Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...mages and the scope of arbitrators' remedial powers. 1 Count I of the complaint alleged violations of Florida's embezzlement law, Fla.Stat.Ann. Ch. 812 (West 1976 & Supp.1987), and Count II alleged violations of SEC Rule 10b-5 and Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 517.301 (West 1972 & Supp.1987) 2 McNally and Dean Witter admitted liability for compensatory damages in the amount of $5,886.77....

...Sec. 78j(b) (1982); (2) Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (1986); (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982); (4) the Florida Securities Act, Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 517.301 (West Supp.1986); and (5) the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, Fla.Stat.Ann....

...("Paine Webber"), jointly liable for violations of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 77l (2)), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission, and Section 517.301(1)(b) of the Florida Securities Act (Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 517.301)....

...53 Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 171 So. 214, 221-22 (Fla.1936). We reject the defendants' challenge and uphold the jury's award of punitive damages. 19 54 D. Liability Under the Florida Securities Laws 55 1. Scienter as an Element of a Sec. 517.301 Violation 56 Finally, we consider the defendants' contention that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that scienter is a necessary element of a violation of Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 517.301, 20 a statute patterned closely after Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The defendants concede that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith v. Byrne, 320 So.2d 436 (Fla. D.C.A. 3d 1975) specifically recognized that scienter is not an element of a Sec. 517.301 violation, but urge that the court in that case relied on principles of federal law which were subsequently overruled in Ernst & Ernst v....

...McDonnell Douglas Corp., 503 F.2d 239, 245 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied 421 U.S. 965 , 95 S.Ct. 1953 , 44 L.Ed.2d 451 (1975). 58 In the present case, there is no persuasive indication that the Florida Supreme Court would not choose to enforce Sec. 517.301 without the requirement of a showing of scienter....

...We note also that violations of Chapter 517 may constitute predicate acts within the meaning of Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act ("CRCPA”), Chapter 772 of Florida's Statutes. See Fla.Stat. § 772.102(l)(a)(3). 4 . See supra note 3. 5 . See Fla.Stat. § 517.301....

...acketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c), and (d), (5) common law fraud and deceit, (6) negligent and reckless misrepresentation, (7) ordinary and gross negligence, (8) violations of § 517.211 and § 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act ("FSIPA"), Fla.Stat. §§ 517.211 and 517.301, and (9) common law conspiracy....

...715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 228 (1966). A. Fraud-Related Claims In the actions now pending, Plaintiffs assert various fraud claims under the Florida Securities Investors Protection Act (F.S.I.P.A.), [38] Fla.Stat. §§ 517.211 and 517.301 *371 (1988), common law fraud and misrepresentation....

...[on the other hand] applies to a far more narrow group of activities than does rule 10b-5. Buyer/seller privity is required. Id. at 981 (emphasis added). Section 517.211(2) provides a civil cause of action for Plaintiffs, as buyers of securities, against "[a]ny person ... selling a security in violation of § 517.301 and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the ......

...a.Stat. § 517.211(2). [39] Thus, by the express language of the statute itself, it is clear that an officer, director or agent not otherwise in strict contractual privity with the plaintiff-purchaser may be found liable for fraudulent conduct under § 517.301....

...Had they bought them from SAI, it would be a question of fact whether any of the officers and directors of SAI or whether PMM, as an agent of SAI, had sufficient participation in the sales to hold it liable under § 517.211. As they omit to state that SAI was the seller, those counts premised on §§ 517.301 and 517.211 are dismissed....

...Enterprises and ILP, on the other hand, do specify that they bought the securities from SAI or McKinley Allsopp (the broker-dealer). In addition, they state that the various defendants were officers, directors and/or agents [41] of SAI who carried out several acts in violation of § 517.301 which induced Plaintiffs to purchase. Whether Defendants in fact solicited the sale of the securities and, therefore, are liable under §§ 517.301 and 517.211, is a question of fact to be determined at trial or earlier summary proceedings....

...racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. [38] § 517.301, which creates a criminal or administrative offense for securities fraud, is virtually identical to Rule 10b-5....

...he light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or 3. To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. Section 517.211(2), which operates upon § 517.301 provides: Remedies available in cases of unlawful sale. — (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the pers...

...iolations. It is important to separate the two types of claims raised on appeal. The securities fraud claims are based on Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 5 Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission, 6 and Florida Statute Section 517.301, 7 the state's "blue sky" securities law....

...umstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or a deceit upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 7 Sec. 517.301 provides in pertinent part: "It is unlawful * * * (b) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the...

...The amended complaint contained the following cause of actions against Defendants: I. Violation of Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (failure to register), Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the sales. II. Violation of Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, specifically Section 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...legal identity of Plaintiffs' claims under the Florida and Indiana Acts' anti-fraud provision and the class-wide federal law claims in Klawans. F.S.A. ž 517.211 provides a civil remedy where securities are offered or sold in violation of F.S.A. ž 517.301....

...The Supreme Court of Florida has recently observed that: The effect of section 517.211 is similar to that of federal section 12(2), except that whereas 12(2) protects only buyers, section 517.211 protects both buyers and sellers. E.F. Hutton v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978 (1989). The congruity of F.S.A. ž 517.211 and ž 517.301 to Sections 17 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 is pervasive....

...Gerald Lewis, Comptroller of Florida. SHAW, Justice. This case is before us on the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: In an action under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 517.301, 517.211, is the claimant required to prove that his loss was proximately caused by the defendant's fraud? Rousseff v....

...See, e.g., Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1981). State securities laws operate in conjunction with the federal laws; federal laws do not supercede state laws. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(a) (1982). The Florida statutes in issue here are sections 517.301 and 517.211, Florida Statutes (1981). Section 517.301(1) is similar in language to rule 10b-5....

...he light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Section 517.211, which operates upon section 517.301, is similar in effect to section 12(2) of the 1933 Act. It provides: 517.211 Remedies available in cases of unlawful sale. — ... . (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to th...

...he security at the time of the complaint, plus the amount of any income received by the defendant on the security; and (b) The consideration received for the security, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of sale. Hutton claims that because section 517.301 closely tracks rule 10b-5, the legislature intended that the body of federal case law which has been established for civil remedies under rule 10b-5 applies equally to Florida claims....

...Loss causation is a requirement under this federal law and provides that the decline in value of the injured party's investment must result directly from the offending party's fraud, not from some other source, e.g., independent *981 market forces. [5] Rousseff asserts that because the overall effect of sections 517.301 and 517.211 is similar to that of section 12(2), federal case law interpreting section 12(2), which has no loss causation requirement, should be relevant. Section 517.301 makes securities fraud illegal....

...Because no federal statute exists that allows private parties to obtain civil relief for many of the offenses embraced by rule 10b-5, the federal courts have created such a right. Under Florida law, no court-made implied civil right has been created under section 517.301 because companion section 517.211 contains an express civil liability provision. Hutton's attempt to analogize rule 10b-5 and section 517.301 breaks down under scrutiny. A civil action under federal law implements rule 10b-5 and a body of judge-made law. A similar action under Florida law implements sections 517.301 and 517.211....

...Loss causation has never been required there. "The buyer need not show any causal connection between the misrepresentation and his damage; indeed, he need not even show that he has been damaged." Id. Proof of loss causation is not mentioned in sections 517.211 or 517.301, nor is it required under section 12(2), which is the comparable federal law, or under the common law cause of action from which the state and federal laws derived. Accordingly, we hold that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity — DENIED; 2. Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to State a Cause of Action under Section 12(2) — GRANTED as to Count I of the Counterclaim; 3. Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to State a Claim under Fla.Stat. Section 517.301 — DENIED; 4....

....e., post-distribution trading, is not within the purview of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Count I of Defendants' Counterclaim is GRANTED on this basis. Failure to State a Claim under Florida Statute Section 517.301 Section 517.302(1)(a) of the Florida Securities Act, patterned after Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, makes it unlawful for anyone (1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; * * * * * * (3) To engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. [8] To state a cause of action under Section 517.301, a party must allege and prove: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact; (2) that the investor justifiably relied on said misrepresentation or omission; (3) that the misrepresentation or omission was made in connection...

...he investor's actual loss. Currie v. Cayman Resources Corporation, et al., 835 F.2d 780, 785 (11th Cir.1988); Gochnauer v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 810 F.2d 1042, 1046 (11th Cir.1987) (stating that the elements of a cause of action under Fla.Stat. Section 517.301 are identical to those required by Section 10(b), except that the scienter requirement is relaxed in the former instance). The Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II of Defendants' Counterclaim for failure to state claim under Section 517.301. First, Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants have failed to state a claim under Section 517.301 as they have failed to plead a requisite element of the claim, loss causation, i.e., that the misrepresentation caused the economic harm. [9] The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that proof of "loss causation" is not required in a securities proceeding instituted under Section 517.301 and Section 517.211....

...Accordingly, this Court finds in accordance with the Magistrate that the aforementioned motion should be DENIED. Second, Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants have failed to allege that the alleged misrepresentation was made in "connection with" the actual purchase or sale of a security as required under Section 517.301....

...Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED on this basis. [10] *1524 Third, Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants' claim should be dismissed because the Plaintiff does not fall within the designated class of individuals which may be held liable for a Section 517.301 violation. Plaintiff maintains that the Florida legislature has expressly restricted the scope of liability under Section 517.301 to that narrow class of individuals and entities identified in Section 517.211, and as such, Plaintiff may not be held liable under the theory of vicarious liability....

...ks merit. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, Fla.Stat. Section 517.211 expressly provides for liability premised upon the theory of agency. [11] As the Plaintiff indeed falls within the designated class of individuals which may be held liable for a Section 517.301 violation, it is the opinion of this Court that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Count II should be DENIED....

...Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity — DENIED; 2. Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to State a Cause of Action under Section 12(2) — GRANTED as to Count I of the Counterclaim; 3. Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Failure to State a Claim under Fla.Stat. Section 517.301 — DENIED; 4....

...or omissions in a registration statement, and can only be brought against certain parties ... Id., 103 S.Ct. at 687. [8] Like Rule 10b-5, the state provision only covers fraud "in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security." Fla.Stat. Section 517.301(1)(a). Section 517.301(1)(a) differs from the parallel federal provision, however, in that a violation of the state statute requires proof of negligence rather than scienter....

...683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983). [10] The Court's ruling on this matter is in accord with the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate. [11] Florida Statute Section 517.211(2) provides: Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the pers...

...this investment was not suitable for the Trust. Count One alleges that in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security, the defendants acts or practices constituted a scheme to defraud in violation of Florida Statute § 517.301(1). At first blush, it appears that Becker is attempting to hold the defendants to the terms and duties contained in the three agreements; therefore, she should not be 11 Count One does not seek relief against...

...The action, principally founded in federal securities law and alleged violations of federal and state RICO statutes, contains four counts: Count I for Securities Fraud: Violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Florida Statutes, § 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (FIPA); Count II for Suitability: Violations of the Exchange Act, FIPA, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc....

...185, 210 n. 29, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1389 n. 29, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976); Friedlander v. Troutman, Sanders & Lockerman, 788 F.2d 1500, 1502 (11th Cir.1986). In Florida, the most analogous law is found in the Florida Investment Protection Act at Florida Statutes, § 517.301(1)(a). Nortek, Inc. v. Alexander Grant & Co., 532 F.2d 1013, 1015 (5th Cir.1976); Hudak v. Economic Research Analysis, Inc., 499 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.1974). Accordingly, the Court finds that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to § 517.301(1)(a)(2) applies to Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 claims....

...ank representative, Bank had long had knowledge of significant negative information about APEF that pointed to APEF being in financial jeopardy. Thereafter, Stockholder filed a Complaint against Bank alleging common law fraud, securities fraud under section 517.301 and breach of fiduciary duty....

...ufficient manner without a trial. Nessim, 384 So.2d at 1344 (citations omitted); see also Rosen v. Zoberg, 680 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Second, we find that the trial court erred in entering Summary Judgment on the securities fraud claim under section 517.301 of the Florida Securities Investors Protection Act. Under section *1147 517.301, it is unlawful to engage in fraud "in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any investment or security." With few exceptions, a securities fraud claim under said act is nearly identical to a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b 5 of the related federal law....

...Here, Bank argues that Stockholder has no securities fraud claim under the Act because he did not sell his APEF shares after talking with the Bank representative; he merely retained them. However, even if that were true, we find that Stockholder still has a securities fraud claim under section 517.301 by virtue of an additional provision. Unlike its federal counterpart, a securities fraud claim under section 517.301 may also be brought for fraud "in connection with the rendering of any investment advice." Based on the record before us, we find that a jury question exists as to whether the statements made by the Bank representative to Stockholder constituted "investment advice" for purposes of the statute....

...rice on November 15, 1984 and received net proceeds of $2,864,940.52. This created a shortfall in the amount of $193,946.48. Thereafter, the creditor filed a complaint in the district court, alleging breach of contract, violations of Florida Statute § 517.301 regarding misrepresentations and omissions made in connection with the offer, sale and purchase of a security, common law fraud and civil theft....

...sts in Jade Coal Co., Ltd. Counts I and IV allege that the defendants failed to disclose material facts in violation of Rule 10b-5 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 517.301 of Florida Statutes....

...Gant moved to alter or amend the judgment and for attorneys’ fees. The court denied all motions except Golub’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The court determined that the jury’s response to interrogatory 11 constituted a finding that Gant had violated Fla.Stat. *1520 § 517.301 (1985) 2 and entitled Golub to reasonable attorneys’ fees as the “prevailing party” under Fla.Stat....

...always collateral to the merits of an action. — U.S. at -, 108 S.Ct. at 1721-22 . Therefore, the judgment below was final for purposes of § 1291, and this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 2 . In 1985, when Golub’s cause of action accrued, § 517.301 of the Florida Statutes provided, in part: It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter for a person: (b) To obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.... Fla.Stat.Ann. § 517.301 (West Supp....

...("Cedar"), filed a three-count complaint against PWC and Willis in Pinellas County alleging three tort claims: negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and securities fraud under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (FSIPA). See § 517.301, Fla....

