The issue is whether Guy Stewart, as author of a private placement memorandum for an offering of preferred stock in an entity known as Hemisphere Capital Limited, should be disciplined through the imposition of a fine and an order to cease and desist from violations of the Florida Securities Code for failure to make a disclosure in the private placement memorandum which the department contends was necessary in order to make the memorandum not misleading to potential investors.Omitted disclosure in private placement memorandum not material failure to disclose that would subject author to discipline.

The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondents, David P. Piccoli and First Freedom Mortgage Corporation, committed multiple acts in violation of applicable statutes and administrative rules, the nature and extent of any penalties that should be imposed if one or more of the alleged acts were committed, and whether the application for registration as a mortgage brokerage business by Respondent, First Freedom Mortgage Bankers, Inc., should be denied.Mortgage broker who recorded mortgage prior to availability of funds, failed to pay commission to another broker and failed to disclose costs to customer should be fined and supended.

The issue is whether Gerald N. Capps is entitled to receive the proceeds from a cashier's check drawn on Merchants Bank of Florida on the amount of $400.00 which had been forwarded to the Comptroller as abandoned property.Evidence insufficient to establish Petitioner's entitlement to funds held by Comptroller.

The issue is whether Stephen J. Avrach is entitled to receive the proceeds from checks in the amounts of $30.00 issued by Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., and $416.00 from First Union Bank, both of which have been forwarded to the Comptroller as abandoned property.Evidence sufficient to establish Petitioner's entitlement to funds held by Comptroller.

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents' mortgage brokerage licenses for the reasons set forth in the Order to Cease and Desist, Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights filed by Petitioner on January 18, 1989 (the "Administrative Complaint".) The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondents violated the following statutory and rule provisions: Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by charging borrowers closing costs that were in excess of the actual amount incurred by the mortgagor; Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D- 40.008(9), Florida Administrative Code, by charging excess brokerage fees; Section 494.055(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by engaging in deceit, misrepresentation, negligence or incompetence in mortgage financing transactions and for breach of the fiduciary duty of a broker as a result of the manner in which escrow accounts were handled; Section 494.055(1)(h), Florida Statutes, due to the misuse, misapplication or misappropriation of funds, mortgage documents or other property entrusted to Respondents as a result of the excess charges assessed to borrowers and the misuse of monies in the escrow accounts; Rule 3D- 40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to maintain trust, servicing and escrow account records in accordance with good accounting practices; and Section 494.0393(2), Florida Statutes by failing to operate the company under the full charge, control and supervision of a principle who is a licensed mortgage broker.Mortgage broker improperly charged for credit reports done in-house; no authority to charge overhead costs to custmers; fail to keep escrow funds in accord with account principles.