March 15, 2022

Isaias Verdugo v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000080, appeal of Decision 77902.

1. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the underlying transactions constituted notes and were not otherwise exempt securities for purposes of the Securities Act.
2. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in concluding Appellant committed fraudulent practices in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991(A) and was the controlling person of an entity who also violated the statute.
3. The restitution award set forth in the Decision was supported by substantial evidence.

February 3, 2022

Upstate Law Group, LLC, et al. v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000001, appeal of Decision 77806.

1. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that the pension income stream transactions constituted securities.
2.  The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that the pension income stream transactions were not exempt from registration under the Arizona Securities Act.
3. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that Appellants “participated in and induced” the unlawful sale of securities.
4. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that Appellants committed fraudulent practices in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991(A).
5. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that Appellants violated A.R.S. §§ 44-1841 and -1842.
6. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that Appellants did not act in the ordinary course of their professional capacity in connection with the sale of securities.
7. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in concluding that the individual respondent had control person liability for the entity.
8. The Commission did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in entering orders against Appellants to cease and desist and to pay restitution and administrative penalties. 

December 21, 2021

Smith & Cox, LLC, et al v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2020-000322-001, appeal of Decision 77747. 

1. The pension income stream investments sold in this matter are evidences of indebtedness and thus are securities within the meaning of  A.R.S. § 44-1801(27). 
2. Defendant failed to meet his burden of proof needed to establish a defense to control person liability. 
3. It is Defendants’ burden of proof to provide evidence establishing offsets to the restitution award.

February  23, 2021

Concordia Finance Co. v. ACC, Arizona Court of Appeals Nos. 1 CA-CV 20-0163 (Memorandum). 

1. Laches is not available as a defense in a governmental action.
2. Even if laches was available as a defense, it did not apply here considering the number of violations, defendent’s dilatory conduct in responding to the Commission’s investigation and its failure to show prejudice.
3. Respondent does not have a rights to a jury trial in an administrative proceeding under the Securities Act.
4. There is no conflict of interest requiring a Commissioner to recuse himself merely because counsel for Respondents also represents another party in litigation involving the Commissioner.
5. Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision.

January 29, 2021

Ventures 7000 LLC, et al. v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2020-000093-001, appeal of Decision 77547.

1. Substantial Evidence Supports that Appellants Induced and Participated in the Unlawful Sale of Securities.
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Commission's Determination of Controlling Person Liability. 
3. The Commission Did Not Violate Due Process By Permitting an Investor to Address the Commission at Open Meeting.
4. Appellants Were Not Entitled to a Jury Trial.

June 11, 2020

Timothy John Wales, et al. v. ACC, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 19-0345 (Opinion).

1. Respondents were not entitled to a trial de novo in Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-910 as the Commission stenographically recorded the hearing.
2. Respondents’ due process rights were not violated by the involvement of two ALJs.
3. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determination that Respondents sold unregistered securities.
4. The securities that were sold were not exempt from registration under the limited offering exemption or the non-public offering exemption.
5. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in ordering Respondents to pay restitution of $526,500.

January 21, 2020

Concordia Finance Co. v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-0001109, appeal of Decision 77088.

1. Respondent does not have a right to a jury trial in an administrative proceeding under the Securities Act.
2. There is no conflict of interest requiring a Commissioner to recuse himself merely because counsel for Respondents also represents another party in litigation involving the Commissioner.
3. Laches is not available as a defense in a governmental action.
4. The Commission appropriately awarded restitution as allowed by R14-4-308.
5. As long as the administrative penalty falls within the statutory limits, the amount awarded is not an abuse of discretion and no explanation of the amount awarded is necessary.
6. Substantial evidence supported the restitution and penalty orders.

December 5, 2019

George T. Simmons, et al. v. ACC, Arizona Court of Appeals Nos. 1 CA-CV 19-0047 and 19-0048 (Memorandum).

The ACC reasonably concluded that respondents possessed legal power and control over the entity that violated A.R.S. § 44-1991 and properly found the respondents liable as control persons under A.R.S. § 44-1999.

November 19, 2019

Justin C. Billingsley et al. v. ACC, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 18-0630 (Memorandum).

1. The Commission proved the promissory notes were securities, with respondent failing to meet his burden to prove any exemptions to registration.
2. The Commission properly proved respondent committed securities fraud by misrepresenting the risk involved in the investment, while omitting material information as to the use of funds and prior payment defaults.
3. The marital community was liable for restitution even though respondent and his spouse moved from Arizona after incurring the debt.
4. The Commission decision contained sufficiently comprehensive and explicit findings and did not need to expressly address all of respondent's exceptions.

June 11, 2019

Richard C. Harkins v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000101, appeal of  ACC Decision 76529.

1. Respondent’s due process rights were not violated by the hearing and Open Meeting process or by the Administrative Law Judge’s absence from Open Meeting.
2. Respondent did not have the right to a jury trial on the administrative securities fraud allegations.
3. Proof of loss causation is not required in Commission Enforcement Actions.
4. Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Respondent was liable for fraud.

November 19, 2018

George T. Simmons et al. v. ACC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000077, appeal of  ACC Decision 76529.

The ACC correctly applied the control person liability standard in Eastern Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. ACC and properly found the respondents liable as control persons.