...accrues with the first compensable damage. See Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Despite Cedar's argument to the contrary, this venue principle applies to all three of its claims, including its securities fraud claim under section 517.301....

...a particular county for venue purposes under section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1997), see U-Haul Co. of Northern Fla. v. Fuller, 417 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). [4] It does not appear that such reliance damages are a compensable injury under its section 517.301 FSIPA claim. See § 517.211, Fla. Stat. (1993) (providing remedies for violations of section 517.301)....

...rity or “investment contract”); Zelman v. Cook, 616 F.Supp. 1121, 1127 (S.D.Fla.1985) (“federal securities law cases are highly persuasive in construing Florida’s securities law”). The Florida securities antifraud provision, Fla. Stat.Ann. § 517.301(l)(a), (b) (West Supp....

...(“Paine Web-ber”), jointly liable for violations of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 ( 15 U.S.C. § 777 (2)), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission, and Section 517.-301(l)(b) of the Florida Securities Act (Fla. Stat.Ann. § 517.301)....

...dence. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 171 So. 214, 221-22 (Fla.1936). We reject the defendants’ challenge and uphold the jury’s award of punitive damages. 19 D. Liability Under the Florida Securities Laws 1. Scienter as an Element of a § 517.301 Violation Finally, we consider the defendants’ contention that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that scienter is a necessary element of a violation of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 517.301, 20 a statute patterned closely after § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The defendants concede that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith v. Byrne, 320 So.2d 436 (Fla. D.C.A. 3d 1975) specifically recognized that scienter is not an element of a § 517.301 violation, but urge that the court in that case relied on principles of federal law which were subsequently overruled in Ernst & Ernst v....

...Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 503 F.2d 239, 245 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied 421 U.S. 965 , 95 S.Ct. 1953 , 44 L.Ed.2d 451 (1975). In the present case, there is no persuasive indication that the Florida Supreme Court would not choose to enforce § 517.301 without the requirement of a showing of scienter....

...The district court entered final judgment in favor of U.S. Trust and granted U.S. Trust's Motion for Certification pursuant to Rule 54(b). II. Securities Law Claims 6 A. Florida Security and Investor Protection Act 7 Appellants claim that U.S. Trust violated Fla.Stat. section 517.07 and Fla.Stat. section 517.301....

...the complaint, alleging fraud and securities law violations. We find no error in the court's ruling as regards said counts. Alechman v. Edwards, 56 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1952); Bernard Marko & Associates, Inc. v. Steele, 230 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970); Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Hutton offered to waive its commission on the trades. No reasonable juror could conclude that these facts amount to fraud or deceit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of a judgment n.o.v. on Messer's CEA claim. C. FLORIDA SECURITIES ACT 36 Section 517.301(1)(a) of the Florida Securities Act, patterned after Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, makes it unlawful for anyone 37 (1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; 38 * * * 39 * * * 40 (3) To engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. 41 Like Rule 10b-5, the state provision only covers fraud "in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security." Fla.Stat. Sec. 517.301(1)(a). Section 517.301(1)(a) differs from the parallel federal provision, however, in that a violation of the state statute requires proof of negligence rather than scienter....

...Therefore, any misrepresentations or fraud in connection with the opening of the account are not actionable under the Florida Securities Act. 43 The second possible basis for relief, the unauthorized trades themselves, also fails to present a claim under the Florida Securities Act. Even though liability under Section 517.301 can attach upon a showing of negligence rather than upon a willful or reckless disregard of a customer's best interests, we conclude that no reasonable jury, considering the totality of the circumstances at the time, could have found that E.F....

...Plaintiff asserts claims of Breach of Contract against White Oak (Count I); Unjust Enrichment against White Oak and the Orlandos (Count II); Fraudulent Inducement against all Defendants (Count III); Declaratory Judgment against White Oak (Count IV); Violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, against all Defendants (Count V); and Violation of 15 U.S.C....

...Therefore, the Court finds that declaratory relief is inappropriate and grants Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim. Count III, V, and VI—The Fraud Claims Against All Defendants Count III (fraudulent inducement against all Defendants), Count V (violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes), and Count VI (violation of 15 U.S.C....

...ns based on fraudulent inducement."); May v. Nygard Holdings Ltd., 203 Fed.Appx. 949, 2006 WL 2918908, *1-2 (11th Cir.2006). Similarly, the economic loss rule does not bar Sierra's statutory claims, such as the fraud claims brought for violations of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C....

...Aside from the specificity in the amount of damages claimed, plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count III does not seem to be materially different than its fiduciary claim in Count I. Count IV of plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. § 517.301....

...nshields Securities, Inc. (Richardson). We reverse in part and affirm in part. Azar's amended complaint contained four counts. In count I, Azar sought compensatory damages against Richardson for violations of the Florida Securities Act, specifically section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985) alleging that misrepresentations made to Azar in January 1984 by Charles Gill (Gill), the manager of Richardson's Fort Myers office induced Azar to purchase stock in C.P....

...Maximo Moorings Marine Center, Inc. v. Walke, 196 So.2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Further, the trial court may not pass upon the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence in ruling on the motion. Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop, 204 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985) prohibits a person from, directly or indirectly, (1) employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) obtaining money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact; or (3) engaging i...

...ay be considered in the federal forum. The statute of limitations to be borrowed for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is Fla.Stat. § 95.11(4)(e), [1] which pertains to limitation of actions applicable *694 to suits founded under Fla.Stat. § 517.301, [2] the State counterpart to federal section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 causes of action....

...e cause of action which bears the closest resemblance to the SEC section sued under." The Hudak decision, cited and reaffirmed by Nortek, involved the same SEC section before this Court, to wit, Section 10(b). The Hudak court selected then Fla.Stat. § 517.301(1) [Florida's Section 10(b) provision] as the most closely analogous state cause of action in applying the two year limitations then to be found at Fla.Stat....

...Greyhound Lines, Inc., 558 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1977) (selecting the more specific limitations period in Title VII cases over the more general provision regarding actions founded on a statutory liability where both sections were arguably applicable. [2] Fla.Stat. § 517.301(1) states: It is unlawful, and a violation of the provisions of this part, for any person: (1) In connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...The Shinitzky-Astel Plaintiffs also alleged that Pusso stole the money they invested with BSEC. ( Shinitzky-Astel Response, p. 1.) Plaintiffs sued BSEC and FLEET for negligence; BSEC and Pusso for fraud; BSEC, FLEET and Pusso for violation of Fl. Stat. § 517.301 (fraudulent transactions); BSEC, FLEET and Pusso for violation of Fl....

...t, of Defendants' affirmative defenses." The Final Decree: "1. Defendants' failure to advise the Plaintiff that a stop order could not be entered on the Curtiss-Wright stock constituted an omission to state a material fact in violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301. 2. The Court finds that the defenses of estoppel, waiver and ratification are proper legal defenses to a violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301 and the remedies set forth in Fla....

...The portion of the Act relating to remedies available in the case of an unlawful sale is ¶ 517.21. [4] Many challenging attacks are made by appellants on the judgment appealed from, among which is that scienter is necessary to establish the violation of ¶ 517.301....

...He has done so within the time the statute prescribed and in the manner prescribed and the trial court was correct in requiring the broker to do what the statute says it should do and to add to the judgment the additional charges authorized. Affirmed. NOTES [1] F.A.R. 3.6(h). [2] Particularly ¶ 517.301 which provides "It is unlawful * * * (b) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; ..." [3] Chapter 517 F.S.A....

...aw as to which this Court must follow only decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the body of precedent established and adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 3. Plaintiff's state law securities claim under Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, is governed by Florida law, but federal securities law cases are highly persuasive in construing Florida's securities law....

...Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II, for securities fraud violations of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, Count III, for derivative controlling person liability under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Count IV, for violation of Fla.Stat. § 517.301(1)(a), must be DENIED....

...s of all or any portion of the record before the federal court to be filed with said certificate where, in its opinion, such record may be necessary in the determination of said cause." [2] See Sections 517.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, particularly Section 517.301, F.S., and Section 517.23, F.S., Blau v....

...uct. [8] The trial court erred, however, in ruling that Hutton did not owe Appellants any legal duty of care arising out of applicable statutes in respect to the alleged negligent conduct. When read in pari materia, subsections 517.12(11)(b) [9] and 517.301(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and rule 3E-600.08, Florida Administrative Code, which was promulgated pursuant to the legislature's directive in subsection 517.12(11)(b), impose legal duties on Hutton that will support a cause of action for negligence under the circumstances shown in this case....

...as prescribed by rules adopted by the department, notice as to the termination of employment of any associated person registered for such dealer in this state and shall also furnish the reason or reasons for such termination. *1090 (Emphasis added.) Section 517.301 provides in pertinent part: It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person: * * * * * * (3) In any matter within the jurisdiction of the department, to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cove...

...nd willfully filed with the Department false information concerning the reason for Kury's termination, in violation of the legal obligations intended to protect investors from such conduct that were imposed on Hutton by subsections 517.12(11)(b) and 517.301(3), and rule 3E-600.08....

...e is to protect the public from fraudulent and deceptive practices in the sale and marketing of securities.). [11] The reporting provisions found in subsection 517.12(11)(b) and the prohibition of filing false reports with the Department found in subsection 517.301(3) are designed to enable the Department to timely obtain truthful information about the conduct of persons registered to sell securities so that it can discipline or otherwise prevent registered persons from practicing fraud upon members of the investing public....

...ant's fraud because the statutes on which the state law claim was based and the remedies expressly provided therein did not explicitly require proof of loss causation. The portions of the statutes involved in Rousseff, subsections 517.211(2)-(5) and 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1981), relate only to securities transactions between buyers and sellers and the statutory remedies provided in connection with such sales. The provisions of subsection 517.301(1) involved in Rousseff explicitly apply only "[i]n connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security," and perforce can apply only when there is privity between the parties involved. Subsections 517.211(2)-(5) deal only with claims for rescission or damages due to a violation of paragraph (1) of section 517.301 in disputes between buyers and sellers of securities. Appellants do not rely on these provisions in sections 517.211 and 517.301(1) as the basis for their causes of action in these cases. Nothing in the Rousseff opinion purports to pass on the statutory provisions in subsection 517.301(3), the section relied on by Appellants in these cases....

...dies recognized by law, nor is it likely that the court would have so held in view of the statutory and common law remedies provided or preserved to investors in other sections of chapter 517. See, e.g., § 517.241, Fla. Stat. (1983). [12] Unlike subsection 517.301(1), subsection 517.301(3) does not address solely sales transactions between buyers and sellers, as that paragraph makes it "unlawful and a violation of the provisions of" chapter 517 for any person, "[i]n any matter within the jurisdiction of the department, to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up ......

...Paragraph (3) is sufficiently broad in scope to make it unlawful and a violation of chapter 517 for Hutton to knowingly and willfully file a false report with the Department reporting Kury's termination, whether or not a person ultimately injured by Hutton's violation of this requirement is in privity with Hutton. Indeed, subsection 517.301(3) contains no mention of transactional privity as a basis for finding unlawfulness and violations of its provisions....

...iolation is shown to be the proximate or legal cause of the loss allegedly suffered by Appellants. Although the supreme court in Rousseff ruled that "proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301, Florida Statutes" (537 So.2d at 981), that ruling is not dispositive of the causation issue in these cases....

...HILL, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant William Wagner appeals the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 532 F.Supp. 591 , finding that he committed securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5, section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes, and Florida common law, and awarding $62,336.40 in damages to plaintiffs-appellees....

...Stat. ch. 517.12; (11) conspiracy to defraud; and (12) accounting. While count 10 of Grippo’s complaint refers to Florida Statute Chapter 517.12, based on the allegations in count 10, he is clearly alleging a violation of Florida Statute Chapter 517.301. 6 identifiable security, or prove that his funds were ever actually invested in anything....

...avorable to the plaintiff, do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Theoharus v. Fong, 256 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2001). DISCUSSION A. Failure to Allege the Purchase of a Security Section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person “in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security”: 1....

...we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Grippo failed to properly allege state securities claims on the ground that Grippo had not alleged that he actually purchased any securities. The elements of a cause of action under § 517.301 are identical to those under the Federal Rule 10b-5, except that the scienter requirement under Florida law is satisfied by showing of mere negligence....

...rida Communications Fraud Act, section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1993). As predicate acts comprising a "pattern of racketeering activity," the RICO counts alleged two or more violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...at a "result that is an element" (obtaining property from Escambia County) occurred within Florida. See § 910.005(2), Fla. Stat. (1993). Similarly, in connection with rendering investment advice or with selling securities or offering them for sale, section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), makes it unlawful, inter alia, to "obtain money ... by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any [misleading] omission to state a material fact," § 517.301(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (1993), or to "engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates ... as a fraud." § 517.301(1)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (1993). At least two violations of section 517.301(1)(a) in which money was obtained from Escambia County were alleged as elements (predicate offenses) of the substantive RICO offense....

...m another jurisdiction is punishable in Florida under Florida law. II. The trial court properly denied appellant's motions for judgment of acquittal. The state alleged substantive and conspiracy RICO offenses against Mr. Black based on violations of section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), which the state alleged under three theories: 1....

...scambia County, or by failing to disclose to Escambia County the risk of loss of principal monies invested by Escambia County, or by failing to disclose to Escambia County the actual market prices of said securities.... (These theories correspond to section 517.301(1)(a)1., 3....

...Black was part of the conspiracy and the enterprise, and that the organized fraud in which the conspirators engaged damaged Escambia County in an amount exceeding $50,000, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1993). The state's evidence was also sufficient to prove that the section 517.301(1)(a) offenses were not isolated, but occurred as part of the ongoing enterprise....

...ecause Escambia County's principal investment was not safe, because the CMOs' complexity meant they were not very liquid, because they were "tremendously" risky, and because of their high price volatility. The jury could find that Mr. Black violated section 517.301(1)(a) by failing to disclose that the CMOs did not comport with Escambia County's investment policy, even though he was dealing with an institution....

