Bulletin # 3089 - Week Ending May 5, 2023

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 business days from the date of this bulletin.

BANK ACTIVITY

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that certain applications for a branch or 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 may be submitted when such applications are filed and any plans that are filed will be made available for public inspection and comment at the Department for a period of 30 days. Questions concerning branch activity should be directed to the Financial Institutions Division at (860) 240-8180. 

DATE: May 5, 2023
BANK: Fairfield County Bank, Ridgefield 
LOCATION: 26 Mill Plain Rd, STE 1A, Danbury, CT 06811
ACTIVITY-BRANCH TYPE: Filed to Establish Full-Service Branch
PROPOSED OPENING DATE: July 2023

DATE: May 3, 2023
BANK: New Haven Bank, New Haven 
LOCATION: 636 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516
ACTIVITY-BRANCH TYPE: Approved to Establish Full-Service Branch
PROPOSED OPENING DATE: August 2023

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY

A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners, LLC (CRD No. 8361)

On May 3, 2023, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-23-202312-S) with A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners, LLC of 88 Post Road West, Westport, Connecticut. The firm is registered as a broker-dealer under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act.

The Stipulation and Agreement alleged that from approximately January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, the firm, through its broker-dealer agents, effected secondary market sales of PetroChina Co., Ltd., Spark Infrastructure Group, and Goldmoney, Inc. to eight Connecticut investors at a time when the securities were not registered as required by Section 36b-16 of the Act. The affected Connecticut investors no longer hold the securities, and the firm extended a $21,775.34 voluntary reimbursement offer to those investors who sold the securities at a loss.

In resolution of the matter, the firm agreed to refrain from violative conduct and to pay a $2,500 fine to the department.

Pratik KC a/k/a Pratik Chand KC

On May 3, 2023, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. CO-23-202135-S) with respect to Pratik KC a/k/a Pratik Chand KC of Mansfield Center, Connecticut.

The Consent Order alleged that, from approximately 2017 to 2021, the Respondent sold “Investment/Loan Agreement” securities to at least thirteen Connecticut investors, promising to invest the proceeds in a cryptocurrency or technology business the Respondent owned. The Respondent allegedly represented that investors would receive a minimum return on their investment and that investors could obtain a return of their funds upon request. Investors purportedly were not told that at least one earlier investor had sued the Respondent for failing to return a $10,000 investment. 

The Consent Order further alleged that the Respondent violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act as well as Section 36b-16 of the Act prohibiting the sale of unregistered securities.

The Consent Order permanently barred the Respondent from selling securities in or from Connecticut, transacting business in or from Connecticut as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser agent and acting in any other capacity requiring a license or registration with the Commissioner. Given the Respondent’s demonstrated inability to pay the $41,500 restitutionary amount and the $50,000 fine that otherwise would have been imposed against him, the Consent Order stayed the imposition of those amounts for three years, following which the fine, although not the order of restitution, would be waived if the Respondent remained unable to pay the fine.

Clipper Capital Group LLC, T&T Capital Partners LLC and Steven Alan Tavares (CRD No. 3102434)

On May 2, 2023, the Banking Commissioner issued an Amended and Restated Order to Cease and Desist, Amended and Restated Order to Make Restitution, Amended and Restated Notice of Intent to Fine and Amended and Restated Notice of Right to Hearing (No. CRF-22-202022-S) against Clipper Capital Group LLC of 6 Williams Street, Mystic, Connecticut 06355, T&T Capital Partners LLC of 735 Broad Street Extension, Waterford, Connecticut 06385, and Steven Alan Tavares, managing member and control person of Clipper Capital Group LLC and managing partner of T&T Capital Partners LLC.  Clipper Capital Group LLC was first formed for the purpose of buying, refurbishing and selling properties, and later transitioned into a lending business. T&T Capital Partners LLC was in the business of commercial lending, and Tavares was involved in “flipping” real estate and engaging in commercial lending.

The action had been preceded by an August 3, 2022 Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing against the respondents. The instant action amended and superseded the earlier Order and Notice.

As amended, the action alleged that Respondents violated Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by selling approximately $271,000 in unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes to investors in Connecticut and Florida. In addition, the action alleged that the Respondents violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4(a) of the Act by, among other things, 1) failing to disclose that the terms of the promissory notes could be unilaterally extended by Respondents without the affected investor's approval or consent; and 2) participating in a course of conduct resulting in the affected investors receiving inflated and misleading account statements concerning the value of the securities. The action also alleged that Tavares violated Section 36b-23 of the Act by making materially misleading statements or omissions to the agency in connection with a Division investigation.

The Respondents were afforded an opportunity to request a hearing on amended Order and Notice.