GA Code § 10-5-12 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 10 - Commerce and Trade|Chapter 5 - Georgia Uniform Securities|Article 2 - Exemptions|§ 10-5-12. Exemption of Securities, Transactions, or Offers by Adoption of Rule or Issuance of Order

 A rule adopted or order issued under this chapter may exempt a security, transaction, or offer; a rule adopted under this chapter may exempt a class of securities, transactions, or offers from any or all of the requirements of Article 3 of this chapter and Code Section 10-5-53; and an order issued under this chapter may waive, in whole or in part, any or all of the conditions for an exemption or offer under Code Sections 10-5-10 and 10-5-11.    (Code 1981, §10-5-12, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 381, § 1/SB 358.)   Law reviews.   - For annual survey of law on business associations, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 41 (2010).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   No merger with theft by conversion.    - Trial court did not err in failing to merge the theft by conversion counts under O.C.G.A. § 16-8-3, and the securities violation counts under O.C.G.A. § 10-5-12 filed against the defendant because the state had to prove separate facts to find defendant guilty of the theft by conversion offenses and the violations of the Georgia Securities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-5-1 et seq. Furthermore, the securities violation counts were complete before the theft conversion occurred. Lavigne v. State, 299 Ga. App. 712, 683 S.E.2d 656 (2009).   Subscription agreement's disclosure barred recovery.    - Summary judgment for corporation, the corporation's chief executive officer (CEO), and the corporation's chief financial officer on an investor's claims pursuant to the Securities Act was proper; although the investor claimed that the investor had been misled by the CEO's promise that the investor would receive one-third of the corporation's stock in return for the investment, it was undisputed that a subscription agreement which the investor admittedly received and executed did not provide for the interest the investor claimed the investor was orally promised by the CEO, but rather, stated that the investor was receiving, at most, 8.16 percent of the outstanding common stock. Given that the subscription agreement so starkly contradicted the CEO's alleged promise, the investor knew that the latter was untrue, and the investor was not entitled to recover for the alleged violation of the Securities Act. Fernandez v. WebSingularity, Inc., 299 Ga. App. 11, 681 S.E.2d 717 (2009).   Indirect reliance.   - When plaintiff outside investors relied on statements of plaintiff inside investor, not the financials prepared by the defendant, the former chief financial officer (CFO) of plaintiff company, such "indirect reliance" precluded the outside investors' claims of fraud and securities fraud under Georgia law against the CFO. TSG Water Res., Inc. v. D'Alba & Donovan Certified Pub. Accountants, P.C., F.3d (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2007)(Unpublished).   No reliance found.    - Because plaintiff limited liability company (LLC1), who sold its interest in another limited liability company (LLC2) to buyers (the other members of LLC2), could not have managed LLC2 or replaced the buyers if it had bought out the buyers under a put and call, LLC1 would have sold its interest even if it had known of defendant financier's involvement with the buyers; LLC1's claims under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and O.C.G.A. § 10-5-12 against the financier failed. Ledford v. Peeples, 657 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011).   Defendant properly convicted for violating the Securities Act.    - Defendant was properly convicted of violating the Georgia Securities Act of 1973 because the evidence authorized the jury to find that all three prongs of the test used to determine whether a particular scheme was an investment contract under the Securities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-5-2(a)(26), were satisfied; the victims parted with the victims' money in anticipation of investment gains, there was a common enterprise because the victims' funds were pooled to reach the minimum amounts for participation set by the defendant, and the expectation of profits rested solely on the efforts of others. Hicks v. State, 315 Ga. App. 779, 728 S.E.2d 294 (2012).    Cited in  Ledford v. Peeples, 568 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009).