The Department of Banking News Bulletin

Bulletin # 1954
Week Ending August 3, 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.

RECEIVE THE NEWS BULLETIN BY E-MAIL

The Department of Banking now offers a free service to deliver the News Bulletin directly to you by E-mail on the day that it is issued. To subscribe to this new service, please visit the Department's Web site. If you no longer wish to receive a printed copy of the News Bulletin by postal mail, please contact jeanne.charbonneau@ct.gov.

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.

CHECK CASHING SERVICE LICENSE ACTIVITY

On August 3, 2001, pursuant to Section 36a-581 of the Connecticut General Statutes, Qualtruistic Enterprises, Inc. filed an application to operate a check cashing service general facility at 6 White Street Plaza, Danbury, Connecticut.

DE NOVO BRANCH

On July 31, 2001, pursuant to Sections 36a-412(a)(2) and 36a-145(c)(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner granted approval to Bank of America, N.A. to establish a de novo limited branch at 2 Soundview Drive, Greenwich, Connecticut, to engage solely in fiduciary activities.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY
Stamford Man Ordered to Cease and Desist
from Selling Bogus Investments

On July 25, 2001, the Commissioner entered an Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine against Anthony Brooks of Stamford, Connecticut. The action alleged that, from at least 1998 forward, respondent Brooks, acting on behalf of Integrated Financial Solutions, solicited investors to purchase non-existent shares of Venture Investments – Aggressive Growth A and of Decatur Daniels Investments. The action also claimed that respondent Brooks used investor funds to benefit himself and his spouse, and that he misrepresented to investors on their individual account summaries that their funds were invested in Venture Investments - Aggressive Growth A and Decatur Daniels Investments. In addition to conduct giving rise to a violation of the antifraud provisions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, the Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine alleged that respondent Brooks transacted business as an unregistered broker-dealer agent of Integrated Financial Solutions, and that the bogus investments were not registered under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act.

The respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing on the Order to Cease and Desist. A hearing on the Notice of Intent to Fine has been scheduled for September 19, 2001.

Stamford-Based Concern Ordered to Cease and Desist
from Selling Bogus Investments

On July 25, 2001, the Commissioner entered an Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine against Integrated Financial Solutions of 1450 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut. The action alleged that, from at least 1998 forward, the respondent, acting through one or more unregistered agents, solicited investors to purchase non-existent shares of Venture Investments - Aggressive Growth A and of Decatur Daniels Investments. The action also alleged that the respondent participated in a scheme whereby its agent used investor funds to benefit himself and his spouse, and that the respondent misrepresented to investors on their individual account summaries that their funds were invested in Venture Investments - Aggressive Growth A and Decatur Daniels Investments. In addition to conduct giving rise to a violation of the antifraud provisions of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, the Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine alleged that the respondent transacted business as an unregistered broker-dealer, and that the bogus investments were not registered under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act.

The respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing on the Order to Cease and Desist. A hearing on the Notice of Intent to Fine has been scheduled for September 19, 2001.

Broker-dealer Fined $30,000

On July 27, 2001, the Commissioner entered an Order Imposing Fine against Couch & Company, Incorporated, a broker-dealer located at 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1601, New York, New York. In fining the firm $30,000, the Commissioner found that (1) from at least June 1999, the firm had transacted business as a broker-dealer absent registration under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act and had employed unregistered agents; and (2) that the firm had filed a materially false or misleading document with the department concerning the scope of the firm's prior securities activities in Connecticut.

The respondent had been the subject of an April 2, 2001 Order to Cease and Desist that, being uncontested, became permanent on May 9, 2001.

Florida Firm Fined $20,000 for Unregistered Promissory Note Sales

On July 27, 2001, the Commissioner entered an Order Imposing Fine against ALumaLex, Inc. of 2900 S.W. 60th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. In fining the respondent $20,000, the Commissioner found that from at least April 1997, the respondent sold unregistered, non-exempt promissory notes to the Connecticut investing public through at least two unregistered agents of issuer in violation of Sections 36b-16 and 36b-6(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The respondent did not contest the imposition of the fine.

The respondent had been the subject of an April 20, 2001 Order to Cease and Desist which, being uncontested, became permanent on May 11, 2001.