The Department of Banking News Bulletin

Bulletin # 2016
Week Ending October 11, 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 October 9, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-428a of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner issued a license to Fortis Bank S.A./N.V. to establish and maintain a state branch at 3 Stamford Plaza, 301 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut.

CONVERSION

On October 9, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-135 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended by Public Act 02-47, Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan Association, Naugatuck, Connecticut, filed an application to convert from a mutual savings and loan association into a mutual savings bank to be known as Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan, S.B.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY
Investment Adviser Fined $7,500 for
Unregistered Investment Adviser Agent Activity

On October 4, 2002, the Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement with New England Securities Corporation, an SEC-registered investment adviser located at 399 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The Stipulation and Agreement alleged that, since September 1997, the firm engaged unregistered investment adviser agents in contravention of Section 36b-6(c) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. In addition to fining the firm $7,500, the Stipulation and Agreement required that New England Securities Corporation review and modify its supervisory and compliance procedures relating to investment adviser agent registration and renewals.

Order Issued Providing Exemption from On-site Manager Requirement
for Branch Offices of Registered Broker-dealers and Investment Advisers

On October 4, 2002, the Commissioner issued an Order Exempting Registered Broker-dealers and Registered Investment Advisers from the Requirement that they Maintain an On-Site Manager at Each Connecticut Branch Office. The Order provided that, where a registered broker-dealer or registered investment adviser has implemented a system of adequate supervisory controls over its branch offices operations designed to ensure a level of oversight comparable to that which would exist had its manager been located on-site, the broker-dealer or investment adviser would be exempt from the requirement in Section 36b-31-6f(c)(3) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act Regulations that each Connecticut branch office be staffed by a manager located on the premises of the branch office on a full time basis. The Order added that such a system of adequate supervisory controls could include, without limitation, a computerized tracking system relating to branch office activity, designation of regional managers, and/or frequent visits to the location by an off-site manager. The Order also emphasized that 1) the general obligation of a registered broker-dealer or registered investment adviser to establish, enforce and maintain a system for supervising the activities of its agents, investment adviser agents and Connecticut office operations remained unaffected; and 2) on-site branch office supervision might still be necessary in cases where a firm's supervisory system exhibited deficiencies, or where a firm's business conduct or disciplinary record warranted that a higher level of supervision be imposed.