---

Date	Bank	Location	Activity
3/19/07	Fairfield County Bank Ridgefield	457 Main Street, Suite 3A Danbury, CT  06811	opening date

On March 23, 2007, pursuant to Section 36a-185 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner issued a notice of intent not to disapprove the acquisition by New England Bancshares, Inc., and New England Bancshares Acquisition, Inc., of 100 percent of the issued and outstanding voting securities of First Valley Bancorp, Inc.

On March 19, 2007, pursuant to Section 36a-70(i) of the Connecticut General Statutes, Higher One Bank (In Organization) received approval for an extension of the period of its Temporary Certificate of Authority from March 29, 2007 to July 31, 2007.

CONSUMER CREDIT DIVISION ACTIVITY

On March 21, 2007, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Energy Automation Systems, Inc. (“EASI”) of 145 Anderson Lane, Hendersonville, Tennessee.  The Consent Order alleged that from at least 2003, the corporation, through its representatives, including Joseph C. Merlo, its CEO, and Paul B. Bleiweis, its president, 1) sold unregistered energy conservation business opportunities to Connecticut purchaser-investors in violation of Sections 36b-67(1), 36b-62(a) and 36b-65(a) of the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act; 2) failed to provide Connecticut purchaser-investors with required disclosures in violation of Section 36b-63 of the Act; and 3) violated Section 36b-67(2) of the Act by making earnings claims without including documented substantiating data.  EASI maintained that it had relied upon the advice of counsel in preparing appropriate business opportunity registrations and/or disclosures for state purposes but that such counsel had never made such registration or disclosure in Connecticut.  The Consent Order acknowledged the corporation’s undertaking to file an application for business opportunity registration under the Act and not make additional sales of its energy conservation business opportunities in or from Connecticut until that registration was declared effective by the Commissioner.

The Consent Order fined EASI $25,000 and directed EASI, Bleiweis, Merlo, their agents, affiliates and successors in interest to cease and desist from regulatory violations.  In addition, the Consent Order directed EASI to extend a written rescission offer to each Connecticut purchaser-investor to whom EASI had sold a business opportunity from 2000 forward and who had not received restitution from EASI.  The amount of restitution to be paid to each purchaser-investor electing rescission would be determined via binding arbitration conducted in Connecticut under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.  The Consent Order also required that, for three years, EASI, Bleiweis and Merlo retain counsel familiar with the regulation of business opportunities to evaluate at least twice during each calendar year their respective compliance with the Act and the terms of the Consent Order.

On March 21, 2007, the Commissioner entered an Order Imposing Fine against Crystal Sky Enterprises, LLC of 238 Raritan Street, Keyport, New Jersey.  The Order Imposing Fine had been preceded by a November 21, 2006 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing alleging that the respondent sold unregistered securities consisting of promissory notes in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, and that the respondent’s managing member was not registered as an agent of issuer in violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act.  The note investment would finance the purchase of real property and the related redevelopment of a New Jersey former middle school building.  The November 21, 2006 action had also alleged that the respondent violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Act by failing to disclose in the issuer’s prospectus risk factors, financial information on the issuer and the work histories of the issuer’s managing members.  The prospectus represented that investors would receive a guaranteed 20 percent return if the real estate project, purportedly financed by commercial lenders, did not move forward to loan settlement and a guaranteed 100 percent return if loan settlement occurred.

In fining the respondent $300,000, the Commissioner found that the respondent had violated Sections 36b-16, 36b-6(b) and 36b-4(a) of the Act.  The respondent did not appear or contest the imposition of the fine.  The November 21, 2006 Order to Cease and Desist, also being uncontested, had became permanent on January 18, 2007.

       Dated:  Tuesday, March 27, 2007