The Department of Banking News Bulletin 

 Bulletin # 2004
Week Ending July 19, 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 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.

On July 17, 2002, the Commissioner entered two orders imposing fine against Oxford-Dundee, Inc. and East Norwich Foreign Holding Corporation, both of 59 Broad Street, Stamford, Connecticut. Both entities had been the subject of an April 29, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing. The Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine had alleged that, from at least January 2000 forward, the respondents sold unregistered non-exempt securities in the form of contracts on foreign currencies (also known as FOREX investments) in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act and, in so doing, transacted business as unregistered broker-dealers in violation of Section 36b-6(a) of the Act. In addition, the Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine had claimed that the respondents violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Act by, among other things, failing to disclose to customers the existence or amount of commissions associated with the transactions; falsely representing to at least one customer that the customer's funds would be insured; falsely representing that the respondents would issue computer generated stop loss orders making the investments low risk; failing to disclose the relationship between the respondents and their various clearing firms; and mailing monthly statements to customers that did not accurately reflect the accounts' true status and transactional history. Since neither respondent had requested a hearing on the Order to Cease and Desist, the Order to Cease and Desist had become permanent as to each respondent on June 19, 2002.

In fining each entity $30,000, the Commissioner found that each respondent had committed one violation of Section 36b-4 of the Act, one violation of Section 36b-6(a) of the Act and one violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act. Neither respondent appeared at the hearing preceding imposition of the fines.