Securities law violator is subject to administrative sanctions, including restitution to victims, even though violator and victims were not in contractual privity.
Cite as
2009 DJDAR 18065Published
Dec. 31, 2009Filing Date
Dec. 29, 2009THE PEOPLE ex rel.
PRESTON DUFAUCHARD,
as Corporations Commissioner, etc.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY O'NEAL,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. B209612
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC360749)
California Courts of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Three
Filed December 29, 2009
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts 2 through 17 of the FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, and parts 3 through 6 of the DISCUSSION.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 9, 2009 is modified as follows:
On page 28, at the end of line 20, insert new footnote 30, with the following text:
There is also a fourth enforcement mechanism: the Commissioner may issue a desist and refrain order, which may be challenged pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. (Corp. Code, § 25532.) This mechanism is not at issue in this case. Instead, when we refer to an "administrative action" or "administrative enforcement action," we mean, as discussed below, an action brought by the Commissioner under Corporations Code section 25530. In this regard, we are using the terminology established by the Supreme Court in People v. Simon, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 514-515.
The remaining footnotes are to be renumbered.
[There is no change in the judgment.]
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424