...In the claims submitted to arbitration, both parties sought attorney's fees. Id. "Each party executed an NASD uniform submission agreement stating that the parties would abide by any arbitration award." Id. The arbitrators found that appellant violated section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and awarded appellees damages....

...nvestments and represented to them that the investments were "fine" and "doing great." Plaintiffs continued to hold these investments "to their financial detriment." Plaintiffs filed a four count complaint against the defendant alleging violation of § 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), fraud in the inducement (Count III), and breach of contract (Count IV)....

...Moreover, when on the basis of a dispositive issue of law no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.1993). II. Count I Securities Fraud — Violation of § 517.301, Florida Statutes Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleges a violation of § 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...e of action were known by the plaintiff. In Wilder v. Meyer, 779 F.Supp. 164, 167-68 (S.D.Fla.1991), the court held that fraudulent concealment would not serve to extend the five-year bar provided by the statute of limitations in § 95.11(4)(e) in a § 517.301 action....

...d by a judge in a court proceeding. The facts of this case are straightforward. The Pierces brought an action against J.W. Charles-Bush Securities Inc. [Bush] and Freudenberg, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violations of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1989), common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence....

...In an Amended Complaint (DE28) filed January 22, 1988, Plaintiff asserts the following in his six count complaint: Count I — Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77 l ; Count II — breach of fiduciary duties; Count III — Fla.Stat. § 517.301; Count IV — fraud and deceit; Count VII*- negligence; and Count VIII*-negligent supervision....

...United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 *1326 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). The remaining five counts of the Amended Complaint are all state law claims: Count II — breach of fiduciary duties; Count III— Fla.Stat. § 517.301; Count IV—fraud and deceit; Count VII — negligence; and Count VIII — negligent supervision....

...securities law, common law fraud, and breach of contract. We do not think the facts of the counts of negligence and fiduciary obligation are sufficient as to Alexander and Schwartz. [2] Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110. As to the violation of the securities act, section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person: (1) In connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...Thus, it argued that they obviously planned to pay for the securities only after receiving their anticipated profit from a prospective sale. Thus, the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to place in issue Alexander and Schwartz's role, if any, in a scheme to defraud Raymond in violation of section 517.301(1)....

...Where there is a choice between several state statutes of limitations, the Federal Court must consider which statute *1059 "best effectuates the federal policy at issue." Richardson v. Salinas, 336 F.Supp. 997 (N.D. Texas 1972). In this instance, Florida Statute § 517.21, F.S.A., is applicable to actions brought under § 517.301 of the Florida Blue Sky Laws, which is substantially the same as § 10(b), 15 U.S.C....

...0(b) actions, whereas the Tenth Circuit had not. All this does not resolve the question before this Court—the question of whether Florida Statute § 517.21 or Florida Statute, F.S.A., § 95.11(5)(d) applies to this cause. As stated before, however, Section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is virtually the same as § 10(b), and the two-year limitations statute, § 517.21, applies to that section....

...ction Act ("SIPA") because Plaintiffs' claim regarding BAOA is barred by a two year statute of limitations and that Plaintiff's claim regarding Cash 4 Titles fails to allege buyer/seller privity as required. See Def. Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) at 7. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, provides that any action for a violation of chapter 517, Florida Statutes, that commences five years from the date of the violation is barred regardless of whether the facts giving rise to the cause of action were known by the plaintiff....

...The district court entered final judgment in favor of U.S. Trust and granted U.S. Trust’s Motion for Certification pursuant to Rule 54(b). II. Securities Law Claims A. Florida Security and Investor Protection Act Appellants claim that U.S. Trust violated Fla.Stat. section 517.07 and Fla.Stat. section 517.301....

...nt II must fail. 2. Counts IV and VIII: State Fraud Claims Counterclaimants' inability to establish reasonable reliance must also defeat their claims for fraud in the sale of securities under both Florida and Arizona's anti-fraud statutes. Fla.Stat. § 517.301; Ariz.Rev.Stat....

...by, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. As to Counts I (Securities Act § 12(2)), II (Securities Act § 10(b) and SEC Rule 10(b)(5)), IV (ARS § 44-1991), V (ARS § 13-2301 et seq. ), VII (Fla.Stat. § 895.01 et seq. ), VIII (Fla.Stat. § 517.301), IX (unjust enrichment), X (fraud), XI (conversion), XII (negligent misrepresentation), XIII (fraudulent inducement), XIV (failure to supervise), XVI (defamation) and XVII (damages), Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants' Motion to Dismiss be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED....

...ed a fraud by referring Gabay to Feibus, giving reassurances, and receiving a referral fee. The court held Rubin jointly and severally liable with Feibus for $3,225,000, representing the purchase price of the stock and treble damages. Rubin appeals. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful to employ certain false representations, schemes, or fraudulent artifices in rendering investment advice or in offering, selling, or purchasing investment securities or products. Section 517.211(2) imposes individual liability on: [a]ny person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase....

...As Rubin fit no other category, Gabay had to prove that Rubin was an agent within the meaning of section 517.211(2) to hold him liable for the false representations regarding the pre-IPO purchases. In discussing the meaning of the term agent in the context of section 517.301, this court explained that the term is to be given its common definition, meaning representation of a principal....

...§ 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 70 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (1987), violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1963, and pendant claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision and violations of Florida Statute § 517.301 (1985)....

...About three months after the filing of the New York complaint, a subset of the New York putative plaintiff class filed a similar class action in Dade County. The Florida complaint alleges a failure to disclose in violation of Florida's Blue Sky Law, section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The New York proceedings would dispose of all the issues raised in the Florida complaint. The only difference lies in the mechanisms for addressing the issues: the Florida plaintiffs present their fraud and misrepresentation complaint through the state fraudulent securities transactions statute, § 517.301 Fla....

...Del Valle claims that the counter-Defendants have violated Sections 7(c) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78(g)(c), 78j(b), Regulation T and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 12 C.F.R. § 220.1 et seq., and 12 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, Section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes and he has also made a claim based on Florida common law fraud....

...ts for Section 7 violations. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count III of the counterclaim is GRANTED. [2] Counts IV, V and VI of the counterclaim allege causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law fraud and violation of Section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes....

...Defendants argue that the aforementioned sections of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 do not provide for a specific statute of limitations, therefore, under the rationale of Vanderbloom v. Sexton, 422 F.2d 1233 (8th Cir. 1970), the state Blue Sky law statute of limitations should be controlling. In Florida § 517.301(1) Florida Statutes, F.S.A. is similar to § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. The statute of limitations applicable to § 517.301(1) for the instituting of private actions for fraud are provided for by F.S....

...Two years later, appellees commenced arbitration proceedings against appellant and one of its brokers. Appellees claimed that appellant violated the Florida Civil Theft Statute, section 812.014, and the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Both parties sought attorney's fees and costs in their respective claims and counterclaim. Each party executed an NASD uniform submission agreement stating that the parties would abide by any arbitration award. The arbitrators found that appellant violated section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and awarded appellees $32,278.83....

...We find there was competent, substantial evidence to support the verdicts. However, we find it necessary to address more fully the question of liability under the Florida Securities Act. Mariner sued AY in one count for fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the sale of Dielco which violated Fla. Stat. 517.301. It alleged AY was liable under Section 517.211(2) which states: Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the pers...

...We look first to the internal context of the word both within section 517.211 and in harmony with the interlocking statutes. [4] If we were to substitute the statutory definition for "agent" into the text of the statute, we would have the following: Any person ... selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or natural person, other than a dealer, employed, appointed, or authorized by a dealer or issuer to sell securities in any manner or act as an investment *1203 advisor of or for the ......

...er would not be liable to the purchaser, because he is not an "agent" within the statutory definition. The use of the statutory definition creates illogical consequences which comport neither with reason nor with legislative purpose. When we examine section 517.301, for which section 517.211 provides a remedy, it also fails to support a literal application of the statutory definition of "agent" in section 517.211. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts....

...urity who commit fraud as a means of inducing the purchaser to buy. To conclude that only natural persons are included within the "agent" designation would exclude an entire array of related "persons," other than the actual seller, who could violate section 517.301 as agents of the seller....

...Considering the anomaly which would be created by determining that an individual would be liable but the legal entity would not, we agree with appellee that the context dictates *1205 that any agent of the purchaser or seller which has personally participated in the sale would be liable for violations of section 517.301, Florida Statutes, whether that agent is a corporation, partnership or natural person....

...strict in Pasco County. In a one hundred and three (103) count information, the state charged them with numerous offenses arising out of their performance of their duties as district board members. Two counts of the information charged violations of section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), an antifraud provision in the Sale of Securities Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the information, arguing numerous grounds. With regard to the two counts charging violation of section 517.301(1)(c), the grounds of the motion included the contention that the information failed to charge the crime with sufficient specificity....

...The state appeals the order of dismissal, but only as to the two counts of violating the securities law. The dismissal of the one hundred and one other counts of alleged wrongdoing has not been appealed and is not before us. The court dismissed the two securities counts — counts 99 and 100 — on the ground that section 517.301(1)(c) is unconstitutionally vague....

...ed, we can still affirm the order under review on other grounds. See, e.g., Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So.2d 222 (Fla. 1962); City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave., Inc., 77 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1954); Colcord v. Conroy, 40 Fla. 97, 23 So. 561 (1898). Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: It is unlawful, and a violation of the provisions of this part, for any person: (1) In the sale or purchase of any security in this state, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...ale of the bonds of Lake Padgett Estates East Road and Bridge District, Extension No. 3, Pasco County, Florida, which operated as a fraud or deceit upon the said bondholders in connection with their purchase of the said bonds ... contrary to Chapter 517.301(1)(c)......

...The question of the sufficiency of the information was before the trial court, having been raised by the appellees in their motions to dismiss. We believe the court should have granted the motions on this ground. We disapprove of the court's ruling that section 517.301(1)(c) is unconstitutional....

...evidence rule, this Court holds that the acknowledgment of such promise is similarly unenforceable. B. Motion for Summary Judgment on Amended Counterclaim The Milos' filed an Amended Counterclaim asserting therein claims for: violation of Fla.Stat. § 517.301 (Count I); common law fraud (Count II); breach of fiduciary duty (Count III); negligence (Count IV); breach of contract (Count V); and violation of Fla.Stat....

...ovember 15, 1987 to cure margin calls or other deficiencies in their account; (iv) the Milos' failed to mitigate their damages; and (v) that the Milos' claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds and the parol evidence rule. 1. Violation of Fla.Stat. § 517.301 — Count I In Count I of their Amended Counterclaim, the Milos' seek to recover under Section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. § 517.011 et seq. To prevail on a claim for violation of Section 517.301, a party must prove the following: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact; (2) that the investor justifiably relied on said misrepresentation or omission; (3) that the misrepresentation or omission was made in connecti...

...Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 981 (Fla.1989). It asserts that the Milos' have offered no evidence whatsoever that the securities purchased or sold in the instant case were owned or purchased by either First Union or Pershing. Fla.Stat. § 517.211(2), which operates upon Section 517.301, provides that: Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has *1155 personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to th...

...As this Court previously held in Milos, 717 F.Supp. at 1524, "Section 517.211 expressly provides for liability premised upon the theory of agency." (footnoted omitted). In a long line of cases, investors have successfully brought suit against their stock brokers for violation of Section 517.301....

...commission on every trade by the Milos'. [25] Accordingly, this Court finds that First Union, as agent for the Milos' in the sale and purchase of securities, falls within the designated class of individuals which may be held liable for violation of Section 517.301....

...nuine issue of material fact that First Union is not liable for common law fraud. Accordingly, this Court similarly finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact that First Union did not make any misrepresentations in violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301, upon which the Milos' justifiably relied to their detriment....

...). Ainsworth’s original claim was submitted to arbitration before a panel of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., (“NASD”). Ainsworth asserted claims against Skurnick alleging violations of Fla. *459 Stat. § 517.12, Fla.Stat. § 517.301, and common law breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, deceit and negligence....

...of negligence or damages attributable to Skurnick’s negligence. Additionally, the panel’s determination that Ainsworth did not establish his right to recover on his claims of breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, deceit, and violation of Fla.Stat. § 517.301 was justified by the law and the facts....

...[2] In her statement of claim, the plaintiff asserted violations of federal securities law, state securities law, and general contract and tort law, including breach of fiduciary duties. The claims relevant to this decision are the claims brought under Sections 517.211(6), 517.301(1)(a)(1), 517.301(1)(a)(2), and 517.301(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes....

...The arbitration award stated that it was entered "in full and final resolution of the issues submitted for determination." The award contained only one finding of fact: that the defendant "violated the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Sections 517.07 and 517.301, et seq., as alleged in the Statement of Claim." The award also stated that "the Panel determines that [the defendant's] liability to [the plaintiff], as represented by this Award, constitutes a debt obtained by false pretences or by a false...

..."So long as there is a `proper basis' for the award, the party seeking vacatur is limited to the four narrow bases set forth in the FAA, and may not invoke the non-statutory bases as grounds for vacating the award." Id. at 779. In this case, the arbitration panel found that the defendant violated Sections 517.07 and 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...N.D.Tex.1994) [arbitral findings may be given preclusive effect]. In this case, the arbitration panel did not make specific findings of fact in its award. The panel *360 instead adopted the plaintiff's statement of the case as the facts establishing the requisite elements of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...26, 29 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1998) ["[A]bsence of specific factual findings and reasoning is counterbalanced by the fact that the arbitrators have clearly enunciated the statutory basis for the Award."]. Accordingly, the arbitration award here establishes those facts necessary to support a violation under Section 517.301, Florida Statutes. Section 517.301 provides that: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the rendering of any investment advice or in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security ....

...eview. Although the element of material misrepresentation is clearly the same in both statutes, the case law presents a very different picture with respect to the other three of the four elements of Section 523(a)(2)(A) and the analogous elements of Section 517.301....

