(1) Whenever it appears to the securities commissioner upon sufficient evidence satisfactory to the securities commissioner that any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this article or of any rule or order under this article, the securities commissioner may apply to the district court of the city and county of Denver to temporarily restrain or preliminarily or permanently enjoin the act or practice in question and to enforce compliance with this article or any rule or order under this article. If the action is against a broker-dealer, investment adviser, federal covered adviser, sales representative, or investment adviser representative and the court finds that such person has committed a violation of section 11-51- 501, in addition to any other relief, the court may enter an order imposing such conditions on such person as the court deems appropriate. In any such action, the securities commissioner shall not be required to plead or prove irreparable injury or the inadequacy of the remedy at law. Under no circumstances shall the court require the securities commissioner to post a bond.
(2) The securities commissioner may include in any action authorized by subsection (1) of this section, relating to any violation of section 11-51-301, 11-51-401, or 11-51-501, a claim for damages under section 11-51-604 or restitution, disgorgement, or other equitable relief on behalf of some or all of the persons injured by the act or practice constituting the subject matter of the action, if the applicable scienter standard of section 11-51-604 is met. No person shall be liable for damages or for restitution, disgorgement, or other equitable relief in any action authorized by subsection (1) of this section for a violation of section 11-51-301 due solely to a failure to file the prescribed notification of exemption or to pay the required exemption fee for an exemption under section 11-51-308 (1)(p).
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 730, § 1, effective July 1. L. 98: (1) amended, p. 563, § 17, effective January 1, 1999.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 11-51-122 as it existed prior to 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001).
· cites it 26× “We granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals erred in applying a de novo standard of review, in allowing the Investors to intervene, and whether, by doing so, it improperly created a fiduciary or agency relationship between the Colorado Securities Commissioner…”
Rome v. Mandel, 2016 COA 192M, 405 P.3d 387.
· cites it 15× “¶ 13 The court entered a permanent injunction under section 11-51-602(1), C.R.S. 2016 — effectively barring defendants from any involvement in the securities industry in Colorado — and directed them to pay $80,000 in restitution, reflecting $1000 for each auto-trading subscriber.”
Joseph v. Equity Edge, LLC, 192 P.3d 573 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “We conclude the trial court erred when it dismissed the registration claim and reversed its earlier permanent injunction without analyzing the Commissioner's request for injunc-tive relief under either the common law standard or section 11-51-602, C.R.98.2007. Initially, in the…”
Joseph v. Viatica Mgmt., LLC, 55 P.3d 264 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “*266 The commissioner brought this action asserting violations of the Colorado Securities Act (Act) and seeking an injunction pursuant to § 11-51-602, C.R.8.2001, and remedies for civil lability pursuant to § 11-51-604, C.”
Black Diamaond Fund, LLLP v. Joseph, 211 P.3d 727 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “A separate statute, section 11-51-602(1), C.R.$.2008, provides for the Commissioner's enforcement of the CSA by means of injunctive relief whenever it appears that any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the CSA.”
Feigin v. Digit. Interactive Assocs., Inc., 987 P.2d 876 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “In addition, with respect to the TRO, and relying on § 11-51-602, C.R.S.1998, the commissioner asserts that he is not required to allege exigent circumstances and need not notify opposing counsel prior to presenting his request for a TRO to the court.”
Griffin v. Capital Sec. of Am., Inc., 298 P.3d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “, § 11-51-602(2), C.R.S.2010 (“The securities commissioner may include in any action authorized by subsection (1) of this section .”
Feigin v. Sec. Am., Inc., 992 P.2d 675 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “Section 11-51-602, C.R.S.1998, authorizes the Commissioner to bring an action to enjoin violations of the state securities act.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-602(1): 5 cases
Rome v. Mandel, 2016 COA 192M, 405 P.3d 387.
“¶ 13 The court entered a permanent injunction under section 11-51-602(1), C.R.S. 2016 — effectively barring defendants from any involvement in the securities industry in Colorado — and directed them to pay $80,000 in restitution, reflecting $1000 for each auto-trading subscriber.”
Joseph v. Equity Edge, LLC, 192 P.3d 573 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“We conclude the trial court erred when it dismissed the registration claim and reversed its earlier permanent injunction without analyzing the Commissioner's request for injunc-tive relief under either the common law standard or section 11-51-602, C.R.98.2007. Initially, in the…”
Black Diamaond Fund, LLLP v. Joseph, 211 P.3d 727 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“A separate statute, section 11-51-602(1), C.R.$.2008, provides for the Commissioner's enforcement of the CSA by means of injunctive relief whenever it appears that any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the CSA.”
Joseph v. Viatica Mgmt., LLC, 55 P.3d 264 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“*266 The commissioner brought this action asserting violations of the Colorado Securities Act (Act) and seeking an injunction pursuant to § 11-51-602, C.R.8.2001, and remedies for civil lability pursuant to § 11-51-604, C.”
Feigin v. Digit. Interactive Assocs., Inc., 987 P.2d 876 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“In addition, with respect to the TRO, and relying on § 11-51-602, C.R.S.1998, the commissioner asserts that he is not required to allege exigent circumstances and need not notify opposing counsel prior to presenting his request for a TRO to the court.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-602(2): 5 cases
Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001).
“We granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals erred in applying a de novo standard of review, in allowing the Investors to intervene, and whether, by doing so, it improperly created a fiduciary or agency relationship between the Colorado Securities Commissioner…”
Rome v. Mandel, 2016 COA 192M, 405 P.3d 387.
“¶ 13 The court entered a permanent injunction under section 11-51-602(1), C.R.S. 2016 — effectively barring defendants from any involvement in the securities industry in Colorado — and directed them to pay $80,000 in restitution, reflecting $1000 for each auto-trading subscriber.”
Black Diamaond Fund, LLLP v. Joseph, 211 P.3d 727 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“A separate statute, section 11-51-602(1), C.R.$.2008, provides for the Commissioner's enforcement of the CSA by means of injunctive relief whenever it appears that any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of the CSA.”
Joseph v. Viatica Mgmt., LLC, 55 P.3d 264 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“*266 The commissioner brought this action asserting violations of the Colorado Securities Act (Act) and seeking an injunction pursuant to § 11-51-602, C.R.8.2001, and remedies for civil lability pursuant to § 11-51-604, C.”
Griffin v. Capital Sec. of Am., Inc., 298 P.3d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“, § 11-51-602(2), C.R.S.2010 (“The securities commissioner may include in any action authorized by subsection (1) of this section .”
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.