Home > Policy > Legal Briefs

Legal Briefs

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

An index of all NASAA legal briefs is below.

March 28, 2019

NASAA amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Emulex v. Varjabedian regarding the scope of liability under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

November 13, 2018

NASAA and Colorado Securities Commissioner joint amici brief to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding clawback of fictitious profits in Ponzi scheme recoveries.

October 12, 2018

NASAA amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement action against Francis Lorenzo in Francis V. Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

August 23, 2018

NASAA amicus brief to the Washington Supreme Court in Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC et al.

October 25, 2017

NASAA amicus brief to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding the appropriate standard of care to apply to a dually-registered investment adviser and insurance agent.

October 16, 2017

Joint amici brief of NASAA and the North Carolina Secretary of State’s office regarding tenancy-in-common securities and the scope of territorial jurisdiction under state securities laws.

March 30, 2017

NASAA amicus letter in Massachusetts administrative proceeding regarding the scope of NSMIA preemption of state regulation of broker-dealers.

March 7, 2017

NASAA amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Calpers v. ANZ Securities in support of tolling the three-year statute of repose in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933.

November 28, 2016

NASAA amicus brief to the Kansas Court of Appeals in Kansas v. Lundberg, Elzufon supporting territorial jurisdiction over extraterritorial securities offers.

July 19, 2016

NASAA amicus brief filed in the Colorado Court of Appeals case Mandel v. Rome arguing that auto-trading lead traders are investment advisers under federal and state law and must be registered accordingly.