A. A person shall not transact business in this state as an investment adviser or investment adviser representative unless any of the following applies:
1. The person is licensed under this article.
2. The person is a federal covered adviser and has made a notice filing under this article.
3. The person is exempt from licensure.
4. The person is a federal covered adviser and is not subject to the notice filing requirements prescribed in section 44-3153.
B. The licensure requirements of this article do not apply to any federal covered adviser or a person that is excluded from the definition of an investment adviser under section 202(a)(11) of the investment advisers act of 1940.
C. An investment adviser that is required to be licensed shall not employ an investment adviser representative unless the investment adviser representative is licensed under this article. The licensure of an investment adviser representative is not effective during any period of time that the investment adviser representative is not employed by a licensed investment adviser or by a federal covered adviser that has made a notice filing pursuant to section 44-3153, subsection E. A licensed investment adviser shall promptly notify the commission when an investment adviser representative begins or terminates employment with the investment adviser by filing a completed form U-4 or form U-5 or any other form as the director may designate.
D. An investment adviser representative shall not conduct business on behalf of a federal covered adviser unless that investment adviser representative is licensed under this article. A federal covered adviser shall notify the commission if any investment adviser representative begins or terminates employment with that federal covered adviser by filing a completed form U-4, form U-5 or any other form the director designates for that purpose.
E. A person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case:
W. Coach Corp. v. Rexrode, 634 P.2d 20 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
W. Coach Corp. v. Rexrode, 634 P.2d 20 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “are raised by this appeal: (1) Whether a seller under a secured transaction which assigns its seller’s interest with recourse may maintain an action against the buyer under a theory of subrogation for payments made on the buyer’s behalf, and (2) whether a guarantor who takes…”
Kelman v. Bohi, 550 P.2d 671 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 6× “Appellants claim that the statute which applies to this set of facts is A.R.S. § 44-3151 (B) [UCC § 9-505(2)]. This section allows a secured party in possession to retain the collateral in satisfaction of the obligation, provided that written notice of the proposed retention is…”
Rogers v. Assocs. Com. Corp., 632 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“§ 9-506) provides: “At any time before the secured party has disposed of collateral or entered into a contract for its disposition under § 44— 3150 or before the obligation has been discharged under subsection B of § 44-3151 the debtor or any other secured party may unless…”
Stevenson v. Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Stevenson 1 See A.R.S. § 44-3151 et seq. 2 Barbara Stevenson was a named party to this action until she passed away in September 2020.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3151(A) — 1 case
W. Coach Corp. v. Rexrode, 634 P.2d 20 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“are raised by this appeal: (1) Whether a seller under a secured transaction which assigns its seller’s interest with recourse may maintain an action against the buyer under a theory of subrogation for payments made on the buyer’s behalf, and (2) whether a guarantor who takes…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-3151(B) — 1 case
Kelman v. Bohi, 550 P.2d 671 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
“Appellants claim that the statute which applies to this set of facts is A.R.S. § 44-3151 (B) [UCC § 9-505(2)]. This section allows a secured party in possession to retain the collateral in satisfaction of the obligation, provided that written notice of the proposed retention is…”
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.