The Department of Banking News Bulletin

Bulletin # 1979
Week Ending January 25, 2002

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.

BRANCH ACTIVITY
State Bank

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.

MAIN OFFICE RELOCATION

On January 24, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-81 of the Connecticut General Statutes, The North American Bank and Trust Company filed an application to relocate its main office from 1151 Stratford Avenue, Stratford, Connecticut, to 132 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut.

MONEY ORDER AND TRAVELERS CHECK LICENSE ACTIVITY

On January 24, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-600 of the Connecticut General Statutes, Savings Institute applied for approval to engage in the business of money transmission.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY
Investment Adviser Assessed $2,150 for
Investment Advisory Notice Filing Delinquency

On January 22, 2002, the Commissioner executed a Stipulation and Agreement with respect to AFA Management Partners, L.P., an SEC-regulated investment adviser located at 289 Greenwich Avenue, Second Floor, Greenwich, Connecticut. The Stipulation and Agreement alleged that from February 23, 2000, when AFA Management Partners, L.P. became subject to SEC regulation, until March 30, 2001, when a notice filing was made with the department, the firm failed to make the investment advisory notice filing required by Section 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act.

In entering into the Stipulation and Agreement, the Commissioner acknowledged that the firm had retained legal counsel to advise it concerning compliance with state notice filing requirements. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement, the firm agreed to 1) review, revise and implement such supervisory and compliance procedures as were necessary to ensure compliance with state notice filing requirements; and 2) remit $2,150 to the department, $2,000 of which constituted an administrative fine and $150 of which represented reimbursement for past due notice filing fees.

Middlefield Man Permanently Barred From Securities Business
Following Unregistered Promissory Note Sales

On January 25, 2002, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Paul A. Golub of Middlefield, Connecticut. The Consent Order obviated the need for a hearing on the Commissioner's October 9, 2001 Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine issued against the respondent. In entering the Consent Order, the Commissioner found that the respondent sold unregistered non-exempt promissory notes of Lifeblood Biomedical, Inc., Canko Environmental Technologies, Inc., Ameritech Petroleum, Inc. and ALumaLex, Inc. f/k/a Auto Shutter, Inc. in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act and without registering as an agent of the issuers under the Act. In addition, the Commissioner found that the respondent violated the Act by selling unregistered non-exempt shares of Palm Beach Investment Group, Inc. preferred stock in Connecticut; by transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer in connection with the preferred stock sales; and by employing unregistered broker-dealer agents.

The Consent Order permanently barred the respondent from transacting business as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser agent in Connecticut. In addition, the Consent Order provided that the October 9, 2001 Order to Cease and Desist would be made permanent as of January 25, 2002.

Two Oregon Firms Ordered to Cease and Desist from
Regulatory Violations in Connection with Payphone Investment Sales

On January 25, 2002, the Commissioner entered an Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Right to Hearing against Alpha Telcom, Inc. of 2751 Highland Avenue, Grants Pass, Oregon and 1905 Washington Boulevard, Grants Pass, Oregon. Also named in the action was American Telecommunications Company, Inc. of 942 S.W. Sixth Street, Suite G, Grants Pass, Oregon. On August 27, 2001, a temporary receiver had been appointed for both respondents by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

In issuing the Order to Cease and Desist, the Commissioner alleged that Paul Rubera owned Alpha Telcom, Inc. and was the previous owner of American Telecommunications Company, Inc. The action claimed that from at least May 1999 forward, American Telecommunications Company, Inc. sold payphones to Connecticut investors, with Alpha Telcom, Inc. providing the accompanying payphone service contracts. The investments were allegedly not registered under Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. Connecticut residents purportedly invested approximately $2,960,000 in the venture. The venture also featured guaranteed returns and a buy back program purportedly insured by Northern & Western Insurance Company, an off-shore corporation controlled by Rubera, and reinsured by Lloyd's of London. The Order to Cease and Desist claimed that investors received no monthly revenue payments; that the respondents failed to honor the buy back program; that Northern & Western Insurance Company failed to honor the buy back program insurance; that Lloyd's of London never issued a reinsurance policy; and that the respondents had mislead investors by failing to disclose Rubera's insider status; the respondents' disciplinary record; the respondents' financial inability to honor the buy back program; and the investment's attendant risks.

The respondents were afforded an opportunity to request a hearing on the Order to Cease and Desist.