Bulletin # 2736 - Week Ending July 29, 2016

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 Jorge L. Perez, Banking Commissioner, Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103-1800.  Written comments will be considered only if they are received within ten days from the date of this bulletin.

CONSUMER CREDIT DIVISION ACTIVITY

Consent Order

On July 21, 2016, the Commissioner issued a Consent Order against iServe Residential Lending, LLC (NMLS # 2914) (“iServe”), San Diego, California.  The Consent Order was based on an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  As a result of such investigation, the Commissioner alleged that from January 2015 to April 2016 iServe acted as a mortgage servicer while neither licensed nor exempt from licensure, in violation of Section 36a-718 of the 2016 Supplement to the General Statutes.  To resolve the matter alleged, iServe provided the supplemental mortgage servicer surety bond, fidelity bond and errors and omissions coverage required pursuant to Section 36a-719c of the 2016 Supplement to the General Statutes and paid a civil penalty of $10,000.

Order Revoking Consumer Collection Agency License and Order to Cease and Desist

On July 21, 2016, the Commissioner issued an Order Revoking Consumer Collection Agency License and Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”) in the Matter of:  Vision Financial Corp (NMLS # 1152004) (“Respondent”), St Louis, Missouri.  The Order was based on Respondent’s failure to maintain a surety bond that runs concurrently with the period of its consumer collection agency license, in violation of Section 36a-802(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  The Order revokes Respondent’s license to act as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut from 11960 Westline Industrial Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, and orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-802(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY

Order denying registration as investment adviser and fines issued

On July 27, 2016, the Banking Commissioner entered an Order denying the registration of Robert Neil Tricarico as an investment adviser agent of Harbor Vista Wealth Management LLC (IARD No. 174937) and fining Tricarico $100,000.  On the same day, the Commissioner levied a $100,000 fine against RNT Wealth Management LLC, an entity controlled by Tricarico.  RNT Wealth Management is located in Darien, Connecticut.

Tricarico and RNT Wealth Management LLC were co-respondents in an April 22, 2016 action brought by the Commissioner 1) ordering the respondents to cease and desist from regulatory violations and to make restitution; 2) seeking to deny Tricarico’s investment adviser agent registration,  and 3) seeking the imposition of a fine against each respondent (Docket No. NDCDRF-16-8200-S).  The April 22, 2016 action stated that, on November 21, 2014, the executrix of a client’s estate had filed a civil complaint against Tricarico in Connecticut Superior Court (Moore v. Tricarico, Docket No. FBT-CV14-6046911-S) alleging that Tricarico had misappropriated over $1 million from the decedent while Tricarico was associated with Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC and LPL Financial LLC.  The civil suit was ultimately settled and withdrawn in April 2015.  Before the civil suit was settled, and in conjunction with a department investigation, Tricarico allegedly made false statements to the Division concerning the sums appropriated.  The April 22, 2016 action alleged that such statements violated Section 36b-23 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, and that Tricarico knew the statements were false because he was personally involved in transferring funds from the client's accounts to himself directly and through RNT Wealth Management LLC, an entity he controlled.

In addition, the April 22, 2016 action had alleged that, in the spring of 2015, Tricarico and RNT Wealth Management LLC violated Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by offering and selling unregistered promissory notes issued by RNT Wealth Management LLC to at least five of Tricarico’s  ex-broker-dealer clients.  The notes guaranteed a ten percent return.  Despite the purportedly guaranteed nature of the notes, RNT Wealth Management LLC and Tricarico failed to make any payments to investors.  The action also alleged that the respondents violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4(a) of the Act by failing to provide investors with any offering document or other written disclosure describing the investment’s risks, the registration status of the securities or the fact that RNT Wealth Management LLC and Tricarico lacked funds to make payments on the notes.  In addition, in violation of Section 36b-6 of the Act, Tricarico allegedly transacted business as an unregistered agent of issuer, and RNT Wealth Management LLC unlawfully employed him in that unregistered capacity.  The action was also based on Tricarico’s allegedly misleading responses to certain form filings, responses which violated Section 36b-23 of the Act and 36b-31-14e(a) of the Regulations thereunder.  Specifically, the responses concerned 1) a February 24, 2015 FINRA suspension for failing to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information regarding the status of compliance (Case No. 10-00920); and 2) an April 30, 2015 FINRA bar (Case No. 2014043719001) for failing to provide information requested by FINRA during a FINRA investigation into whether Tricarico converted customer funds.

Since neither Robert Neil Tricarico nor RNT Wealth Management LLC requested a hearing, the allegations were deemed admitted and the Order to Cease and Desist and Order to Make Restitution became permanent as to each of them on May 26, 2016 and May 10, 2016, respectively.

The Commissioner fined each respondent $100,000 and directed that payment be made within forty-five days.  The Commissioner also ordered that Tricarico’s investment adviser agent registration be denied effective July 27, 2016.

Order Denying Registration as Investment Adviser and Order Imposing Fine Issued

On July 27, 2016, the Banking Commissioner entered an Order Denying Registration as an Investment Adviser and Order Imposing Fine (Docket No. NDCD-16-8295-S) against Harbor Vista Wealth Management LLC of Stamford, Connecticut.  The firm had been the subject of an April 22, 2016 Notice of Intent to Deny Registration as an Investment Adviser, Order Denying Withdrawal of Registration as an Investment Adviser, Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine.   The Order to Cease and Desist, being uncontested, had become permanent on May 11, 2016.

The April 22, 2016 action had been based on the firm’s allegedly misleading responses to certain form filings concerning one Robert Neil Tricarico (CRD No. 1500863) whom the firm identified as an advisory affiliate.  Tricarico had been the subject of 1) a February 24, 2015 FINRA suspension for failing to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information regarding the status of compliance (Case No. 10-00920); and 2) an April 30, 2015 FINRA bar (Case No. 2014043719001) for failing to provide information requested by FINRA during a FINRA investigation into whether Tricarico converted customer funds.  More specifically, the April 22, 2016 action alleged that Harbor Vista Wealth Management LLC violated 1) Section 36b-23 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by making a materially false or misleading statement in a document filed with the Commissioner; and 2) Section 36b-31-14e(a) of the Regulations under the Act by failing to promptly file a correcting amendment.

Harbor Vista Wealth Management LLC did not request a hearing on the allegations in the April 22, 2016 action.  As a result, the allegations were deemed admitted and the Commissioner adopted as findings the allegations in the April 22, 2016 action, determining that the firm violated Section 36b-23 of the Act and Section 36b-31-14e(a) of the Regulations.