The Department of Banking News Bulletin

Bulletin # 2039
Week Ending March 21, 2003

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

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.

State Bank Activity

MAIN OFFICE RELOCATION

Bulletin #2038, for the week ending March 14, 2003, listed the March 12, 2003 filing by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Connecticut Ltd as an application to relocate a branch from One Fawcett Place, 3rd Floor, Greenwich, CT, to One Pickwick Plaza, 3rd Floor, Greenwich, CT. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Connecticut Ltd has clarified the application as a request for approval to relocate its main office.

NEW BANK ACTIVITY
Order for Hearing

Pursuant to Section 36a-70 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner has ordered a hearing to be held on April 7, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 50 of the Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut, on the application of The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Connecticut, for the purpose of doing business as a Connecticut bank.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION
Hartford Firm Permanently Barred from Securities Activity
in Connecticut; Order to Cease and Desist Made Permanent

On March 17, 2003, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Foundation Worldwide, Inc. of 151 New Park Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The Consent Order had been preceded by a November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing alleging that, from at least April 2002 forward, Foundation Worldwide, Inc. conducted an unregistered common stock offering through its Internet website at www.foundationworldwide.com in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The action had also alleged that the respondent violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Act by falsely representing on the respondent's web site that: 1) the respondent's directors had major portions of their net worth invested in the respondent at a time when the respondent had no directors and only one investor; 2) the respondent had long-term shareholders at a time when it had only one shareholder; 3) the respondent had undistributed earnings, when the respondent never had any earnings; 4) the respondent's common stock had a book value of $5.47 per share and a market value of $12 per share, when, in actuality, the shares had no value; 5) the respondent had income from its businesses, when in fact those businesses had never generated income; and 6) the respondent was a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities, when none of those subsidiaries had clients nor had they generated income. In addition, the action claimed that the respondent, through an employee, posted on an Internet message board that the respondent had a 63% return on equity for 2001 when in actuality the respondent had no earnings during that period and its return on equity was zero. The March 17, 2003 Consent Order resolved the allegations in the November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine. Acknowledging that the respondent had demonstrated in writing its inability to pay the administrative fine sought by the Commissioner, the Consent Order permanently barred the respondent from acting as a broker-dealer, issuer or investment adviser in Connecticut and from selling a "business opportunity" as defined in the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act. In addition, the Consent Order rendered the November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist permanent as of March 17, 2003 and withdrew the Notice of Intent to Fine.

Hartford Man Barred from Securities Activity in Connecticut
for Five Years; Order to Cease and Desist Made Permanent

On March 17, 2003, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Germaine Ryan of 22 Morris Street, #302, Hartford, Connecticut. Respondent Ryan had been the subject of a November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing alleging that, from at least April 2002 forward, respondent Ryan, acting on behalf of Foundation Worldwide, Inc., created and posted a multi-paged Internet website offering unregistered common stock to the public in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The action had also alleged that the respondent violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Act by falsely representing on the web site that: 1) the Foundation Worldwide, Inc.'s directors had major portions of their net worth invested in the corporation at a time when the corporation had no directors and only one investor; 2) Foundation Worldwide, Inc. had long-term shareholders at a time when it had only one shareholder; 3) Foundation Worldwide, Inc. had undistributed earnings, when it never had any earnings; 4) Foundation Worldwide, Inc.'s common stock had a book value of $5.47 per share and a market value of $12 per share, when, in actuality, the shares had no value; 5) Foundation Worldwide, Inc. had income from its businesses, when in fact those businesses had never generated income; and 6) Foundation Worldwide, Inc. was a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities, when none of those subsidiaries had clients nor had they generated income. In addition, the action had claimed that the respondent posted on an Internet message board that Foundation Worldwide, Inc. had a 63% return on equity for 2001 when in actuality the corporation had no earnings during that period and its return on equity was zero. The March 17, 2003 Consent Order resolved the allegations in the November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine. Acknowledging that the respondent had demonstrated in writing his inability to pay the administrative fine sought by the Commissioner, the Consent Order barred the respondent for five years from acting as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser agent in Connecticut and from selling a "business opportunity" as defined in the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act. In addition, the Consent Order rendered the November 22, 2002 Order to Cease and Desist permanent as of March 17, 2003 and withdrew the Notice of Intent to Fine.

Waterbury Partnership Ordered to Cease and Desist From
Regulatory Violations; Notice of Intent to Fine Issued

On March 18, 2003, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing against The Marketrack Investment Club, a partnership whose last known address is P.O. Box 11303, Waterbury, Connecticut. The action alleged that from at least November 2000 forward, The Marketrack Investment Club sold unregistered, non-exempt partnership units to at least 86 investors through its Internet website in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The action also alleged that bThe Marketrack Investment Club violated Section 36b-6(b) of the Act by employing one Karl Ramonas, its general partner, as an unregistered agent of issuer. The action also claimed that the respondent violated the antifraud provisions of the Act by: 1) falsely representing to investors that their funds would be invested in securities for the benefit of the partners when, in reality, such funds were never so invested, and at least $94,500 in investor monies were used by Karl Ramonas to cover his personal expenses; and 2) failing to disclose that there had been a material change in the number of partnership units available to the investing public and the maximum number of partners allowable under the partnership agreements.

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 May 6, 2003.

Plymouth Man Ordered to Cease and Desist From
Regulatory Violations; Notice of Intent to Fine Issued

On March 18, 2003, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing against Karl Ramonas, now or formerly of 69 Morris Street, Naugatuck, Connecticut and 23 Schroback Road, Plymouth, Connecticut. Respondent Ramonas was the sole general partner of The Marketrack Investment Club, a partnership whose last known address is P.O. Box 11303, Waterbury, Connecticut. The Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine claimed that from at least November 2000 forward, respondent Ramonas sold unregistered, non-exempt partnership units in The Marketrack Investment Club to at least 86 investors through the issuer's Internet website in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The action also alleged that respondent Ramonas violated Section 36b-6(a) of the Act by transacting business as an unregistered agent of issuer. In addition, the action also claimed that the respondent violated the antifraud provisions of the Act by 1) falsely representing to investors that their funds would be invested in securities for the benefit of the partners when, in reality, such funds were never so invested, and at least $94,500 in investor monies were used by respondent Ramonas to cover his personal expenses; and 2) failing to disclose that there had been a material change in the number of partnership units available to the investing public and the maximum number of partners allowable under the partnership agreements.

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 May 6, 2003.