the right to notice and hearing is waived by the person against whom the sanction is imposed, may . . . [b]ar or suspend him from association with a licensed broker-dealer or investment adviser in this state. 10 NRS 90.420(l)(b) states as follows: The administrator by order may . . . revoke any license ... if the administrator finds that the order is in the public interest and that the . . . broker-dealer . . . [h]as violated or failed to comply with a provision of this chapter as now or formerly in effect or a regulation or order adopted or issued under this chapter .... 11 The relevant provisions of NRS 90.570 provide as follows: In conn t. App. 1996) (stating that scienter is not an element of securities fraud in Indiana); Arnold v. Dirrim, 398 N.E.2d 426, 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (<HOLDING>); State v. Dumke, 901 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Mo. Ct.
holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho holding reliance is still an element of a 10b5 action and that the fraud on the market theory subject to rebuttal is applicable to meet the reliance element in securities fraud cases where corporations make materially misleading statements in an impersonal and efficient market holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense