|
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. |
|
| | 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 |
|
|