LD 509
pg. 174
Page 173 of 183 An Act To Adopt the Maine Uniform Securities Act Page 175 of 183
Download Bill Text
LR 441
Item 1

 
in a proceeding before the administrator or by the administrator in
a civil action in which the administrator is the moving party.

 
5.__Opportunity to defend.__If process is served under
subsection 3, the court, or the administrator in a proceeding
before the administrator, shall order continuances as are
necessary or appropriate to afford the defendant or respondent
reasonable opportunity to defend.

 
Official Comments

 
Prior Provisions: 1956 Act Sections 414(g) and (h); RUSA
Section 708.

 
1. Section 611 follows the 1956 Act and RUSA in providing for
a signed consent to service of process in Section 611(a); a
substituted service of process in Section 611(b); and process and
opportunity to defend in Sections 611(c) through (e).

 
2. An issuer is not required to file a consent to service of
process unless it proposes to offer a security in this State
through someone acting on an agency basis. Since the civil
liability provisions of Section 509(b) apply only in a suit by a
purchaser against a seller, the issuer in a firm commitment
underwriting is civilly liable only to the underwriter, who, in
turn, may be liable to the dealer, who, in turn, may be liable to
the purchaser. In contrast, in a best efforts underwriting, when
the security is sold on an agency basis and title passes directly
to the purchaser, the issuer can be liable to the purchaser.

 
3. Section 611(b) generally follows Section 414(h) of the
1956 Act and Section 708(c) of RUSA. The intent is to provide for
substituted service of process when a seller in one state directs
an offer into a second state either in violation of the laws of
the second state or fraudulently. Under Section 611(b) the
purchaser may sue the seller in the purchaser's state and then
bring an action on the judgment in the seller's state. The
constitutionality of this type of statute has long been
sustained.

 
4. This section was originally based on the type of
nonresident motorist statute whose constitutionality was
sustained in Hess v. Pawlowski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927) and
subsequently in other contexts. See, e.g., International Shoe Co.
v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945); Travelers Health Ass'n v.
Commonwealth of Va., 339 U.S. 643 (1950).

 
§16612.__ Liability of control persons

 
In an administrative action brought by the administrator, or a
civil action brought by the Attorney General for a violation of


Page 173 of 183 Top of Page Page 175 of 183