1. 1. The investment adviser has established and maintained written procedures, and a system for applying such procedures, that reasonably may be expected to prevent and detect, insofar as practicable, any violation of the IM Act or any rule adopted thereunder by such investment adviser representatives or employees; and
2. 2. Such investment adviser has discharged reasonably the duties and obligations incumbent upon it by reason of such procedures and system without reasonable cause to believe that the investment adviser representatives or employees are not complying with such procedures and system.

For purposes of A.R.S. § 44-3201(A)(12), no investment adviser shall be deemed to have failed to reasonably supervise its investment adviser representatives or employees if:

Historical Note

Adopted effective July 19, 1996, under a court-ordered exemption as determined by the Arizona Corporation Commission (Supp. 96-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 739, effective January 17, 2001 (Supp. 01-1). At the request of the Corporation Commission, the preceding entry in this Historical Note is amended: the Commission intended the rulemaking action to reflect that the Section was repealed and a new Section was made at 7 A.A.R. 739, effective January 17, 2001 (Supp. 02-4).