[brief] ”).  Additional support for the Bureau’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) resides in the civil enforcement and remedy provisions adopted by New Jersey’s sister states and jurisdictions with the Legislature’s goal of uniformity in mind.  See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 11-702 (LexisNexis 2023) (authorizing the commissioner to bring an action “to obtain 1 or more of the following remedies,” including “(7) [r]escission; (8) [r]estitution; (9) [d]isgorgement; . . . [and] (11) [a]ny other relief as the court deems just”); D.C. Code § 31-5606.03 (2023) (stating the commissioner may bring an action “to obtain one or more of the following remedies,” including “(7) [a]ny relief as the court deems just, such as rescission, restitution, or disgorgement”); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 110A, § 408 (LexisNexis 2023) (authorizing the secretary to bring an action in superior court, and stating the court “may order an accounting, disgorgement, rescission and such other relief as may be in the public interest”); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann § 8-1116 (LexisNexis 2023) (stating “upon a proper showing by the director, the court may invoke its equitable powers under the law and issue an order of rescission, restitution, or disgorgement, an order freezing assets, an order requiring an accounting, or a writ of attachment or writ of general or specific execution”); 70 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1-509 (2023) (stating that when the department brings an action, “the court upon a proper showing shall grant such other ancillary and equitable relief as the facts warrant, including without limitation . . . orders of rescission, orders of restitution, orders of disgorgement or other relief as may be appropriate in the public interest”).  Federal courts have simultaneously ordered both restitution and disgorgement in the same order or judgment for securities law violations.  See SEC v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 995 F. Supp. 167, 179 (D.D.C. 1998), aff'd sub nom., United States SEC v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 203 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (finding restitution and disgorgement were appropriate remedies).  In addition, sister state courts have interpreted statutes worded similarly to N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) conjunctively.  See Okla. Dep’t of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Blair, 231 P.3d 645, 656 (Okla. 2010) (interpreting that Okla. Stat. tit. 71, § 1-603, “Administrator – Maintain an Action to Enjoin and Force Compliance” – which allows a court to enter “an order of rescission, restitution, or disgorgement,” “expressly authorizes both disgorgement and restitution involving a person who has violated the securities laws. ”); State ex rel. Goettsch v. Diacide Distribs., Inc., 596 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Iowa 1999) (interpreting Iowa Code § 502.604, which states a court “may enter an order of rescission, restitution, or disgorgement” to authorize “various forms of relief, including restitution and disgorgement of profits. ”).  As a result, the Bureau’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) is not “plainly unreasonable. ”  Indeed, it is correct.  Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to afford it substantial deference and award disgorgement against [...]. Merin, 126 N.J. at 436-37.