blue sky laws of . . . Nevada . . . parallel Rule 10b-5 .... Since . . . Nevada . . . chose to enact laws paralleling Rule 10b-5, we think it only logical that [Nevada] intended the statutes to be interpreted consistently with the federal rule”). 14 See Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (stating that in order to prevail on claim alleging common law fraud, each of the following elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a misrepresentation made by the defendant; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the misrepresentation; (3) defendant’s intent to defraud the plaintiff (scienter); (4) reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff from such reliance). 15 See, e.g., State v. Gunnison, 618 P.2d 604, 607 (Ariz. 1980) (<HOLDING>); State v. Shama Resources Ltd. Partnership,
holding the connection is an element holding that scienter is not an element of a violation of ariz rev stat  4419912 cf nrs 905702 even though it may be an element of ariz rev stat  4419911 cf nrs 905701 holding that scienter is an essential element of a claim alleged under  121 of the illinois security law holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense