GA Code § 10-5-58 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 10 - Commerce and Trade|Chapter 5 - Georgia Uniform Securities|Article 5 - Violations, Penalties, and Civil Liability|§ 10-5-58. Enforcement of Civil Liability; Damages

  Enforcement of civil liability under this Code section is subject to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 3227.   A person is liable to the purchaser if the person sells a security in violation of Code Section 10-5-20, or, by means of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading, the purchaser not knowing the untruth or omission and the seller not sustaining the burden of proof that the seller did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known of the untruth or omission. An action under this subsection is governed by the following:   The purchaser may maintain an action to recover the consideration paid for the security, less the amount of any income received on the security, and interest at the legal rate of interest from the date of the purchase, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court upon the tender of the security or for actual damages as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection;   The tender referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection may be made any time before entry of judgment. Tender requires only notice in a record of ownership of the security and willingness to exchange the security for the amount specified. A purchaser that no longer owns the security may recover actual damages as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection; and   Actual damages in an action arising under this subsection are the amount that would be recoverable upon a tender less the value of the security when the purchaser disposed of it and interest at the legal rate of interest from the date of the purchase, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.     A person is liable to the seller if the person buys a security by means of an untrue statement of a material fact or omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading, the seller not knowing of the untruth or omission, and the purchaser not sustaining the burden of proof that the purchaser did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known of the untruth or omission. An action under this subsection is governed by the following:   The seller may maintain an action to recover the security and any income received on the security, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court upon the tender of the purchase price or for actual damages as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection;   The tender referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection may be made any time before entry of judgment. Tender requires only notice in a record of the present ability to pay the amount tendered and willingness to take delivery of the security for the amount specified. If the purchaser no longer owns the security, the seller may recover actual damages as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection; and   Actual damages in an action arising under this subsection are the difference between the price at which the security was sold and the value the security would have had at the time of the sale in the absence of the purchaser's conduct causing liability and interest at the legal rate of interest from the date of the sale of the security, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.     A person acting as a broker-dealer or agent that sells or buys a security in violation of subsection (a) of Code Section 10-5-30, subsection (a) of Code Section 10-5-31, or Code Section 10-5-55 is liable to the customer. The customer, if a purchaser, may maintain an action for recovery of actual damages as specified in subsection (b) of this Code section, or, if a seller, for a remedy as specified in subsection (c) of this Code section.   A person acting as an investment adviser or investment adviser representative that provides investment advice for compensation in violation of subsection (a) of Code Section 10-5-32, subsection (a) of Code Section 10-5-33, or Code Section 10-5-55 is liable to the client. The client may maintain an action to recover the consideration paid for the advice, interest from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.   A person that receives directly or indirectly any consideration for providing investment advice to another person and that employs a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud the other person or engages in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit on the other person is liable to the other person. An action under this subsection is governed by the following:   The person defrauded may maintain an action to recover the consideration paid for the advice and the amount of any actual damages caused by the fraudulent conduct, interest from the date of the fraudulent conduct, costs, and reasonable attorney fees determined by the court, less the amount of any income received as a result of the fraudulent conduct; and   This subsection does not apply to a broker-dealer or its agents if the investment advice provided is solely incidental to transacting business as a broker-dealer and no special compensation is received for the investment advice.     The following persons are liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as persons liable under subsections (b) through (f) of this Code section:   A person that directly or indirectly controls a person liable under subsections (b) through (f) of this Code section, unless the controlling person sustains the burden of proof that the person did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of conduct by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist;   An individual who is a managing partner, executive officer, or director of a person liable under subsections (b) through (f) of this Code section, including an individual having a similar status or performing similar functions, unless the individual sustains the burden of proof that the individual did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of conduct by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist;   An individual who is an employee of or associated with a person liable under subsections (b) through (f) of this Code section and who materially aids the conduct giving rise to the liability, unless the individual sustains the burden of proof that the individual did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of conduct by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist; and   A person that is a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser, or investment adviser representative that materially aids the conduct giving rise to the liability under subsections (b) through (f) of this Code section, unless the person sustains the burden of proof that the person did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of conduct by reason of which liability is alleged to exist.     A person liable under this Code section has a right of contribution as in cases of contract against any other person liable under this Code section for the same conduct.   A cause of action under this Code section survives the death of an individual who might have been a plaintiff or defendant.   A person may not obtain relief under subsection (b) of this Code section:   For a violation of Code Section 10-5-20 or for a violation of subsection (d) or (e) of this Code section, unless the action is instituted within two years after the violation occurred; or   Other than for a violation of Code Section 10-5-20 or for a violation of subsection (c) or (f) of this Code section, unless the action is instituted within the earlier of two years after discovery of the facts constituting the violation or five years after the violation occurred.     A person that has made or has engaged in the performance of a contract in violation of this chapter or a rule adopted or order issued under this chapter or that has acquired a purported right under the contract with knowledge of conduct by reason of which its making or performance was in violation of this chapter may not base an action on the contract.   A condition, stipulation, or provision binding a person purchasing or selling a security or receiving investment advice to waive compliance with this chapter or a rule adopted or order issued under this chapter is void.   The rights and remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any other rights or remedies that may exist, but this chapter does not create a cause of action not specified in this Code section or subsection (e) of Code Section 10-5-40.     (Code 1981, §10-5-58, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1/SB 358.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "Holmes v. Grubman: The Supreme Court of Georgia Balances Financial Advisor Common Law Liability and Investor Protection," see 16 (No. 5) Ga. St. B. J. 20 (2011).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Material aid or participation.   - Custodian did not materially aid or participate in the sale because the investors alleged no facts tending to show that the custodian contributed to the fraudulent transactions in any way other than by fulfilling its contractual duties to act as custodian because the custodian executed the transactions on behalf of the parties, but did not procure the investments for the investors or recommend them; the custodian reported values of the securities to the investors, but expressly disclaimed any investigation; and the custodian held the securities on behalf of the investors, but undertook no duty to scrutinize the financial health of the investment funds. Curry v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 662 Fed. Appx. 769 (11th Cir. 2016)(Unpublished).   Control person liability.   - Investors' federal and state control person liability claims were properly dismissed because, while the investors alleged that the investment advisor committed and pled guilty to numerous violations of the securities laws, the custodian did not control the advisor, and there were no factual allegations tending to show that the custodian controlled the general business affairs of the advisor, much less had the power to direct the specific policies resulting in the fraud. Curry v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 662 Fed. Appx. 769 (11th Cir. 2016)(Unpublished).