Indiana

The Receiver filed the instant complaint seeking the return
of commissions paid to agents by the Foundation for the sale
of the charitable gift annuities. The Receiver alleged breach
of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud in confidential relationship,
negligence and gross negligence, common law fraud,
federal and state security fraud, actual and constructive fraudulent
transfer, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The district court denied the Receiver?s motion for summary
judgment on the fraudulent transfer claim and denied
Defendants? motion for summary judgment on all but the
common law fraud claim. Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d
1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). It also denied Defendants? request to
dismiss the non-resident Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction,
finding that it had personal jurisdiction over them
under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, which confers nationwide service of
process in suits to enforce liabilities or duties created under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Id. at 1128-29.
After a seven-day jury trial, the jury found for the Receiver
on the federal and state securities law, constructive fraud,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment claims and for
Defendants on the general negligence, conversion, and fraudulent
transfer claims. Defendants were ordered to pay damages
ranging from $31,900 to $109,900 per person.
Defendants timely appealed the judgment, and the Receiver
filed a protective cross-appeal from the district court?s denial
of summary judgment on the fraudulent transfer claim

***

For the above reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. The charitable gift annuities sold by Defendants on
behalf of the Foundation were investment contracts, and
hence securities for purposes of federal and state securities
laws. Defendants were not exempt from registration as securities
brokers under the terms of the Philanthropy Act. Because
the charitable gift annuities were securities, the district court
had personal jurisdiction over the non-resident Defendants.
Finally, the district court did not err in giving the jury an
Allen charge. Given our resolution of these questions, we
need not reach any other issue urged by the parties, including
the matters argued by the Receiver in his protective crossappeal.