---

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires certain applications for a branch, or for a limited branch at which loans will be made, address how the establishment of the branch will be consistent with safe and sound banking practices and promote the public convenience and advantage.  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 Financial Institutions Division, (860) 240-8180.

Date	Bank	Location	Activity-Branch Type
5/19/17	United Bank Rockville	FROM:  115 State Street            Springfield, MA  01144 TO:      One Monarch Place            Springfield, MA  01144	Approved to Relocate- Full Service Branch

On May 19, 2017, pursuant to Section 36a-434a of the Connecticut General Statutes, approval was granted to State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, a Massachusetts-chartered limited purpose trust company, for the establishment of a trust office to be located at 1600 Summer Street, Stamford, Connecticut, to act as a fiduciary and engage in trust business.

On May 9, 2017, the Commissioner issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (“Order”) in the Matter of:  Evans Law Associates, P.C. a/k/a Evans Law Associates, PLLC a/k/a Evans Law Associates, ELLC (“Evans Law”) and Jason J. Evans (“Jason Evans”), both of Williamsville, New York.  The Order was the result of an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division and an administrative hearing on the matters alleged in a Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice to Right of Hearing issued against Evans Law and Jason Evans on October 20, 2016.  In the Order, the Commissioner found that Evans Law and Jason Evans acted as consumer collection agencies in Connecticut without consumer collection agency licenses, in violation of Section 36a-801(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  Evans Law and Jason Evans were each ordered to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-801(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes and to each pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000.

On May 15, 2017, the Banking Commissioner issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Registrations as a Broker-dealer Agent and an Investment Adviser Agent, Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing (Docket No. NDCDF-17-8218-S) with respect to James Albert Pettit.  The respondent was previously associated with Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC as a broker-dealer agent and an investment adviser agent.  The action alleged that the respondent engaged in certain improprieties rising to the level of dishonest or unethical practices in the securities business.  These included 1) borrowing money from an account carried for a brokerage customer without the customer’s prior consent and without notice to Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC; 2) borrowing money from an advisory client of Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC; and 3) engaging in outside business activity involving a firm client absent notice to his employing firm.  The action also alleged that the respondent engaged in self-dealing in conjunction with a power of attorney he held over the account of an elderly client, since deceased.  The respondent allegedly failed to obtain firm approval prior to accepting the power of attorney and wrote checks to himself as remuneration, notwithstanding that the power of attorney did not provide for compensation.  Following the client’s death, the respondent allegedly paid himself $69,000 for acting as executor of the client’s estate.  Ultimately, the probate court denied all but $10,000 of the executor’s fees.  The action also alleged that the respondent violated Section 36b-23 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by failing to provide the agency with accurate information concerning accounts over which he had signatory authority.  In addition, the respondent allegedly violated Section 36b-31-14e of the Regulations under the Act by failing to amend his registration filings to disclose the existence of several tax liens.
Respondent Pettit was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing on the allegations in the action.