...of deceiving the creditor." Goldberg, Dickman & Shalita, P.C. v. Shalita (In re Shalita), 1992 WL 301521 *2 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bilzerian, 100 F.3d at 892. In contrast, the plaintiff carries a much lighter burden in establishing intent or scienter under Section 517.301. Early cases suggest that scienter need not be shown at all to establish liability under Section 517.301....

...In Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F.2d 678, 690 (11th Cir.1983), our court of appeals adopted the Byrne position on scienter. More recently, however, other courts have required a showing of some culpability as a requisite element of Section 517.301. For example, in First Union Brokerage v. Milos, 717 F.Supp. 1519, 1523 (S.D.Fla.1989), the court stated that a party complaining of violations of Section 517.301 must allege and prove "....

...See also Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Metals Exchange Corp., 775 F.Supp. 767, 786 (D.N.J.1991), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 991 F.2d 71 (3d Cir.1993) ["Florida law merely requires a plaintiff to prove negligence" to establish scienter under Section 517.301.]. Regardless of whether Section 517.301 is construed as a strict liability statute or to require a showing of negligence, the factual predicate needed to establish intent under the Florida securities statute is clearly less onerous than the predicate required under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...The dichotomy between the statutes is even more apparent in the element of loss causation. Under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, the plaintiff must show that the loss suffered by the plaintiff was proximately caused by the debtor's misrepresentation. Shalita, 1992 WL 301521 at *2. This is not the case with Section 517.301. Under Section 517.301, proof of loss causation is not required at all....

...Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 73-76, 116 S.Ct. 437, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995); City Bank & Trust, Co. v. Vann (In re Vann), 67 F.3d 277, 283-84 (11th Cir.1995). In contrast, the law is especially murky on the issue of what is required to establish reliance under Section 517.301. For example, in Waters, 172 F.R.D. at 498, the court held that the plaintiff did not need to establish reliance to prevail under Section 517.301. The court reasoned that, if "loss causation is not an element [under Section 517.301], it logically follows that reliance should not be required, as the two concepts are so closely related." Id. On the other hand, some courts have held that the plaintiff must demonstrate some degree of reliance to prevail under Section 517.301. See, e.g., Milos, 997 F.2d at 844 ["To establish a § 517.301 claim, the [plaintiff] had to prove that . . . they justifiably relied upon" the debtor's misrepresentations.]; Gochnauer, 810 F.2d at 1047 ["This Circuit requires ` reasonable reliance' upon the material misrepresentations . . ." to establish liability under Section 517.301.] (emphasis supplied)....

...The arbitration panel clearly adjudicated the issue of whether the debtor made a material misrepresentation. The court therefore concludes that the issue of material misrepresentation was actually litigated. 3. Was determination of the issue a critical and necessary part of the arbitration award? To assess liability under Section 517.301, the arbitration panel had to determine whether the defendant made a material misrepresentation to the plaintiff....

...o do so. Thus, in the absence of an award of punitive damages, any finding of fact that establishes intent, reliance, or loss causation as required by Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, but that is not required to establish liability under Section 517.301, is not critical or necessary to the arbitration panel's award....

...rs, Inc. ("NASD"), any disputes arising from recommendations or sales of securities. [2] The plaintiff also submitted for arbitration with the NASD a separate claim for damages against the broker. [3] The arbitration complaint erroneously identifies Section 517.301(1)(a)(2) as 517.301(2). Section 517.301(2) is a definitional section of the statute. The allegations in the complaint identified with Section 517.301(2) are clearly drawn from the language of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2)....

...n the subscription offering. The Crafts' amended complaint alleged that Florida Federal violated Section 12(2) and Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon, Section 517.301 of the Florida Blue Sky Laws and Section 563b.3(h), Section 653b.7(k)(4) and (5) of the Bank Board regulations....

...forum for review is the Court of Appeals. 40 Finally, Crafts argue that the district court has jurisdiction under Section 12(2) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b, and Section 517.301 of the Florida Blue Sky Laws....

....C. sec. 77q ("Securities Act"); b) Count II — violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. sec. 78j(b) ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. sec. 240.10b-5; c) Count III — violation of Florida's Blue Sky Law, section 517.301; d) Count IV — violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C....

...c facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d at p. 274. The Court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains which precludes the entry of summary judgment. Count I Violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes It is uncontroverted that Defendant Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans is not in privity with Plaintiffs....

...Head, 566 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1990); Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Chmielewski, 573 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), review denied, 583 So.2d 1034, 1036 (Fla. 1991). The Wienekes filed a complaint against Raymond James and others, alleging a claim under section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1987), as well as other statutory and common law theories....

...parties whether the award is based upon a theory that will entitle the claimant to an award of attorneys' fees in a subsequent court proceeding. Although the monetary award in this *958 proceeding is less than what a judge would probably award under section 517.301, Raymond James did not establish that the entitlement to attorneys' fees or the monetary award must be vacated or modified under the limited authority granted to trial courts for that purpose....

...wrongful transfers occurred. Having failed to go beyond the pleadings, Plaintiffs do not create an issue of fact with respect to the existence of Defendant's common law duty. [2] Plaintiffs further maintain that Sections 517.12, 560.111, 655.50, and 517.301, Florida Statutes, impose a duty on Defendant....

...Co., 852 F.Supp. 994, *1280 1000 (M.D.Fla.1994). Plaintiffs have failed to adduce any evidence that Defendant violated these statutory provisions. Defendant concedes that a private cause of action is afforded to Plaintiffs if they can establish a violation of Section 517.301, Fla. Stat.. Section 517.211, Florida Statutes [3] , delineates available remedies for the unlawful sale of securities in violation of Section 517.301. FLA. STAT. § 517.211(2); Marcus v. Shapiro, Abramson & Schwimmer, P.A., 620 So.2d 1284, 1286 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). With respect to violations of Section 517.301, Section 517.211 states: (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the perso...

...ity to or purchasing the security from such person in an action for rescission, if the plaintiff still owns the security, or for damages, if the plaintiff has sold the security. Plaintiff must prove the following elements to establish a violation of Section 517.301: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact; (2) justifiably relied on; (3) that the misrepresentation or omission was made in connection with a purchase or sale of securities; (4) with scienter or reckless disregard as to...

...Profilet v. Cambridge Fin. Corp., 231 B.R. 373, 380 (S.D.Fla.1999) (citing First Union Brokerage v. Milos, 717 F.Supp. 1519, 1523 (S.D.Fla.1989), aff'd, 997 F.2d 835 (11th Cir.1993)). It is clear that Plaintiffs may only maintain a cause of action under Section 517.301 for damages arising from the purchase or sale of securities....

...ities from Cardinal. See E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 981 (Fla.1989) (stating that Section 517.211 protects buyers and sellers of securities). Therefore, as a matter of law Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for a violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and summary judgment on Count II is warranted....

...relationship with Cardinal, whereby Cardinal assumed a common law duty to El Café. To the extent Plaintiffs reargue that a statutory duty exists, the Court remains unpersuaded, as Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence showing that Cardinal violated section 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...on, Plaintiffs have not adduced evidence that Defendant even violated a statutory duty. See Palmer, 622 So.2d at 1089 n. 8. [3] Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' failure to allege reliance on Section 517.211 is fatal to their cause of action under Section 517.301. As the former is merely the procedural vehicle for obtaining a remedy under Section 517.301, Plaintiffs did not need to expressly allege reliance on Section 517.211....

...tlement of various transactions in the customer accounts." Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So.2d 670, 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citations omitted). [5] As discussed in the November 4, 2003 Order, Plaintiffs argued that Sections 517.12, 560.111, 655.50 and 517.301, Florida Statutes, imposed a statutory duty upon Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs. In their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs only challenge the Court's analysis under section 517.301, Fla. Stat. A plaintiff is afforded a private cause of action for violations of section 517.301, Fla. Stat. through the provisions of section 517.211, Fla. Stat. "Section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person `in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security': 1....

...which they were made, not misleading; or 3. To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person." Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1222 (11th Cir.2004) (citing FLA. STAT. § 517.301(1)).

...The complaint alleges the following violations by these parties: Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Count I); Section 9 of the Exchange Act (Count II); Section 16 of the Exchange Act (Count III); Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count IV); Florida Blue Sky Law Section 517.301 (state securities laws) (Count V); Florida RICO Act (Count VI), Breach of Contract (Count VII); Fraudulent Inducement (Count VIII); Fraudulent Transfer (11 U.S.C....

...these defendants. As discussed earlier, the Court finds the allegations in the amended complaint sufficient to meet the pleading requirements. Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss count IV will be denied. IV. Violation of Florida Blue Sky Law § 517.301 (Count V) Defendants argue the Trustee has failed to meet the pleading requirements under Fla.Stat. § 517 (Florida Securities Investor Protection Act). Generally, claims under the Florida securities laws have the same statutory requirements as those under Rule 10b-5. Thus, to establish a claim under § 517.301, a plaintiff must establish the following: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact; (2) justifiably relied on; (3) that the misrepresentation or omission was made in connection with a purchase or sale of securities; (4) with...

...herefore § 517. The Trustee has failed, however, to plead that AMGI "justifiably relied" on the actions of Defendants as required by the statute. Thus, because the Trustee has failed sufficiently to plead an element necessary to bring a claim under § 517.301, Defendants' motions to dismiss count V will be granted....

...NOTES [1] The claims were: (1) Conversion; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Temporary Injunction; (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Fraud; (7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (8) Fraud in the Inducement; (9) Civil Conspiracy; (10) Violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.12; (11) Violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301; (12) Accounting....

...[1] The claims were: (1) Conversion; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Temporary Injunction; (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Fraud; (7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (8) Fraud in the Inducement; (9) Civil Conspiracy; (10) Violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.12; (11) Violation of Fla. Stag" § 517.301; (12) Accounting.

...den by the Supreme Court in Chiarella, the legislative history of the Act, and the Congressional plan for regulation of the securities markets." Id. at 885-86. We have not overlooked the possibility that the defendants could be deemed insiders under Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1981), [2] rendering Kulla, as their tippee, in delicto under the Florida Securities Act....

...NIM Notes did not comply with the Wachovia Guidelines and failed to advise the County of the risks associated with its continued holding of the Lehman Notes. Chapter 517 of the Florida Statutes addresses FSIPA violations. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 517.301: It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the rendering of any investment advice or in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any investment or security ....

...ents made, in light of the circumstance under which they were made, not misleading; or 3. To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. The remedy for a violation of Section 517.301 is contained in Florida Statutes Section 517.211(2) and states: Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every....

..."holding" a security or for the mere rendering of investment advice. [1] 1. The County Did Not Purchase Securities from Wachovia and Wachovia is Not Liable as a Seller's Agent Wachovia first argues that it is not liable under FSIPA, Florida Statutes Section 517.301, because the County did not purchase securities from Wachovia....

...2, ¶¶ 29, 35, 41), and none of the transactions at issue could have occurred without Wachovia's participation and aiding in their sale to the County. (Doc. No. 2, ¶¶ 29-32, 35-36, 41-42). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that for the remedies of Section 517.211(2) to apply to a violation of 517.301, buyer/seller privity is required....

...Accordingly, the Court finds that Wachovia's Motion to Dismiss the County's FSIPA claim must be granted. 2. FSIPA Does Not Provide a Private Right of Action for "Holding" a Security based on Improper Investment Advice The County alleges that Wachovia rendered fraudulent investment advice in violation of Section 517.301 when the County continued to hold the Altius Bonds and OONIM Notes, despite the fact that the Altius Bonds and OONIM Notes failed to satisfy the Wachovia Guidelines and/or the Revised County Guidelines....

...v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 268 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1316 (N.D.Fla.2003) ("`holding' claims may not be asserted under either the federal or Florida securities laws"). The County responds that "[u]nlike its federal counterpart, a securities fraud claim under Section 517.301 may also be brought for fraud `in connection with the rendering of any investment advice.'" Ward v....

...Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1343 (11th Cir.2002). The County asserts that Rousseff's indication that Section 517.211(2) protects only buyers and sellers should not control because the language—"[i]n connection with the rendering of any investment advice"—was added to Section 517.301(1)(a) after Rousseff was decided....

...may not bring a claim under FSIPA. 2010 WL 2991431 at *4. In making its decision, the City of St. Petersburg court looked to the plain language of section 517.211(2) which permits only a buyer or seller of securities to bring a cause of action under section 517.301 and looked to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Rousseff which judicially established the buyer/seller privity requirement of 517.211(2). Id. ; see Fla. Stat. § 517.211(2) (referring only to a person "purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301")....

...s just as the County has relied upon it in the instant case. In reversing a grant of summary judgment to a defendant bank, the Ward court allowed the plaintiff, a "holder" of securities, to go forward with his FSIPA claim against the bank because of section 517.301's prohibition of fraud "in connection with the rendering of any investment advice." Ward, 777 So.2d at 1147. The City of St. Petersburg court disregarded the Ward decision, stating "the Ward opinion cannot be reconciled with the language of section 517.211 requiring a purchaser or seller to bring a cause of action under 517.301....

...Appellee, Kathryn Moser, asserted multiple claims for damages against Barron before a National Association of Security Dealers arbitration panel. Her claims were based on several common law theories of recovery which would not support her entitlement to attorney's fees, as well as a statutory claim under section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1997), which would support recovery of attorney's fees by the prevailing party....

...Furthermore, the alleged misrepresentations made by Grubman were made long before the account was opened, and the stock was nearly worthless before it was placed in the Boleses' account. The Boleses' claims unquestionably sound in tort and as violations of section 517.301, Florida Statutes, the Florida Securities Investors Protection Act, and do not concern the agreement or any transaction or relationship of any kind between the Boleses and SSB....

...420. Josephthal argues the trial court had no basis for awarding Durham attorney's fees because nothing in the arbitration award indicated she had prevailed on a claim which would entitle her to fees. [2] We disagree. Success on the FSIPA claim, see section 517.301, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), would entitle Durham to an award of attorney's fees....

