD HOMES, INC. V. O DONNELL, v. ROYAL BUSINESS GROUP, INC. O., 180 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 1995)

. . . generally 4 Queenan, Hendel and Hil-linger, Chapter 11 Theory and Practice: A Guide to Reorganization §§ 27.01 . . . some fraudulent transfer claims may be compromised (as was done here). 4 Queenan, Hendel & Hillinger § 27.01 . . .

In BROWNING- FERRIS INDUSTRIES INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 876 F. Supp. 870 (S.D. Tex. 1995)

. . . claimed that defendants committed common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violated section 27.01 . . .

In COUNTRY CLUB MARKET, INC. DAIRY FRESH FOODS, INC. v. E. RAMETTE,, 175 B.R. 1011 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1994)

. . . . § 27.01, subd. (1) & (4). . . .

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, v. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,, 871 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1994)

. . . Baltimore, the issuance of a single document took an average of 13.46 person hours; in Charleston, 27.01 . . . The range was from 2.80 person-hours per document at the Houston Regional Examination Center to 27.01 . . .