On March 13, 2014, the organizers of Voya Institutional Trust Company filed an application, pursuant to the provisions of Section 36a-70 of the Connecticut General Statutes, for the establishment of a trust bank to be located at One Orange Way, Windsor, Connecticut 06095.  The organizers are Mr. Richard Linton and Ms. J. Denise Jackson.

On March 5, 1024, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) in the Matter of:  Fortress Law Group (“Respondent”), Washington, DC and Jacksonville, Florida.  The Notice was the result of an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  The Notice alleges that Respondent engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  Since Respondent refunded fees to one Connecticut resident, as part of the Order to Make Restitution, Respondent was ordered to repay any other Connecticut resident who entered into an agreement for debt negotiation services with Respondent on and after October 1, 2009, any fees paid by such Connecticut resident to Respondent plus interest.  The Commissioner also found that public welfare required the issuance of a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist against Respondent.  Respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegation set forth in the Notice.

On March 5, 2014, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) in the Matter of:  Friedman Law Associates, P.C. (“Respondent”), Hauppauge and Syosset, New York.  The Notice was the result of an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  The Notice alleges that Respondent engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  Since Respondent refunded fees to two Connecticut residents, as part of the Order to Make Restitution, Respondent was ordered to repay any other Connecticut resident who entered into an agreement for debt negotiation services with Respondent on and after October 1, 2009, any fees paid by such Connecticut resident to Respondent plus interest.  The Commissioner also found that public welfare required the issuance of a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist against Respondent.  Respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegation set forth in the Notice.

On March 5, 2014, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) in the Matter of:  Real Estate Solutions a/k/a Doc Prep 101 (“Real Estate Solutions”), Corona, California, and MukLuk, LLC (“MukLuk”), Riverside, California (collectively “Respondents”).  The Notice was the result of an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  The Notice alleges that Respondents engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  As part of the Order to Make Restitution, Respondents were ordered to repay $1,200 to an identified Connecticut resident plus interest, and to repay any other Connecticut resident who entered into an agreement for debt negotiation services with Respondents on and after October 1, 2009, any fees paid by such Connecticut resident to Respondents plus interest.  The Commissioner also found that public welfare required the issuance of a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist against Respondents.  Respondents were afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegations set forth in the Notice.

On March 5, 2014, the Commissioner entered into a Consent Order with Windsor Law, P.C. (“Windsor Law”), Lake Mary, Florida.  The Consent Order was based on an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  As a result of such investigation, the Commissioner alleged that Windsor Law, during the period of February 26 through July 8, 2013, acted as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut without a consumer collection agency license, in violation of Section 36a-801(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  As part of the Consent Order, Windsor Law was ordered to pay $5,000 as a civil penalty.