...-law theories, including fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Chapter 517, the Florida Blue Sky Act. A jury eventually disposed of the cause, finding by special verdict that appellee was guilty of negligence and had violated Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes....

...[1] This argument must be rejected because it assumes that making trades unsuitable to appellant's investment objectives was a mere technical violation. The statute's very title, however, denominates all covered, prohibited acts as "fraudulent transactions." Contrary to appellee's argument, an unsuitable trading violation of Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes, is not merely technical....

...uture promise to perform with no intent of doing so, the requirement of a past or present fact does not apply. Id.; see also Telesphere Int'l, Inc. v. Scollin, 489 So.2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The securities act violation claims are based on section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), which makes it unlawful for a person to "employ ....

Grosfeld, IPMC and Multivest, Inc. violated Fla. St. § 517.301 by selling investments in ETOs while operating

...Sparks was informed against in a three-count information for (1) sale *538 of unregistered securities, F.S. Section 517.07, F.S.A.; (2) sale of securities by an unregistered dealer, F.S. Section 517.12, F.S.A.; and (3) fraudulent sale of securities, F.S. Section 517.301, F.S.A....

...185, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). Plaintiff also charges defendants with fraud under Florida law. In count 5, plaintiff seeks rescission under section 517.211(2), Florida Statutes, for defendants alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of section 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...the public interest or for the protection of investors. 15 U.S.C.A. § 78j(b) (1981). [6] Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13 n. 9, 92 S.Ct. 165, 169 n. 9, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971). [7] Section 517.301 reads: It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person: (1) In connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...e statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 517.301 (West Supp.1983)....

...nt believes it is unfair to penalize the good faith seller who offers full restitution. b. Subsection (2) is new language that expressly states what is implied in the existing language of section 517.211; that is plaintiffs can bring an action under section 517.301 for either recission [sic] or damages....

...Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's order dismissing their securities fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Oakbrook Securities Corporation, Harbour Investments, Inc., D.E. Frey & Co., Inc., and James F. Glaza. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The security fraud claims are grounded on section 517.301, Florida Statutes, an anti-fraud provision of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act a/k/a The Florida Blue Sky Law....

...curities through the Defendant brokerage company. Count I seeks relief under Section 10b of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10B-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240 10B-5 (1983). Count II charges Defendant with violating Chapter 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED upon authority of Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, supra , that the motion of the Defendant to sever the state claims and compel arbitration of Counts II, III and IV be and the same is hereby GRANTED. In compelling arbitration of Count II (Section 517.301 of the Florida Securities Act), the Court declines to follow Oppenheimer & Co....

...denied, 285 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1973). Consequently, since count I of Bongard's complaint properly alleged all the essential elements of fraud, the trial court improperly dismissed it. Following therefrom, the trial court improperly dismissed count III grounded upon section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Based on these allegations, Space Coast asserts that the CDOs in which Eastern invested “collapsed due directly and proximately to [DJefendants’ fraud.” Id. at 65, ¶ 105. Space Coast pleads claims against Defendants for securities fraud under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“FSIPA”), Fla. Stat. § 517.301 ; common-law fraud; negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; *544 and imposition of a constructive trust against the Bank Defendants....

...it the issue of proximate cause to the jury. However, we were unable to discern whether this flaw in the trial proceedings was fatal to the claim made under the antifraud provisions of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. Secs. 517.301, 517.211....

...sts to Rousseff pending a resolution of the certified question. 2 The Florida Supreme Court has answered the certified question in the negative, holding that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under Fla.Stat. Secs. 517.301 and 517.211, 537 So.2d 978 ....

...ROUSSEFF, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees. 10 SHAW, J. 11 This case is before us on the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: 12 In an action under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. Secs. 517.301, 517.211, is the claimant required to prove that his loss was proximately caused by the defendant's fraud? 13 Rousseff v....

...See, e.g., Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1981). 26 State securities laws operate in conjunction with the federal laws; federal laws do not supercede state laws. 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77p, 78bb(a) (1982). The Florida statutes in issue here are sections 517.301 and 517.211, Florida Statutes (1981). Section 517.301(1) is similar in language to rule 10b-5. It provides: 27 517.301 Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts.--It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person: 28 (1) In connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, including any security exempted under the provisions of Sec....

...ht of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or 31 (c) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 32 Section 517.211, which operates upon section 517.301, is similar in effect to section 12(2) of the 1933 Act. It provides: 33 517.211 Remedies available in cases of unlawful sale.--.... 34 (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to th...

...urity at the time of the complaint, plus the amount of any income received by the defendant on the security; and 43 (b) The consideration received for the security, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of sale. 44 Hutton claims that because section 517.301 closely tracks rule 10b-5, the legislature intended that the body of federal case law which has been established for civil remedies under rule 10b-5 applies equally to Florida claims....

...Loss causation is a requirement under this federal law and provides that the decline in value of the injured party's investment must result directly from the offending party's fraud, not from some other source, e.g., independent market forces. 5 Rousseff asserts that because the overall effect of sections 517.301 and 517.211 is similar to that of section 12(2), federal case law interpreting section 12(2), which has no loss causation requirement, should be relevant. 45 Section 517.301 makes securities fraud illegal....

...Because no federal statute exists that allows private parties to obtain civil relief for many of the offenses embraced by rule 10b-5, the federal courts have created such a right. Under Florida law, no court-made implied civil right has been created under section 517.301 because companion section 517.211 contains an express civil liability provision. Hutton's attempt to analogize rule 10b-5 and section 517.301 breaks down under scrutiny. A civil action under federal law implements rule 10b-5 and a body of judge-made law. A similar action under Florida law implements sections 517.301 and 517.211....

...Loss causation has never been required there. "The buyer need not show any causal connection between the misrepresentation and his damage; indeed, he need not even show that he has been damaged." Id. 48 Proof of loss causation is not mentioned in sections 517.211 or 517.301, nor is it required under section 12(2), which is the comparable federal law, or under the common law cause of action from which the state and federal laws derived. Accordingly, we hold that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...Because Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of showing the existence of facts sufficient to support the essential elements of his Rule 10(b)-5 claim, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Count I. Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1995) provides: It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with ......

...poration and three of its principals, the present appellees, for rescission of the transaction and other attendant relief. § 517.211, Fla. Stat. (1981). The action was based on theories of common law fraud, fraudulent sale of securities contrary to § 517.301, Fla....

...d to such purchaser, whichever occurs later. [2] We need not decide whether, as the appellant claims, the defendants failed in their burden to establish any other conditions to (12)(a). [3] Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to th...

...The Appellants are retirees who, after discussions with a Prudential-Bache account executive, invested in a limited partnership. The partnership's profitability did not live up to their expectations and the retirees filed a two count complaint alleging violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), because of misrepresentations and omissions, and breach of fiduciary duties due to fraud....

...*592 *593 Daniel Heller, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff. Bernard Mandler, Miami, Fla., for defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM OPINION THEREON SPELLMAN, District Judge. This securities fraud action is brought under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, § 517.301 of the Florida Statutes, and Florida common law....

...Profits from Chargefaster had declined substantially since its first full year of sales. In December of 1974, the present lawsuit was filed. The complaint herein is founded on § 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, on the Florida statutory version of Rule 10b5, F.S. § 517.301, and on Florida common law of fraud....

...es under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. Florida Statute § 517.301, practically identical to the substantive prohibitions of Rule 10b5, differs only in reaching securities transactions which have no interstate connection....

...such misrepresentation or omission. However, Rule 10b5 requires proof of fraudulent intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard of the falsity of the misrepresentation. *597 In addition, a 10b5 case must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. F.S. § 517.301 has a less stringent scienter requirement, making negligent misrepresentations actionable....

...incing evidence. Punitive damages, which are unavailable under 10b5, may be obtained under Florida law. Under Florida common law fraud, mere negligence satisfies the scienter requirement and the requirements are otherwise identical to those for F.S. § 517.301....

...nown that his misrepresentations were false. Otherwise stated, it is a mere negligence standard. Kutner v. Kalish, 173 So.2d 763, 765 (Fla. App.1965). That standard appears to be identical to the scienter requirement for violation of Florida Statute § 517.301....

...DAMAGES The Court has found that the Plaintiff has sustained his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the Rule 10b5 claim. The Court has also found that the Plaintiff has met the less demanding *603 burdens of proving his claim under Florida Statute § 517.301 and the Florida common law of fraud....

...The Court has reviewed the instant Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response (DE 19), Defendants’ Reply (DE 23), and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs assert the following counts against seven individual Defendants: (1) securities fraud pursuant to section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes; (2) securities fraud pursuant to section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty; (5) fraud in the inducement; (6) breach of contract; and (7) rescission....

...“Factual allegations must be enough to raise [the plaintiffs] right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.” III. Discussion 1. Count One In count one, Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated section 517.301(l)(a) (“Section 301”) of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“FSIPA”)....

...ircumstances under which they were made, not misleading;” or (3) “engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person.” {See DE 1 — Attachment 1 at 11). See Fla. Stat. § 517.301 (l)(a)(l)-(3)....

...Edwards & Sons, Inc., 810 F.2d 1042, 1046 (11th Cir.1987)), and a plaintiff does not need to prove loss causation under Florida law, see E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 981 (Fla.1989) (“Proof of loss causation is not mentioned in sections 517.211 or 517.301, nor is it required under section 12(2), which is the comparable federal law, or under the common law cause of action from which the state and federal laws derived. Accordingly, we hold that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301, Florida Statutes.”)....

...Peebles suffered over $1,000,000 in losses.1 In July of 2001, Peebles filed a Statement of Claim and submitted his claims against Merrill Lynch to arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. Peebles presented the following claims: (1) violation of Section 517.301 of Florida Statutes; (2) fraud and misrepresentation; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) violation of article III, Section 2 of the NASD’s Rules of Fair Practice; (5) violation of NYSE Rule 405; (6) failure to supervise; (7) failure to execute/breach of contract; and (8) unauthorized trading....

...he Defendants [,...] including] Defendants’ approximately $100 million ... marketing and advertising campaign during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 to promote and sell ... shares of WorldCom, Inc.” Weissman claimed that NASDAQ violated Fla. Stat. § 517.301 (l)(b) by promoting WorldCom through its marketing and advertising without disclosing that its revenues were directly enhanced by increased trading in WorldCom stock; offered WorldCom shares for sale without registering as a broker, in violation of Fla....

.... .] includ[ing] Defendants’ approximately $100 million . . . marketing and advertising campaign during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 to promote and sell . . . shares of WorldCom, Inc.” Weissman claimed that NASDAQ violated Fla. Stat. § 517.301(1)(b) by promoting WorldCom through its marketing and advertising without disclosing that its revenues were directly enhanced by increased trading in WorldCom stock; offered WorldCom shares for sale without registering as a broker, in violation of Fla....

...Minnesota-Ohio Oil Corp., Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 200, 203, cert. denied, 240 So.2d 638 (Fla.1970), and Krasny v. Richter, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 612. Count Three Under Count Three of the Amended Complaint the plaintiff claims a right to recission by virtue of the provisions of Section 517.301 of the Florida Statutes....

...On October 17, Warner initiated a NASD arbitration proceeding against DBL, Yankwitt, and Pines. Her statement of claim in arbitration (pltf. ex. 2) raised the same factual claims as alleged in the state court action. The theories of recovery included claims under sections 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Fla.Stat. § 517.301, common law breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract....

...In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged several claims against Defendant in connection with Defendant's management of certain trust assets. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (FSIPA), Florida Statutes section 517.301(1)(a) (count one); breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust (count two); negligence (count three); negligent misrepresentation (count four); and fraud in the inducement and unjust enrichment (count five)....

..." United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 289 F.3d 741, 742 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla.1995). Plaintiff brought his FSPA claim pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 517.301(1)(a) and 517.211(2). See Complaint at 5-7; see also E.F. Hutton & *1304 Co., Inc. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 980-81 (Fla.1989) (per curiam) (explaining that section 517.211(2) provides the civil liability provision for violations of section 517.301(1))....

...all fraud claims on a common factual predicate. See id. at 10-26. [8] The Court does not suggest that Rule 9(b) is inapplicable to FSIPA. See Slayter v. DC 701, LLC, No. 8-07-cv-1903-T-24-EAJ, 2008 WL 2695645, at *4 (M.D.Fla. July 3, 2008) ("Because § 517.301 involves fraud, Plaintiffs must allege the elements of the claim with particularity, as required by Rule 9(b)....")....

...At the beginning of what was to be a four-day hearing, the Vogels voluntarily dismissed six of their seven counts against Wachovia. Thus, the arbitration hearing was to resolve only the remaining count based on chapter 517. The thrust of the Vogels' complaint was that Wachovia violated section 517.301, which is titled "Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts." This section makes it unlawful to employ certain false representations, schemes, or fraudulent artifices in rendering investment advice or in offering, selling, or purchasing investment securities or products....

...They deleted their prior finding that the Arons were not entitled to attorney's fees and, in its place, referred the issue of attorney's fees to a court of competent jurisdiction. They further retooled their order and found that NationsBanc had violated both the common law and section 517.301....

...iolations. It is important to separate the two types of claims raised on appeal. The securities fraud claims are based on Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 5 Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission, 6 and Florida Statute Section 517.301, 7 the state’s “blue sky” securities law....

...circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or a deceit upon any person in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. . § 517.301 provides in pertinent part: "It is unlawful * * * (b) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading: ..." ....

...Hutton offered to waive its commission on the trades. No reasonable juror could conclude that these facts amount to fraud or deceit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of a judgment n.o.v. on Mes-ser’s CEA claim. C. FLORIDA SECURITIES ACT Section 517.301(l)(a) of the Florida Securities Act, patterned after Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, makes it unlawful for anyone (1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; sfc * * # * * (3) To engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. Like Rule 10b-5, the state provision only covers fraud “in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security.” Fla.Stat. § 517.301(l)(a). Section 517.301(l)(a) differs from the parallel federal provision, however, in that a violation of the state statute requires proof of negligence rather than scienter....

