STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND ) FINANCE, DIVISION OF SECURITIES ) AND INVESTOR PROTECTION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6698
)
DAVID C. WILEY, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Veronica E. Donnelly, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on May 10, 1990, in Fort Myers, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire
Office of the Comptroller
400 West Robinson Street Suite 501
Orlando, Florida 32801
For Respondent: David C. Wiley, pro se
2701 Cleveland Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33902 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Respondent's license as an investment broker should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined, based upon the alleged violations set forth in the Amended Administrative Charges and Complaint.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 3, 1989, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (the Department) issued a Cease and Desist Order and a multi-count Administrative Complaint against multiple Respondents including the Respondent, David C. Wiley (Wiley). A formal administrative hearing was requested only by Respondent Wiley. Therefore, the formal hearing related only to the charges directed towards him in the administrative complaint. The complaint was amended on May 4, 1990, pursuant to the administrative order granting the Department's Motion to Amend. By way of these charging documents, the Department seeks to revoke Respondent's registration as an associated person of Investment Bankers, to impose an
administrative fine for alleged violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and to prevent further violations through the Cease and Desist Order. Essentially, the Respondent has been charged with the following violations: failure to inform the Department of the National Association of Securities Dealers' administrative action against him; transacting business as an investment adviser without proper licensure; coercing and fraudulently inducing investor clients into subscribing to Trend TRAC, a mutual funds management service which is not registered as an investment adviser in Florida; selling convertible subordinated debentures in Invest America without informing the client of the numerous regulatory actions filed against the company or providing a prospectus; falsifying information on a subscription agreement in order to improperly qualify an investor in a limited partnership; making unsuitable recommendations to clients as to high risk investments; and selling nonexempt, unregistered securities.
The Respondent disputes the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. On October 23, 1989, Respondent amended his prior request for a hearing and requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings.
During the hearing, the Department presented four live witnesses and two additional witnesses through the use of depositions. Petitioner's Exhibits #1 - #28, which includes the two depositions, were accepted into evidence.
Petitioner's Exhibit #29 was rejected as being irrelevant to these proceedings. The Respondent called one witness and testified in his own behalf. Respondent's Exhibits #1 - #11, #14, #16 and #17 were admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibits #12, #13 and #15 were rejected as being irrelevant and without probative value.
Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the Department. Rulings on the proposed findings are in the Appendix of the Recommended Order. The Respondent filed a written closing argument which was read by the Hearing Officer prior to the preparation of the Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background
Invest America, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its home offices in California. The company offers and sells franchises for the operation of a financial planning business. Through the franchise agreement, financial planners become part of a nationwide network of financial planners and have access to products and services endorsed by Invest America, Inc. and made available to the franchisees. In addition, holders of a franchise receive invitations to seminars conducted by Invest America, Inc. and the benefit of nationwide advertisements printed and broadcast by Invest America, Inc. Besides the payment of a franchise fee, the financial planners are required to use only the services and products endorsed or specifically approved by the company.
Invest America, Inc. has never been registered with the Department to provide investment advice in this state.
Dunwoody Securities Corporation d/b/a Investment Brokers of America, Inc. (IBA) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invest America, Inc. with interlocking officers and directors. The company conducts retail stock
brokerage activities and engages in the private placement of limited partnership interests and certain other securities as well as mutual funds investments. IBA conducts its trading activities solely as an agent on behalf of its clients.
At all times material to these proceedings, IBA was a registered broker-dealer with a limited license to sell securities in Florida. IBA was never registered to provide investment advice because that was not one of its functions within the network designed by Invest America, Inc. The network made the financial planners who had franchises with Invest America, Inc. responsible for the marketing and sale of the securities. IBA's activities were limited to
the trading of those securities as the broker-dealer the financial planners were required to use.
From August 1, 1986 to August 26, 1988, Respondent Wiley was registered as an agent for IBA in Florida. The registration provided that Respondent Wiley was a limited broker-dealer and would not be giving investment advice.
Although Respondent Wiley did not hold a franchise with Invest America, Inc., he did receive their mailouts, including invitations to local, state, and national seminars. He received these materials because he was in the general lines insurance business in addition to his work with IBA. From December 1984 to September 1987, Invest America, Inc. sent its materials to financial planners and insurance agents at no cost in order to get this sales force to promote the services of its related businesses such as IBA, and to interest them in the purchase of a franchise and the subsequent renewals. It was not until January 1988 that the company began offering network membership to franchisees for a
$500 fee plus a $100 monthly membership charge. Before that date, there was no charge for the franchise. The franchisees were only required to have the necessary licenses to give financial planning advice. The Respondent did not have the prerequisite licenses.
Activities Of Respondent Wiley During His Introduction To The Broker-Dealer Business
At the same time Respondent Wiley was a broker-dealer, he continued his involvement in the sale of insurance in a general lines agency. Because both businesses were managed from the same location, clients who sought advice on the proper insurance policies for their needs began to seek his advice on security investments. Likewise, the Respondent would volunteer his knowledge in the investment area to his long-standing insurance clients.
When Respondent Wiley advised these clients to invest in products and services endorsed by Invest America, Inc., he would use his own services as an agent of IBA to buy and sell the securities. This practice enabled him to get more commissions than he would have had as a broker-dealer who did not solicit clients. The combination of his insurance business with the investment broker business allowed him to deprive Invest America, Inc. of the commission fee the company should have received from a financial planner who recommended its products and services. In addition, it relieved the Respondent of the need to pass the licensing examinations offered by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) that were required of franchise holders. Although this practice was convenient for the Respondent, it was dishonest because it violated the rules regarding the demarcation between financial planners and investment brokers within the securities industry.
