A. For the purpose of investigations or hearings that, in the opinion of the commission, are necessary and proper for the enforcement of this chapter, any member of the commission, the director or any officer or officers designated by the commission may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, take evidence and require by subpoena duces tecum or by citation the production of books, papers, contracts, agreements or other documents, records or information, whether filed or kept in original form or electronically stored or recorded, that the commission deems relevant or material to the inquiry.
B. The commission may issue and apply to enforce a subpoena in this state at the request of a securities agency or administrator of another state if the activities constituting an alleged violation for which the information is sought would be a violation of this chapter if the activities had occurred in this state.
C. In connection with the power to enforce the production of evidence by subpoena vested in the commission by article XV of the Constitution of Arizona and the commission's power to conduct private investigations pursuant to section 44-3132, the commission has the authority to order a financial institution not to disclose the existence or content of the subpoena to persons not affiliated with the financial institution other than to the financial institution's legal counsel. The commission shall exercise such power if the commission finds it necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Farmers Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Northside Hay Mill & Trading Co., 736 P.2d 816 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “There is no dispute that Neal received notification of Northside’s security interest within the ten-day grace period provided by § 44-3133 and that he agreed to hold the cattle for Northside and was paid for their pasturage by Northside.”
AMFAC Mortg. Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., 618 P.2d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “While these rules have a harsh impact on Reppel as an unpaid supplier, it should be noted that Reppel could have protected itself and obtained priority over Amfac by simply perfecting its purchase money security interest.”
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Carbajal, 645 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Because First National’s security interest attached and Baja’s did not, First National is entitled to the proceeds of the van.”
Empire Mach. Co. v. Union Rock & Materials Corp., 579 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-3133 D (U.C.C. § 9-312(5). The issue before this court is whether Empire assigned away its preferred position in the collateral in its transaction with Arizona Bank.”
Landon v. Stroud (Baird), 709 P.2d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“Indeed, unlike § 28-325(A) and § 44-3133 neither the statute nor the regulation purports to affect priorities among creditors or other interest holders in any way.”
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Carbajal, 645 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Carbajal thus asserts priority pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 44-3133 D (U.C.C. § 9-312(5)). The fundamental premise underlying Carbajal’s priority argument is the assumption that an unpaid seller’s Article 2 reclamation right constitutes the type of security interest…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3133(B): 2 cases
AMFAC Mortg. Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., 618 P.2d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“While these rules have a harsh impact on Reppel as an unpaid supplier, it should be noted that Reppel could have protected itself and obtained priority over Amfac by simply perfecting its purchase money security interest.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3133(C): 2 cases
AMFAC Mortg. Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., 618 P.2d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“While these rules have a harsh impact on Reppel as an unpaid supplier, it should be noted that Reppel could have protected itself and obtained priority over Amfac by simply perfecting its purchase money security interest.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3133(D)(3): 1 case
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Carbajal, 645 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1982).
“Because First National’s security interest attached and Baja’s did not, First National is entitled to the proceeds of the van.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.