...Therefore, any misrepresentations or fraud in connection with the opening of the account are not actionable under the Florida Securities Act. The second possible basis for relief, the unauthorized trades themselves, also fails to present a claim under the Florida Securities Act. Even though liability under Section 517.301 can attach upon a showing of negligence rather than upon a willful or reckless disregard of a customer’s best interests, we conclude that no reasonable jury, considering the totality of the circumstances at the time, could have found that E.F....

...s of these branch offices or by conducting business at branch office locations whose registrations had expired when Defendant failed to supply the branch office address information which the Department required. Plaintiff also alleges a violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2) of said act because Defendant conducted business at Florida branch offices in violation of Florida registration requirements and failed to disclose its non-compliance with these registration requirements. Second, that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff by violating Sections 517.12 and 517.301 of the Florida Securities Act, Rule 3E-600.004(3)(c) and other administrative rules in the course of purchasing and selling securities for Plaintiff....

...ific Resources Corporation, Gerald Gould, Don Mayerson, Jerome Cohen, and J. L. Wol-gin. This is an action under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934, specifically, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q and 78j; and for violation of § 517.301, Florida Statutes 1969, F....

...a result therefrom, plaintiff was damaged. Defendants argue that even though this Court may have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim arising under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q and 78j, it does not have pendent jurisdiction over the claims arising under § 517.301, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and for common law fraud....

...Bissel, 39 F.R.D. 346 (D.C.Pa.1965); Amdur v. Lizars, 39 F.R.D. 29 (D.Md.1965). This Court is in agreement with the above-cited cases. Unless the plaintiff is able, by some other means, to vest the Court with in personam jurisdiction over the claims under § 517.301, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and common law fraud, such jurisdiction is lacking....

...All the plaintiff need do is to set out a short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief, Rule 8(a), Federal Rules Civil Procedure; it appears as if the plaintiff has met this test. It is thereupon Ordered and Adjudged as follows: 1. The counts for common law fraud and violation of § 517.301, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., are dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Don A....

...ities brokerage company, Allapree Securities, Inc., in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $50,000. This amount represented compensatory damages for the violation by the Debtor of "the Florida Securities and Investors Protection Act, Fla. Stat. 517.301, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, negligence and negligent supervision ....

...itration hearing. Page 3 of the NASD Award, Arbitration No. 02-02224, contains the following statement: Respondents Allapree and Dupree are jointly and severally liable for violation of the Florida Securities and Investors Protection Act, Fla. Stat. 517.301, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, negligence and negligent supervision *531 and shall pay to Claimants compensatory damages in the amount of $ 50,000. Section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investors Protection Act provides, in part, that: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the rendering of any investment advice or in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any investment or security ....

...manipulative, and deceptive practices in connection with the sale of the limited partnership interests in violation of: (1) section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j (1988), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act ("FIPA")....

...] includfing] Defendants’ approximately $100 million dollar marketing and advertising campaign during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 to promote and sell ... shares of WorldCom.” The complaint set forth the following allegations: First, Weissman alleged that NASDAQ violated Fla. Stat. § 517.301 (l)(b) by promoting WorldCom through its marketing and advertising without disclosing that their revenues were directly enhanced by increased trading in WorldCom stock....

...[they are] assur[ed] of the quality of their investment. The failure of NASDAQ to disclose that it was compensated by WorldCom, market makers and/or stock dealers, directly or indireetly[,] for the advertisements and promotions violated *1309 Florida Statute Section 517.301(l)(b)....

...nd/or after the statute of limitations had run. For the purposes of summary judgment, we disagree with both of these pronouncements and reverse. In his complaint, the psychiatrist alleged that the active participants and the association had violated section 517.301(1)(a)(2), [2] Florida Statutes (1991), by failing to disclose the material fact that they had entered into "put agreements," [3] with a third party, before the psychiatrist purchased the securities. It is clear that appellees *1286 omitted to tell the psychiatrist about the put agreements. Their liability for a section 517.301(1)(a)(2) violation, however, turns on whether the omitted fact was material and on whether the omission occurred in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities....

...Activities that occur after purchase of a security cannot form the basis for liability. Seattle First National Bank v. Carlstedt, 678 F. Supp. 1543. Thus it is apparent that the alleged misconduct did not occur "in connection with" the sale or purchase of any investment or security. Florida Statute 517.301(a)....

...This is a complicated case to which careful, detailed attention must be given. In light of our conclusion, we also reverse the award of attorney's fees and costs. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. NOTES [1] A common law fraud count was abandoned. [2] Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1991), states that it is unlawful for a person (a) in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, ......

...order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or 3. To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. Section 517.301 creates a "criminal or administrative offense which allows the government to pursue wrongdoers." E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 981 (Fla. 1989). A private right of action is found in section 517.211 which states: (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of section 517.301, and every director, officer, partner or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to...

...mit the issue of proximate cause to the jury. However, we were unable to discern whether this flaw in the trial proceedings was fatal to the claim made under the antifraud provisions of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. §§ 517.301, 517.211....

...costs to Rousseff pending a resolution of the certified question. The Florida Supreme Court has answered the certified question in the negative, holding that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under Fla.Stat. §§ 517.301 and 517.211, 537 So.2d 978 ....

...ROUSSEFF, et al, Plaintiffs/Appellees. SHAW, J. This case is before us on the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: In an action under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 517.301 , 517.211, is the claimant required to prove that his loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s fraud? Rousseff v....

...See, e.g., Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1981). State securities laws operate in conjunction with the federal laws; federal laws do not supercede state laws. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(a) (1982). The Florida statutes in issue here are sections 517.301 and 517.211, Florida Statutes (1981). Section 517.301(1) is similar in language to rule 10b-5. It provides: 517.301 Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts....

...he light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Section 517.211, which operates upon section 517.301, is similar in effect to section 12(2) of the 1933 Act. It provides: 517.211 Remedies available in cases of unlawful sale.— (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in mak- *1284 ing the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liab...

...Loss causation is a requirement under this federal law and provides that the decline in value of the injured party’s investment must result directly from the offending party’s fraud, not from some other source, e.g., independent market forces. 5 Rousseff asserts that because the overall effect of sections 517.301 and 517.211 is similar to that of section 12(2), federal case law interpreting section 12(2), which has no loss causation requirement, should be relevant. Section 517.301 makes securities fraud illegal....

...Because no federal statute exists that allows private parties to obtain civil relief for many of the offenses embraced by rule 10b-5, the federal courts have created such a right. Under Florida law, no court-made implied civil right has been created under section 517.301 because companion section 517.211 contains an express civil liability provision. Hutton’s attempt to analogize rule 10b-5 and section 517.301 breaks down under scrutiny. A civil action under federal law implements rule 10b-5 and a body of judge-made law. A similar action under Florida law implements sections 517.301 and 517.211....

...Loss causation has never been required there. “The buyer need not show any causal connection between the misrepresentation and his damage; indeed, he need not even show that he has been damaged.” Id. Proof of loss causation is not mentioned in sections 517.211 or 517.301, nor is it required under section 12(2), which is the comparable federal law, or under the common law cause of action from which the state and federal laws derived. Accordingly, we hold that proof of loss causation is not required in a civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...conducting the offer, sale, or purchase of an investment or security. On November 21, 2001, the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Saint Lucie County, Florida adjudicated the Debtor guilty of Fraudulent Transactions pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 517.301(1)(a)....

...n under ERISA against the Stiefel Defendants; Count 4 alleges securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and Charles W. Stiefel; Count 5 alleges a violation of the Florida Securities Act, Fla. Stat. § 517.301, against the Company and Charles....

...In fact, seven of the thirteen counts now before this Court are taken verbatim from the state-court complaint: 1. Count I alleging breach of contract (Count I, state complaint); 2. Count VII alleging fraudulent transactions in violation of Fla.Stat. § 517.301 (Count II, state complaint); 3....

...ive forum for review is the Court of Appeals. Finally, Crafts argue that the district court has jurisdiction under Section 12(2) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b, and Section 517.301 of the Florida Blue Sky Laws....

...1 479 U.S. 36, 107 S. Ct. 353 (1986) 2 495 U.S. 552, 110 S. Ct. 2126 (1990) 2 guilty of fraudulent transactions made between 1994 and 1998, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301(1)(a) (2001)....

...Appellants applied for registration with the Department to deal in securities. [1] By letter of December 5, 1989, the Department notified appellants of its intent to deny the registration applications under section 517.161, Florida Statutes (1989), [2] based upon appellants' *247 having violated sections 517.12(1), 517.07, 517.301(1)(a)2, and 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...ated with case number 90-873. Prior to the hearing, the Department filed a motion in limine as to both cases to preclude appellants from introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances as to the alleged violations of sections 517.12(1), 517.07, and 517.301(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, on the ground that these sections impose strict liability. The Department did not seek to preclude such evidence as to the alleged violations of section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which imposes liability based upon a "knowingly and willfully" standard....

...shall be sold or offered for sale within this state unless such securities have been registered, as hereinafter defined, and unless prior to each sale the purchaser is furnished with a prospectus meeting the requirements of rules adopted by the department. Section 517.301 (1989), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 517.301 Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts....

...If there is some evidence to support the position of the party against whom a directed verdict has been granted, the appellate court must reverse. Jones v. Heil Co., 566 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We address first the claim for securities fraud. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1987), provides: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...State, 703 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and the trial court instructed the jury that it could believe or disbelieve any or all of the expert's testimony. AFFIRMED. W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 517.07, Fla. Stat. [2] § 517.12, Fla. Stat. [3] § 517.301, Fla....

...ir motion is denied. 2. Petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees for confirmation of the arbitration award. The arbitration award finds in favor of Petitioners and against Respondent Cassedy on a statutory violation of the Florida Securities Act, § 517.301, Fla. Stat. Despite Respondent Cassedy's argument that no statutory violation was found, the arbitration award acknowledges in the case summary that Petitioners raised a statutory claim under § 517.301, Fla....

...supplemental costs of prosecution. Appellant was charged with two counts: (1) grand theft, in violation of sections 812.014(1)(a)-(b) and 812.014(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2007); and (2) a fraudulent security transaction, in violation of sections 517.301 and 517.302, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...If the property stolen is valued at $100,000 or more, the theft becomes first-degree grand theft, a first-degree felony. § 812.014(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2007). At the time of appellant’s crime, the statutory elements of a fraudulent security transaction under section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), on which appellant was tried, were: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the rendering of any investment...

...these elements, “each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not[.]” A fraudulent security transaction requires proof of a connection with the rendering of investment advice or with the offer, sale or purchase of an investment. See § 517.301(1)(a), Fla....

...rt found no culpability, hence no liability, on the part of appellee Helen Muehl. Appellees (the Muehls) raise four issues on cross appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding a fraudulent securities transaction subject to the provisions of section 517.301, Florida Statutes; (2) whether the trial court erred in finding a fraudulent securities transaction under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (3) whether the trial court erred in finding Mama’s of North Florida, Inc., liable for fraud; and (4) whether the trial court erred in awarding interest from March 26, 1981. We affirm in part and reverse in part. On October 31, 1984, Whigham filed a 5-count complaint alleging: Count I — a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes, in that defendant Muehl fraudulently induced plaintiff Whigham to invest in Mama’s of North Florida, Inc.; Count II — a violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Count III — a violatio...

...And under the provisions of section 620.735, the partnership was not discharged from its existing liability to Whigham at the time of incorporation, for the partners became the officers, directors, and shareholders in the family-owned corporation. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, provides a comprehensive statement of conduct which is deemed fraudulent when employed in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security....

...Muehl’s conduct comes within the statutory meaning of one who “aided in making the sale” and thus she is subject to the liability imposed by section 517.211(2). We affirm as to the points raised on cross appeal, but find a brief discussion is in order. First, we are in accord with appellees’ assertion that a section 517.301 action for fraud must be predicated upon a misrepresentation that relates to “a specific material fact that is untrue and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury.” Allen v....

...e purchaser at the legal rate for the period from the date of payment by the purchaser to the date of repayment, less the amount of any income received by the purchaser on the security. (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s.517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to the...

...on in the nature or time of payment of the obligations. (4)The individual property of a deceased partner shall be liable for all obligations of the partnership incurred while he was a partner but subject to the prior payment of his separate debts. . s.517.301, Fla.Stat. (1983), provides: 517.301 Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts....

...Protection Act. Appellant, a disenchanted investor in appellees’ business ventures, filed a multi-count complaint against appellees. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found that appellee Historical Shipwreck Salvors, Inc. (HSSI) violated section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1993), by making material misrepresentations that were relied on by appellant in his decision to purchase an interest in HSSI....

...p; Co. v. Manner Corp., 630 So.2d 1199, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Subsection 517.211(2) imposes individual liability on persons participating or aiding in the sale of securities as follows: Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the pers...

...of appellant and against appellees HSSI and Suzanne and Robert Combs in the amount of $38,632.28, with postjudgment interest to run from the date of the original judgment. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . Section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1993), states in relevant part: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the ......

...inst Morgan, individually and d/b/a Anglo Offshore Resources, and Merrill Lynch; a Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Establishment of Constructive Trust and Issuance of Lis Pendens (Count III) against Morgan, individually, and a violation of Florida Statute § 517.301 (Count IV) against Morgan, individually and d/b/a Anglo Offshore Resources....

Protection Act, and in particular violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (2000).7 Section 517.211(2)

...the contract was barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1985); (2) the judgment for defendants entered upon the granting by the trial court of their motion for a directed verdict on the fraud count of the complaint under section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985); a basis for the judgment was that a fraud action cannot be founded upon a contract which is unenforceable by reason of the statute of frauds; and (3) the judgment upon the jury verdict in favor of defendants...

...See also 4 W. Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 1480 (1985 rev.ed.). As to (2), our disposition as to (1) renders the trial court's above-referenced basis inappropriate as a ground for the directed verdict on the fraud count under section 517.301. Nonetheless, we affirm in that regard. Section 517.301 is applicable to securities transactions, and plaintiff's own allegations and trial testimony were that a securities transaction was not involved because the venture did not involve "an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others." SEC v....

