On November 4, 2010, pursuant to Section 36a-428g of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner issued a license to Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. to establish and maintain a representative office at 600 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut.

Liberty Bank, a Connecticut-chartered mutual savings bank, and Connecticut River Community Bank, a Connecticut-chartered bank and trust company, filed a community reinvestment plan that is available for public inspection and comment at the Department of Banking for a period of 30 days.  The filing was made in connection with an application for the merger of Connecticut River Community Bank with and into Liberty Bank that was filed on September 7, 2010, pursuant to Section 36a-125 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and the acquisition statement for Liberty Bank to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Connecticut River Community Bank that was filed on September 7, 2010, pursuant to Section 36a-184 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

On November 3, 2010, pursuant to Section 1-225 of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 36a-70(i) of the Supplement to the General Statutes, a special meeting of the Banking Commissioner will be held for the purpose of considering the application of the organizers of Sachem Bank, Madison, Connecticut, for an extension of their Temporary Certificate of Authority to organize a bank and trust company.  The meeting is scheduled to be held on November 23, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. at the Department of Banking, Room 50, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

On November 1, 2010, the Commissioner determined that a petition for a declaratory ruling filed by Richard Marquette, Esq., on behalf of David Bradbury relating to the Commissioner’s denial of Mr. Bradbury’s application for a mortgage loan originator license did not constitute a valid petition under Section 36a-1-84 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies because the petition did not satisfy the form and content requirements prescribed by such regulation.

On October 27, 2010, the Commissioner issued an Order Revoking Mortgage Correspondent Lender License and Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”) in the Matter of:  American Mortgage Specialists, Inc. (“Respondent”).  The Order revokes Respondent’s license to engage in the business of a mortgage correspondent lender in Connecticut from 16100 N. Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 108, Scottsdale, Arizona, and orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.  The Order was based on Respondent’s failure to maintain a surety bond in violation of Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.

On October 27, 2010, the Commissioner issued an Order Revoking Mortgage Broker License and Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”) in the Matter of:  Candor Mortgage Corporation (“Respondent”).  The Order revokes Respondent’s license to act as a mortgage broker in Connecticut from 58 River Street, Milford, Connecticut, and orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.  The Order was based on Respondent’s failure to maintain a surety bond in violation of Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.

On October 27, 2010, the Commissioner issued an Order Revoking and Refusing to Renew Mortgage Correspondent Lender License and Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”) in the Matter of:  Namorex, LLC (“Respondent”).  The Order revokes and refuses to renew Respondent’s license to engage in the business of a mortgage correspondent lender in Connecticut from One Chalet Drive, Wilton, New Hampshire, which refusal to renew also causes Respondent’s mortgage correspondent lender license in Connecticut to be deemed expired.  The Order also orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.  The Order was based on Respondent’s failure to maintain a surety bond in violation of Section 36a-492 of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.

On October 27, 2010, the Commissioner issued an Order Revoking and Refusing to Renew Consumer Collection Agency License and Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”) in the Matter of:  LAP Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Checkcare (“Respondent”).  The Order revokes and refuses to renew Respondent’s license to act as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut from 4102 Cadillac Court, Louisville, Kentucky, and orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-802(a) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.  The Order was based on Respondent’s failure to maintain a surety bond in violation of Section 36a-802(a) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes.

On October 22, 2010, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Intent to Refuse to Renew Mortgage Lender License and Notice of Right to Hearing (“Notice”) in the Matter of:  Fairfield County Mortgage Group, Inc. d/b/a/ Fairfield Mortgage, Inc. (“Respondent”).  The Notice was amended and restated on November 2, 2010 (“Amended and Restated Notice”).  The Amended and Restated Notice alleged that Respondent’s failure to pay the fee required by Section 36a-491(a)(1) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes constitutes a failure to meet the minimum standards for renewal set forth in Section 36a 489(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes and constitutes sufficient grounds for the Commissioner to refuse to renew Respondent’s license to engage in the business of a mortgage lender in Connecticut from its office at 110 Prospect Street, Stamford, Connecticut (“Stamford Office”).  The Notice further alleged that Respondent’s repeated submission of insufficient payments, its ongoing failure to pay the fee required for renewal, and its historical pattern of submitting other payments returned for insufficient funds causes Respondent to fail to demonstrate that Respondent’s character and general fitness will “command the confidence of the community and to warrant a determination that the applicant will operate honestly, fairly and efficiently within the purposes of sections 36a-485 to 36a-498f, inclusive, and 36a-534a and 36a-534b”, which would be sufficient grounds for the Commissioner to deny an application for a mortgage lender license under Section 36a-489(a)(1)(C) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes, and constitutes an additional ground for the Commissioner to refuse to renew Respondent’s license for the Stamford Office.  Respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegations set forth in the Amended and Restated Notice.

On November 5, 2010, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (“Notice”) in the Matter of:  JHass Group, L.L.C. a/k/a J. Hass Group, LLC (“Respondent”).  The Notice alleged that Respondent’s offering to engage and engaging in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license constitutes violations of Section 36a-671(b) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes, which violations form the basis to issue an order to cease and desist and impose a civil penalty.  The Notice further alleged that Respondent’s entering into a service contract with a Connecticut resident and 274 debtors that did not comport with the requirements of Section 36a-671b(b) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes and the schedule of maximum fees established by the Commissioner pursuant to said section constitutes violations of Section 36a-671b(b) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes and forms a basis to issue an order to cease and desist and impose a civil penalty.  The Notice further alleged that Respondent made statements in a document filed with the Commissioner that were, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, false or misleading in a material respect in violation of Section 36a-53a of the Connecticut General Statutes, which violations form the basis to issue an order to cease and desist and impose a civil penalty.  The Commissioner also found that public welfare required the issuance of Temporary Order to Cease and Desist.  Respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegations set forth in the Notice.