Printable Format17-1253.
History: L. 1957, ch. 145, § 2; L. 1979, ch. 61, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 91, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 14; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 4; L. 1996, ch. 69, § 2; L. 1999, ch. 4, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 117, § 1; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cause of action under Blue Sky Law cannot be first raised on appeal. Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902, 904.
2. Appellate court may consider issues not raised at trial or on appeal where necessary to serve interests of justice or prevent denial of fundamental rights. State v. Puckett, 6 Kan. App. 2d 688, 689, 705, 706, 634 P.2d 144 (1981); aff'd, 230 Kan. 596, 597, 640 P.2d 1198 (1981).
3. Under facts of case alleged investment contract not subject to act. State ex rel. Owens v. Colby, 231 Kan. 498, 499, 646 P.2d 1071 (1982).
4. Statutes authorizing civil actions (K.S.A. 17-1266) and prohibiting sale of unregistered securities (K.S.A. 17-1255) held not unconstitutionally vague. State ex rel. Mays v. Ridenhour, 248 Kan. 919, 920, 811 P.2d 1220 (1991).
5. Information charging crime of securities fraud in language herein sufficient. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 749, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).
6. Claim by minority shareholders against majority shareholders lacked element of justifiable reliance. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1127, 1132, 1156, 1157 (1992).
7. Officer of accommodating broker had no duty to advise plaintiff regarding prospects of stock but did have duty to disclose that he purchased shares on his own account precluding summary judgment. Arst v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 86 F.3d 973, 976, 980 (1996).
8. Material fact regarding whether employer offered security to employee for employment by untruthful statements precluded summary judgment. Davsko v. Golden Harvest Products, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1467, 1477 (1997).
9. Defendant's failure to disclose criminal conviction amounted to omission of material fact hereunder. State v. Stuber, 25 Kan. App. 2d 254, 257, 258, 962 P.2d 1104 (1998).
10. Sufficient evidence at preliminary examination to bind defendant over for trial on securities fraud. State v. Ismaili, 269 Kan. 389, 7 P.3d 236 (2000).
11. State not preempted by federal law from prosecution where defendant was involved in sale of securities as well as commodities transactions; defendant required by section to disclose past crimes, civil judgments and tax liens. State v. Stuber, 27 Kan. App. 2d 160, 1 P.3d 333 (2000).
12. Theft of funds from client's nondiscretionary account was theft but not securities fraud. State v. Ameen, 27 Kan. App. 2d 181, 1 P.3d 330 (2000).
13. Crime was complete when victim's funds were converted; defendant properly sentenced under penalty in effect at that time. State v. Honton, 32 Kan. App. 2d 623, 87 P.3d 328 (2004).
14. Kansas courts may rely on federal securities cases for authority in interpreting Kansas Securities Act. State v. Mehling, 34 Kan. App. 2d 122, 115 P.3d 771 (2005).
15. Cited; fiduciary relationship abuse generally not grounds for upward departure sentence for security fraud conviction. State v. Bryant, 40 Kan. App. 2d 308, 312, 314, 315, 317, 191 P.3d 350 (2008).