...1st DCA 1983), or in the jury instructions relative to assent to the taking of money being a defense. Accordingly, the judgment for defendants pursuant to the directed verdict on the contract count of the complaint is reversed, the cause is remanded for trial in that regard, and the dismissal of the count based upon section 517.301 is affirmed....

...NOTES [1] Another basis for the directed verdict on the fraud count was "insufficient evidence of requisite state of mind for the intentional tort of fraud." We need not address defendants' argument that that basis did not accurately reflect the pertinent element of a cause of action under section 517.301....

...663, 669 (N.D.Ga.1990), displays divergent results under, on the one hand, the Georgia Securities Act, which subjects to liability a "controlling person," and on the other hand, the FSIPA: In Count IV of their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that all defendants, including Thompson, violated Fla.Stat. § 517.301(1)(a), known generally as Florida's "Little 10b-5." See Research & Development Industries, Inc....

...Aug. 28, 1985) (unpublished). The Florida Securities and Investors Protection Act, however, does not provide for secondary, "controlling person" liability. It imposes liability only on "[a]ny person purchasing or selling a security in violation of § 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase." Fla.Stat. § 517.211(2). Thus, in order to be liable under Fla.Stat. 517.301(1)(a), a director or officer must personally engage in some act or acts that induce a purchaser to invest....

...e explicitly the Nichols interpretation of liability. Section 9 of Chapter 79-381 splits former Section 517.211 into Sections 517.211(1) and (2), the former directed to violations of Section 517.07 and 517.12 and the latter directed to violations of Section 517.301....

...Consequently, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and against Reiser on claim one, fraudulent inducement; claim two, the sale of unregistered securities in violation of Section 517.07 et seq.; and claim three, misrepresentation in connection with the sale of AXXSYS securities in violation of Section 517.301....

...at the legal rate for the period from the date of payment by the purchaser to the date of repayment, less the amount of any income received by the purchase on the security with damages. (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to th...

...sold the security). [3] For the purpose of assessing exposure to the remedies prescribed, Section 517.211(2) divides the world into four groups (not of equal proportion, to say the least): (1) persons who purchased or sold a security in violation of Section 517.301, (2) persons who are a director, officer, partner, or agent of a purchaser or seller and who personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, (3) persons who are a director, officer, partner, or agent or a purchaser or...

...stin resides in this group), and (4) persons who are not a director, officer, partner, or agent of a buyer or seller and who neither purchased nor sold nor personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase of a security in violation of Section 517.301....

...At issue on appeal is whether the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) preempts the Poncys’ common law and statutory actions. We hold that it does not. The Poncys filed a complaint against Shearson and two of its employees, seeking damages based on common law negligence, common law breach of fiduciary duty and violations of section 517.301, Florida Statutes, an anti-fraud statute....

...of Boston, 735 F.2d 281 (8th Cir.1984) preach of fiduciary duty); Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc., 623 F.Supp. 203 (N.D.Ga.1985) (negligence). We agree, and hold that the Pon-cys are not preempted from asserting their common law claims. Nor do we believe they are preempted from asserting their statutory claim under section 517.301. While the CEA supersedes state legislation on the regulation of commodities transactions, we do not believe it supercedes the enforcement of anti-fraud legislation in regard to commodities transactions. Section 517.301 prohibits fraudulent activities in connection with the offer, purchase or sale of investments or securities....

...Stark and Gary Stark, appeal a final order in favor of Appellee, Jeffrey Noddle. The order confirmed an earlier arbitration decision, concluding that Appellants were not the prevailing party in the arbitration and awarding costs to Noddle. Noddle was the trustee for the Mal-ing Trust, which sued Appellants for violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and breach of fiduciary duty....

...1 OFR based the denial on the fact that Appellant was the subject of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award finding that Appellant sold unregistered securities in violation of section 517.07, Florida Statutes, and committed securities fraud in violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes....

...0 FINRA arbitration resulting in the following decision and award: Respondents ... Wojnowski [et al.] ... are liable on all of the claims asserted by Claimants, as follows: (1) as to misrepresentation, Respondents are in violation of Florida Statute § 517.301; (2) as to violation of [chapter] 517, Respondents sold unregulated securities in violation of § 517.07; (3) as to breach of fiduciary ....

...or national securities association, (3) involving a violation of state securities law. OFR concluded that Appellant “has been found by a national securities association ... to have violated provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, specifically Section 517.301 and 517.07, Florida Statutes, which [is] grounds for denial pursuant to [section] 517.161(l)(m), Florida Statutes.” We find no error in this conclusion....

...1st DCA 2010) (appellate court defers to agency’s interpretation of statute it administers unless such interpretation is clearly erroneous). Finally, the arbitration award found that Appellant violated section 517.07, Florida Statutes, by selling unregistered securities, and violated section 517.301, Florida Statutes, by misrepresenting information in the course of securities transaction....

fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985) (fraudulent securities

eighteen charged five defendants with violating Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1981). This section prohibits

...manipulative, and deceptive practices in connection with the sale of the limited partnership interests in violation of: (1) section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j (1988), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) section 517.301 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“FIPA”)....

...Kane alleged in his complaint that Shearson and Raven violated civil RICO statutes, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964 (count I); § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (count II); § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (count III); Florida securities laws, Fla.Stat. §§ 517.301 and 517.211 (1980) (count V); committed common-law fraud (count IV) and negligence (count VI); and breached their fiduciary duty (count VII)....

...ces an even higher figure than that awarded under the securities laws and that the higher amount should have been awarded. A. Measure of Damages Under Florida Securities Law Section 517.211 provides a remedy for violation of the antifraud provision, § 517.301: (2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s. 517.301, and *646 every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, is jointly and severally liable to the...

...s; b. Whether those Defendants who were controlling persons are liable as controlling persons pursuant to § 20 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t, for violation of § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b — 5; c. Whether Defendants violated Fla.Stat. § 517.301 of the Florida Securities laws by defrauding or otherwise wrongfully inducing Plaintiff and the Class in to investing in the Fund; d....

....] includ[ing] Defendants’ approximately $100 million dollar marketing and advertising campaign during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 to promote and sell . . . shares of WorldCom.” The complaint set forth the following allegations: First, Weissman alleged that NASDAQ violated Fla. Stat. § 517.301(1)(b) by promoting WorldCom through its marketing and advertising without disclosing 2 Appellants’ arguments focus on the allegations in Weissman’s first complaint, which is obviously not the one relevant to this appeal....

...[they are] assur[ed] of the quality of their investment. The failure of NASDAQ to disclose that it was compensated by WorldCom, market makers and/or stock dealers, directly or indirectly[,] for the advertisements and promotions violated Florida Statute Section 517.301(1)(b). NASDAQ’s advertisements and endorsements of WorldCom carried extraordinary weight and power with Plaintiff ....

thirty counts of selling unregistered securities; § 517.-301, twenty counts of securities fraud; § 895.-03(1)

inference that a violation has occurred. See e. g. § 517.301, Fla.Stat. (1975) (Fraudulent transactions; falsification

...emoval of documents from the Smith home shortly after receiving notice of the injunction issued against Defendant Stephen L. Smith and SH Oil & Gas Exploration establish a “strong prima facie case” that she may have violated Florida Statutes § 517.301(l)(c) and § 517.301(l)(a)(l)....

...the sale of securities by her husband. The appellant also asserts that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint against her because the testimo *1317 ny at the temporary hearing supports her claim that allegations against her are untrue. Section 517.301(l)(a)l and (l)(c) provide, in part: (1) It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for a person: (a) In connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security, including any security exempted under the provisions of s....

...pellant’s conduct. Therefore, appellant is subject to the relief afforded under section 517.191 notwithstanding an insufficiency of proof at this hearing to also support a conclusion that she aided and abetted in a fraudulent sale punishable under section 517.301. Here, proof exists that the husband engaged in acts constituting a violation of section 517.301 and that the appellant committed acts, and continued to commit acts, subjecting her to the injunctive and receivership relief authorized by section 517.191. Under the wording of section 517.191 the state is not required to prove that a person violated section 517.301 as a prerequisite to the trial court granting equitable relief to the state....

...purchased, directly or indirectly, with the proceeds of the fraudulent scheme and participated in a cover-up of those assets. The broadly worded section 517.191 is designed to encompass temporary relief not only against those charged with violating section 517.301 but also against those who commit acts in furtherance of a violation....

...E OBTAIN INJUNC-TIVE AND RECEIVERSHIP RELIEF UNDER SECTION 517.191, FLORIDA STATUTES, WHERE THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THAT RELIEF IS IMPOSED IS A PRINCIPAL OR AIDER AND ABETTOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 517.301? GUNTHER, BOBBY W., Associate Judge, concurs....

...�s failure to submit the issue of proximate cause to the jury. We are unable to discern, however, whether or not this flaw in the trial proceedings is fatal to the claim under the antifraud provision of the Florida Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. § 517.301....

...insofar as it was entered on the federal securities law and common law fraud claims. We therefore reverse the judgment to that extent. B. Florida Statutory Claim Rousseff also stated a claim under the Florida Investor Protection Act. Under Fla.Stat. § 517.301, it is unlawful to misrepresent or omit material facts in connection with the sale of a security. The exclusive remedy available to an individual injured by a violation of section § 517.301 is an action for rescission....

...e in order to certify the remaining question on the Florida statutory claim to the Supreme Court of Florida. The question remaining is whether a plaintiff under the antifraud provision of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. § 517.301, must prove that the defendant’s fraud proximately caused the plaintiffs loss....

...No Florida court has addressed this question and we are unable to identify sufficient guideposts in Florida law to indicate how this question will be resolved under the Florida statute. III. QUESTION TO BE CERTIFIED In an action under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla.Stat. §§ 517.301, 517.211, is the claimant required to prove that his loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s fraud? The entire record in this case, and copies of the briefs of the parties in this court are transmitted with this certified question....

the trial court’s finding of a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), for the last half

...urities to the Appellees violated section 517.12(1) because the Appellants were not registered with the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission as required by section 517.12. Count III claimed that the Appellants violated section 517.301(1)(a), as they misrepresented and omitted material facts and the Appellees relied on those misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to invest in Venn. The Appellees also alleged two counts against Venn for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation....

...urities to the Appellees violated section 517.12(1) because the Appellants were not registered with the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission as required by section 517.12. Count III claimed that the Appellants violated section 517.301(1)(a), as they misrepresented and omitted material facts and the Appellees relied on those misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to invest in Venn. The Appellees also alleged two counts against Venn for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation....

...Section 517.211 is titled “Remedies available in cases of unlawful sale.” The section lays out the remedies for plaintiffs who purchased from sellers who violate section 517.07 (Registration of securities), section 517.12 (Registration of dealers, associated persons, investment advisers, and branch offices), or section 517.301 (Fraudulent transactions; falsification or concealment of facts)....

...Covington, 392 So.2d 1321, 1324 (Fla.1981): The question of the sufficiency of the information was before the trial court, having been raised' by the appellees in their motions to dismiss. We believe the court should have granted the motions on this ground. We disapprove of the court’s ruling that section 517.301(l)(c) is unconstitutional....

which only tracked a securities fraud statute, section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1977), was held to be

...3) the bank owed the stockholder a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care; and 4) there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the bank breached its fiduciary duty. The complaint in Ward was based on common law fraud, securities fraud under section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and breach of fiduciary duty. In Ward, the Third District Court of Appeals notes that a securities fraud claim under section 517.301 may also be brought for fraud "in connection with the rendering of any investment advice." In addition, as to the breach of fiduciary duty, the Court states that in general, a stockbroker must deal with its clients in good faith, and owes them a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care....

...business only after receiving approval from the customer. (Citation omitted). The Arbitration Award (Dkt.6, Exh. 1) states that the Claimants are pursuing claims for: violation of Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act sections 517.12(5) and 517.301; violation of federal securities laws; breach of contract; common law fraud; constructive fraud through breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; unjust enrichment; and, violations of and conspiracy to violate the Florida RICO statute....

...ry was not employed by Hutton at the time the alleged injuries occurred to those investors, that the investors never were clients of Hutton and did not deal with Kury when he worked for Hutton. The Palmer court found that Florida Statute subsections 517.301(3) and 517.12(11) and rule 3600.08 of the Florida Administrative Code, when read in pari materia, imposed legal duties on Hutton that supported a claim for negligence....

...broker Kury. The Palmer court distinguished Rousseff, finding that the appellants did not rely on the statutory provisions involved in that case. The Court also said "Nothing in the Rousseff opinion purports to pass on the statutory provisions in subsection 517.301(1), the section relied by appellants in these cases." That opinion does not purport to hold that the remedies provided in section 517.211 are exclusive of all other remedies recognized by law, nor is it likely that the court would hav...

indebtedness to the company. Such departures violated Section 517.301 Florida Statutes. *1301“5. Upon the execution

...The Information, in Counts II and V, charged appellee with selling the notes without being registered as a dealer or salesman of securities, in violation of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes (1975). In Counts III and VI, the Information charged appellee with selling the notes in a fraudulent manner, in violation of Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...They sued four defendants, including the appellee, in a multieount complaint. The appellants contend the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee on the two counts against him was error. One count naming the appellee sounded in common law fraud and the other claimed damages pursuant to violations of section 517.301(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991)....

... Kate Nguyen challenges the trial court's order granting in part Perspective Global LLC's motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and VI of Ms. Nguyen's complaint alleging fraud against Perspective, fraud in the "offer, sale, or purchase of [an] investment or security" under section 517.301, Florida Statutes (2020), and sale of an unregistered security under section 517.07, part of Florida's Blue Sky Law, against Perspective and its agents....

