May 26, 2010
|
Eugene Sherayzen Attorney at Law |
Michael J. Tostengard Assistant Attorney General |
Re: In the Matter of International Business
Group, LLC, Inc;
OAH Docket No. 11-1003-21214-2
Dear Counsel:
This letter will confirm the discussions we had
during yesterday’s telephone conference call, and constitutes the Second
Prehearing Order in this contested case proceeding.
1.
The
motion of International Business Group (IBG) for a more definite statement is
granted. By Friday, May 28, 2010, the Department, by letter from its
counsel, shall clarify the grounds for the Department’s decision in late 2009
or early 2010 to deny IBG’s application for renewal of its money transmitter
license. The clarification shall:
(a) describe the IBG holdings that the
Department refused to consider as assets or believed should be reduced in value;
(b) indicate on what accounting principles or
other bases the Department relied in making this determination; and
(c)
state
what the Department considered to be the true value of the contested assets and
the accurate net worth of IBG.
2.
The
Department shall respond to IBG’s outstanding discovery requests by Friday, June 4, 2010.
3.
A
telephone conference call to discuss the status of this matter shall be held on
June 9, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. The Administrative Law Judge will initiate
the call.
Letter to E. Sherayzen and M.
Tostengard
May 26, 2010
Page Two
4.
By
Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the
parties shall exchange and file proposed exhibit and witness lists relating to
this case. The witness lists shall
include a brief summary of the expected testimony of each witness. If any documents identified as exhibits have
not yet been exchanged, copies shall be provided with the exhibit lists. Exhibits shall be premarked by the parties
using numbers rather than letters.
5.
The
hearing previously scheduled to be held in this matter on June 9, 2010, shall
be continued to Wednesday, June 30, 2010, commencing at 9:30 a.m. in the courtrooms
of the Office of Administrative Hearings,
6.
The
hearing shall be digitally recorded unless the parties notify the
Administrative Law Judge by June 23, 2010, that they will require the services
of a court reporter.
During the telephone
conference call, there was some discussion of which party bears the burden of
proof in this proceeding. I remarked
during our conversation that, unless otherwise specified in statute, the burden
is generally placed on an applicant for initial licensure to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it meets the requirements for licensure and
should be granted a license. Upon
reviewing the Notice of Hearing more carefully, however, it appears that IBG
already had a prior license and the Department denied its application for renewal of that license. Under those circumstances, it is arguable
that the Department should bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the renewal should be denied.[1] If they wish, the parties may address this
issue further in prehearing motions or in post-hearing briefs.
Sincerely,
s/Barbara
L. Neilson
BARBARA
L. NEILSON
Administrative
Law Judge
Tel.
No.: 651-361-7845
cc: Docket Coordinator
[1] See, e.g., Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation in In the Matter of River Birch Residence, Inc., OAH Docket No. 44-0900-19821-2 (2009); G. Beck et al., Minnesota Administrative Procedure § 10.3.1 (2d ed. 1998).