Opinion ID: 2176586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the sanctions imposed against hibbard brown

Text: The Commissioner asserts on appeal that the Court of Chancery should have used an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the sanctions imposed by the Commissioner. According to the Commissioner, the Court of Chancery confused its power to modify the Commissioner's remedy with the applicable standard of review. In Blinder, Robinson, this Court recognized: The Court of Chancery is accorded broad power of review and may modify the Commissioner's order in whole or in part, 6 Del.C. § 7324(a), and we view that authority as encompassing the power to modify any administrative sanction which is deemed disproportionate to the underlying conduct. 552 A.2d at 475 (emphasis added). Consistent with the language of the statute and our opinion in Blinder, Robinson, we hold that the Court of Chancery may review de novo the remedy ordered by the Commissioner. The power of the Court of Chancery to modify an order whenever it deems the sanction imposed to be disproportionate is neither expressly nor implicitly limited to instances where the Commissioner abused its discretion. The Commissioner also fails to demonstrate any error in the Court of Chancery's proportionality analysis. The Vice Chancellor's decision to reduce the sanction against Hibbard Brown from permanent revocation to a four-month suspension was based on his analysis of the Blinder, Robinson decision and his assessment of the magnitude of Hibbard Brown's violations. Since the Commissioner's findings of direct liability were discarded because of lack of substantial evidence, the Court of Chancery concluded that a reduction in the severity of the sanctions imposed was appropriate. We agree and therefore affirm.