...Nguyen's Second Amended Complaint alleges, among other causes of action, fraud against Perspective arising out of the bad acts of its agents, Joshua Paul Hooks and John and Mark Riggins (the Rigginses), in Count II, and fraud in the "offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security," under section 517.301 against Perspective, Hooks, and the Rigginses in Count III.1 1 The Second Amended Complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty for violating sections 620.8201(1), 620.8305, 620.8306, and 620.8307, Florida Statutes (2020)...

...Nguyen sufficiently pleaded all the elements of fraud against Hooks and the Rigginses, but it dismissed Ms. Nguyen's claim against Perspective because it found that Nguyen failed to "adequately allege bad acts" against Perspective. 7  Section 517.301(1)(a)1 states that it is a violation to "employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" when selling "any investment or security," even those not required to be registered under chapter 517. The purchase of a membership interest in a limited liability company can be an investment contract5 under section 517.301....

...Aug. 31, 2023), aff'd, 2023 WL 6064520 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023) (holding that "a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the membership interest sold to [the plaintiffs] constitutes a security in the form of an investment contract" under section 517.301). The timing of Ms....

...sale, or purchase of any investment or security, . . . obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, . . . not misleading.” § 517.301, Fla. Stat. (2012). The FSIPA provides for a remedy of rescission for all violations of section 517.301 “if the plaintiff still owns the security.” Id. § 517.211, Fla. Stat. (2012). Joint and several liability under section 517.301 extends to any “director, officer, partner, or agent [of the seller who] has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase.” Id. In E.F....

...elements of Geveran’s claim. We focus on the second and third elements—materiality and reliance—and find there are genuine issues as to both. 18 Although few Florida courts have addressed the issue, the majority of federal courts interpreting section 517.301 have adopted the test for materiality developed by the United States Supreme Court for rule 10b-5 claims. 19 See, e.g., Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1222 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting the elements of a section 517.301 claim are similar to those under Federal Rule 10b-5 with some exceptions)....

...show that it actually relied on the omission or misrepresentation. See 537 So. 2d at 981; but see Waters, 172 F.R.D. at 492–96 (finding that statement as to justifiable reliance in Rousseff was dicta and holding reliance is not an element of a section 517.301 claim seeking rescission)....

...Yet many cases state that the plaintiff in a FSIPA claim need only show that the plaintiff relied on the omission or misrepresentation not that such reliance was justified. See, e.g., Desrosiers, 689 So. 2d at 1107 (holding reliance is an element of a cause of action under 517.301)....

...When there is no intent to deceive but only good faith coupled with negligence, the fault of the maker of the misrepresentation is sufficiently less to justify a narrower responsibility for its consequences.”). In the context of a statutory claim under section 517.301 based on a direct sale, we believe it is appropriate to presume that the reliance was justified....

...Yet, as with LSG and J.P. Morgan, genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in Geveran’s favor on its FSIPA claim. As to Namburi and Schreck, Geveran’s second amended complaint alleged that Namburi and Schreck were liable under section 517.301 for soliciting Geveran’s investment and as agents of the seller, LSG....

...sale, or purchase of any investment or security, . . . obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, . . . not misleading.” § 517.301, Fla. Stat. (2012). The FSIPA provides for a remedy of rescission for all violations of section 517.301 “if the plaintiff still owns the security.” Id. § 517.211, Fla. Stat. (2012). Joint and several liability under section 517.301 extends to any “director, officer, partner, or agent [of the seller who] has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase.” Id. In E.F....

...elements of Geveran’s claim. We focus on the second and third elements—materiality and reliance—and find there are genuine issues as to both. 18 Although few Florida courts have addressed the issue, the majority of federal courts interpreting section 517.301 have adopted the test for materiality developed by the United States Supreme Court for rule 10b-5 claims. 19 See, e.g., Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1222 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting the elements of a section 517.301 claim are similar to those under Federal Rule 10b-5 with some exceptions)....

...show that it actually relied on the omission or misrepresentation. See 537 So. 2d at 981; but see Waters, 172 F.R.D. at 492–96 (finding that statement as to justifiable reliance in Rousseff was dicta and holding reliance is not an element of a section 517.301 claim seeking rescission)....

...Yet many cases state that the plaintiff in a FSIPA claim need only show that the plaintiff relied on the omission or misrepresentation not that such reliance was justified. See, e.g., Desrosiers, 689 So. 2d at 1107 (holding reliance is an element of a cause of action under 517.301)....

...When there is no intent to deceive but only good faith coupled with negligence, the fault of the maker of the misrepresentation is sufficiently less to justify a narrower responsibility for its consequences.”). In the context of a statutory claim under section 517.301 based on a direct sale, we believe it is appropriate to presume that the reliance was justified....

...Yet, as with LSG and J.P. Morgan, genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in Geveran’s favor on its FSIPA claim. As to Namburi and Schreck, Geveran’s second amended complaint alleged that Namburi and Schreck were liable under section 517.301 for soliciting Geveran’s investment and as agents of the seller, LSG....

...requested a refund of his investment in the Hidden Hills Project, Shoreline refused. Brisk then filed a multi-count suit against Shoreline and the Shoreline principals (collectively “defendants”) alleging breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation in violation of section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (2015), (the “Blue Sky Law”), breach of fiduciary duty, and civil theft, among other claims....

...to determine a reasonable amount thereto. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions. MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 5 Section 517.301(1)(a), Fla....

...sale, or purchase of any investment or security, . . . obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, . . . not misleading.” § 517.301, Fla. Stat. (2012). The FSIPA provides for a remedy of rescission for all violations of section 517.301 “if the plaintiff still owns the security.” Id. § 517.211. Joint and several liability under section 517.301 extends to any “director, officer, partner, or agent [of the seller who] has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase.” Id. In E.F....

...elements of Geveran’s claim. We focus on the second and third elements—materiality and reliance—and find there are genuine issues as to both. 18 Although few Florida courts have addressed the issue, the majority of federal courts interpreting section 517.301 have adopted the test for materiality developed by the United States Supreme Court for rule 10b-5 claims. 19 See, e.g., Grippo v. Perazzo, 357 F.3d 1218, 1222 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting the elements of a section 517.301 claim are similar to those under Federal Rule 10b-5 with some exceptions)....

...show that it actually relied on the omission or misrepresentation. See 537 So. 2d at 981. But see Waters, 172 F.R.D. at 492–96 (finding that statement as to justifiable reliance in Rousseff was dicta and holding reliance is not an element of a section 517.301 claim seeking rescission)....

...Yet many cases state that the plaintiff in a FSIPA claim need only show that the plaintiff relied on the omission or misrepresentation not that such reliance was justified. See, e.g., Desrosiers, 689 So. 2d at 1107 (holding reliance is an element of a cause of action under 517.301)....

...When there is no intent to deceive but only good faith coupled with negligence, the fault of the maker of the misrepresentation is sufficiently less to justify a narrower responsibility for its consequences.”). In the context of a statutory claim under section 517.301 based on a direct sale, we believe it is appropriate to presume that the reliance was justified....

...Yet, as with LSG and J.P. Morgan, genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in Geveran’s favor on its FSIPA claim. As to Namburi and Schreck, Geveran’s second amended complaint alleged that Namburi and Schreck were liable under section 517.301 for soliciting Geveran’s investment and as agents of the seller, LSG....

constituted securities fraud, pursuant to Section 517.-301, Florida Statutes (1977), and sought rescission

...Harris (and Marc Spiewak) in a Florida state court, asserting a number of claims,including fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, investment fraud in violation of Fla. Stat. § 517.301, unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Fla....

...20, 2015) (Florida Complaint). These claims were a fraudulent representation claim; a negligent misrepresentation 13  USCA11 Case: 19-11286 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 14 of 22 claim; an investment fraud claim under Fla. Stat. § 517.301; and a conspiracy to defraud claim.4 Assuming without deciding that a general default judgment can be the basis of collateral estoppel under Florida law in a § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding as to each of the claims asserted in a multi-count complaint, see Bentov, 514 B.R....

...Harris under § 523(a)(2)(A). See Bogdanovich, 292 F.3d at 112. See also In re Goldbronn, 263 B.R. 347, 362 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) (declining to give collateral estoppel effect in a § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding to an arbitration judgment under Fla. Stat. § 517.301 in part due to the lesser scienter requirement: “In this case, the issue of intent proved by the plaintiff [under § 517.301] in the arbitration was a substantially lesser kind of intent than the intent required to be proved under [§] 523(a)(2)(A)....

...rida law. See Jenkins, 607 B.R. at 286 (“[N]egligent misrepresentation does not equate to false pretenses, a false representation[,] or actual fraud for purposes of nondischargeability under [§] 523(a)(2)(A).”). Investment Fraud under § 517.301. Under Fla. Stat. § 517.301, the elements of a claim for investment fraud are “(1) a misrepresentation; (2) of a material fact; 19  USCA11 Case: 19-11286 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 20 of 22 (3) on which the investor relied.” Kashner Davidson Sec....

...operated as a fraud or deceit[.]” Florida Complaint at ¶ 53 (emphasis added). Because Mr. Jayo alleged conduct which merely “operated” as a fraud, and because intent to defraud is not a necessary element of an investment fraud claim under § 517.301, we conclude that the default judgment on this claim does not have collateral estoppel effect under Florida law in a § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding....

defendant corporations in violation of F.S. Section 517.301, F.S.A. By their complaint petitioners sought

...srosiers made through KDS. They asserted several theories of recovery, but the lower court dismissed some of the counts before trial. After a bench trial, the court found KDS and Kashner liable only for statutory securities fraud in contravention of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1987). It entered judgment against them under section 517.211, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides the remedies for a violation of section 517.301....

...The misrepresentation alleged, however, was that KDS or its employees told the Desrosiers they were unable to sell the stock. The Desrosiers failed to prove that anyone at KDS made this statement. The trial court, therefore, erred in finding a violation of section 517.301, and imposing judgment based on the remedies set forth in section 517.211....

...Plaintiff alleges breach of contract (Count I) only against the three D'Anza Defendants. Plaintiff alleges violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Count II), common law fraud (Count III), and securities fraud pursuant to Florida Statute § 517.301 (Count IV) against all four defendants....

...cipation in the fraud," Brooks, 116 F.3d at 1381 (citation omitted), Count III suffers from the same pleading deficiencies as Count II. As such, Count III will be dismissed with one last leave to amend. Count IV: Securities Fraud pursuant to FL. ST. § 517.301 Plaintiff alleges in Count IV that the defendants violated Florida Statute § 517.301 by failing to disclose "fictitious shipments, the Steven Harnish bonus, the Hotel invoicing, the HCS liability, the customer set-offs, the status of registration in each of the States the Company was doing business in, the Company's defaul...

...Biltmore argues that it should not be grouped together with the D'Anza Defendants. The Court finds that this claim is independent of the Agreement, and therefore Ohio substantive law does not control. Therefore, a claim for a breach of the Florida statute is permissible. Florida Statute § 517.301 makes it unlawful for any person: (a) In connection with the rendering of any investment advice or in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any investment or security []: 1....

...ake the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or 3. To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. FLA. STAT. § 517.301. In Count IV, plaintiff alleges that both the D'Anza Defendants and Biltmore, as the D'Anza Defendant's agent, are liable for the relevant omissions from the Hickman Systems financial statements. Under section 517.301 an agent can be held liable for fraud....

...In July 1982, a stipulation of preliminary injunction was entered into by appellant, his company and the appellee prohibiting appellant from selling unregistered securities, selling securities through a person not registered with the State, violating the provisions of section 517.301 or any other provision of Chapter 517, F.S., in connection with the sale or purchase of securities, and from engaging in any course of business relating to mortgage transactions in violation of section 494.093, or any other provision of Chapter 494, F.S....

...8. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution. The 1992 Florida Legislature created several new crimes that require amendment to rules 3.701(c) and 3.988. 1 Chapter 92-45, section 8, Laws of Florida, amended section 517.301, Florida Statutes, to make the rendering of any investment advice in the promotion of a fraudulent scheme a third-degree felony....

..., and subsection 381.411(4). * * * * * * Category 6: Thefts, forgery, fraud: Sections 192.037 and 206.56, chapters 322 and 409, section 370.142, section 415.111, chapter 443, section 493.3175, sections 494.0018, 496.413, and 496.417, chapter 509, subsection 517.301(l)(a), subsections 585.145(3) and 585.85(2), section 687.146, and chapters 812 (except section 812.13), 815, 817, 831, and 832....

...Lobster Trap Tags Section 415.11 — Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation of Aged Person or Disabled Adult Section 493.3175 — Sale of Property by a Licensee Section 494.0018 — Mortgage Brokers Section 496.413, 496.417 — Solicitation of Contributions Section 517.301(l)(a) — Fraudulent Securities Transactions Subsections 585.145(3), 585.85(2) — Veterinary Inspection Section 687.146 — Loan Brokers [[Image here]] Note — Any person sentenced for a felony offense committed after October 1,1988...

made, ... *324 not misleading.” § 517.301, Fla. Stat. (2012). The FSIPA provides for a remedy

...o exercise reasonable care in the solicitation and sale of the Promissory Notes, and the duty to give reasonable advice. In Count III (common law negligent misrepresentation) and Count IV (statutory negligent misrepresentation pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 517.301), Plaintiffs seek to hold Safra vicariously liable for misrepresentations that BNM representatives allegedly made to Plaintiffs in their capacity as sales agents of Safra....

...ive reason for summary judgment as to Count IV, Safra points out that, as a condition precedent to liability under the relevant provisions of Florida Statutes, the Promissory Notes must have been sold or offered for sale in Florida. See Fla. Stat. §§ 517.301, 517.07, 517.211; Allen v. Oakbrook Securities Corp., 763 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (sales or offers for sale occurring outside of Florida are not actionable under § 517.301); Dokken v....

...On March 23, 2001, Verola was charged, by state court information, with Fraudulent Transactions. Verola pled nolo contendere to the charge. On November 21, 2001, the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Saint Lucie County, Florida adjudicated Verola guilty of Fraudulent Transactions pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 517.301(1)(a)....