The Department of Banking News Bulletin 

Bulletin # 1940
Week Ending April 27, 2001

This bulletin constitutes the only official notification you will receive from this office concerning any of the following applications. Any observations you may have are solicited. Any comments should be in writing to John P. Burke, Commissioner of Banking, at the Connecticut Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103-1800 or via E-mail to john.burke@ct.gov. Written comments will be considered only if they are received within ten days from the date of this bulletin.

STATE BANK ACTIVITY
Branch Activity

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that each application for a branch, or for a limited branch at which loans will be made, be accompanied by a plan detailing how adequate services to meet the banking needs of all community residents will be provided. Plans are submitted when such applications are filed and are available for public inspection and comment at this Department for a period of 30 days. Questions concerning branch activity should be directed to the Bank Examination Division, (860) 240-8180.
Note: dates are listed in month/day/year format.

NEW BANK ACTIVITY

On March 21, 2001, pursuant to Section 36a-70(i) of the Connecticut General Statutes, upon the application filed on May 20, 1999 by the organizers of The Bank of New Canaan, and after a hearing, the Commissioner extended for cause the period for which the Temporary Certificate of Authority is valid from March 24, 2001 to September 24, 2001.

CREDIT UNION ACTIVITY
Merger

On April 25, 2001, pursuant to Section 36a-470 of the Connecticut General Statutes, The Barden Employees Credit Union, Inc., Danbury, filed an application to merge with and into Duracell Industrial Federal Credit Union, Inc., Bethel.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY
Former Broker-Dealer Agent Sanctioned for
Use of Unapproved Prospecting Material

On April 23, 2001, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Gerald A. Kalish, a former broker-dealer agent of Moors & Cabot, Inc. from November 12, 1999 to September 13, 2000. The Consent Order alleged that, while associated with Moors & Cabot, Inc., respondent Kalish conducted an unsolicited mailing of sales material that was not approved by the firm and that included the recipients' personal mutual fund account numbers and holdings. The recipients allegedly did not have a pre-existing relationship with either respondent Kalish or the firm.

The Consent Order barred respondent Kalish from acting as a supervising broker-dealer agent for three years; fined him $500; and directed him to cease and desist from regulatory violations.

California Firm Directed to Refrain from Applying for Broker-dealer or
Investment Adviser Registration for Three Years;
Assessed $12,000 for Unregistered Activity

On April 27, 2001, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Hampton Securities, Inc. of 3807 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1220, Los Angeles, California. The firm had been the subject of a December 20, 2000 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Deny Registration as a Broker-dealer and Notice of Intent to Fine. The Consent Order resolved the allegations in the department's December 20, 2000 action. In settling the matter, the Commissioner found that the firm 1) wilfully violated Section 36b-6(a) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by transacting business as a broker-dealer absent registration; 2) wilfully violated Section 36b-6(b) of the Act by employing at least one unregistered agent; 3) wilfully violated Section 36b-16 of the Act by offering unregistered securities of playersworld.com for sale via the firm's web site; and 4) had been the subject of two NASD suspensions imposed within the previous five years.

The Consent Order directed Hampton Securities, Inc. not to pursue broker-dealer or investment adviser registration in Connecticut for 36 months, but did permit the firm to execute liquidating sales transactions for any Connecticut accounts remaining open on April 27, 2001. The Consent Order also assessed the firm $12,000. Of that amount, $10,000 constituted an administrative fine and $2,000 represented reimbursement for agency investigative costs. Finally, the Consent Order provided that the December 20, 2000 Order to Cease and Desist would become permanent as of April 27, 2001.