NASD Disciplinary Action
In his duties as a broker-dealer with IBA, the Respondent began to accept funds from purportedly public customers for the purchase of shares in the Putnam High Income Government Trust and the AMCAP Fund in August of 1986.
During these transactions from August 1986 through December 1986, the funds were placed into checking accounts controlled by Respondent Wiley contrary to the record and bookkeeping requirements set forth in the Rules of Fair Practice promulgated by NASD. An enforcement action was filed by the NASD to discipline the Respondent for these rule violations on July 30, 1987.
Respondent's Failure To Keep The Department Apprised Of The Status Of The NASD Disciplinary Action
The Respondent did not inform the Department of the disciplinary action until he submitted an application for registration as an associated person of American Investors Group, Inc. after August of 1988. On September 20, 1988, the Department referred Respondent to the Department's rule which requires a registrant to keep the Department informed of such proceedings. The Respondent was advised in writing that he needed to keep the Department apprised of any change in status of the pending proceeding.
On September 29, 1988, the appeal decision was filed by the NASD Board of Governors. The Respondent failed to inform the Department of the decision with its accompanying censure and fine even though he had been reminded of that requirement nine days earlier.
The Evolvement Of Respondent's Practice From A Broker-Dealer to Financial Planner
While it is unknown how many clients Respondent Wiley gave investment advice to in addition to his broker-dealer services, evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that he was selling securities and holding himself out to the public as a Licensed Financial Planner in Florida from March 26, 1987 through October 30, 1987. A search of the Department's records during this time period reveal that he was not registered in Florida to give financial advice regarding the purchase of securities. In spite of his lack of registration, the Respondent was conducting seminars, sending direct mailings to clients, and airing radio commercials.
On June 12, 1987, the Respondent began to misrepresent to Protect America, Inc., a mutual fund monitoring and investment management service, that he was a financial adviser with Invest America, Inc.
The Respondent benefited from this misrepresentation in that it enabled him to purchase Trend TRAC, a mutual fund management program, for some of his clients he had persuaded to purchase mutual funds as opposed to the lower risk certificates of deposit they had traditionally purchased. The mutual funds recommended to the clients were endorsed by Invest America, Inc. and were purchased through Respondent's position as a broker-dealer with IBA. Three former clients testified at hearing that they would not have purchased the mutual funds but for Respondent's representation that their additional purchase of Trend TRAC would protect them from the usual risks associated with stock market investments. It was explained to each of them that Trend TRAC is a form of "insurance" designed to protect their principal investments. One client was told the Trend TRAC purchase was an insurance that would secure the principal she had in the mutual funds. Another client was told Trend TRAC was the same thing as the deposit insurance maintained by banks. It was the same thing with
a different name. The third client was told Trend TRAC would monitor his mutual funds account and prevent him from suffering more than a three percent loss.
All three clients were old enough to have directly experienced some of the effects of the Great Depression which followed the stock market crash. They explained that they would not have purchased the mutual funds if the risk to their principal had not been removed by the purchase of Trend TRAC.
According to the fee disclosure statements given to the clients who purchased Trend TRAC, Protect America, Inc. explained that the service was sold through Invest America, Inc. Ordinarily, this meant that the company Invest America, Inc. and its franchise holder would get forty percent of the fees paid by the client to Protect America, Inc. It is unknown if Protect America, Inc. received a commission from the sales of Trend TRAC made by Respondent Wiley. It is also unknown whether he received a commission as the investment broker for the correlative purchase of the mutual funds that he had induced the clients to purchase by supposedly minimizing their investment risks with Trend TRAC.
Trend TRAC was a computer-based mutual fund management program which was designed to transfer funds from one mutual fund investment to another when it appeared to the manager that another mutual fund was performing better than the previous selection. The service agreement, which was given to the previously mentioned clients by Respondent Wiley, represented that no specific investment result was guaranteed, and under some market conditions, the investor would experience a loss of capital.
The clients who invested in Trend TRAC upon Respondent Wiley's advice each lost a substantial amount of retirement funds that they have been unable to recover.
It is unknown whether Respondent Wiley received commission money for the investment advice he provided to clients when he began to hold himself out as an investment adviser.
The Selling Of Shares In Investment Brokers of America, Inc.
On October 5, 1987, Respondent Wiley advised one of his clients to whom he gave investment advice to purchase stock in Investment Brokers of America, Inc. A subscription agreement was signed on the same date, and a purchase of 4,000 shares was made for $10,000.00.
The shares were not registered with the Department nor were they lawfully exempt from such registration.
The investor was not given a prospectus or any information beyond the subscription agreement.
Falsification Of Information On A Subscription Agreement For Energy Vault III, Ltd.
On October 30, 1987, Respondent Wiley held himself out as a financial adviser and gave investment advice to a client for the purchase of a limited partnership known as Energy Vault III, Ltd. for $11,322.00.
In order to invest in the venture, the investor had to represent that he was experienced in investment matters and understood the financial hazards involved in the investment. It was also required that the investor represent that he could financially sustain the loss of the investment and the lack of liquidity.
A questionnaire accompanied the subscription agreement. The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide more information about the investor. This would allow the General Partner to determine if the subscription should be accepted.
Some of the information placed on the questionnaire by Respondent Wiley was either false or misleading in that it suggested that the investor was better able to assume the risks of such a speculative investment.
Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
The three investors who purchased mutual funds and Trend TRAC upon Respondent Wiley's advice were investing retirement funds. The investors had represented that they were unable to enter into investments that would reduce their principal. In spite of these requirements, the Respondent recommended their money be placed in ventures that could reduce their principal.
One of the investors purchased highly speculative stock in Investment Brokers of America and a limited partnership in a high risk business venture that stored oil in an underground vault with retirement funds, based upon Respondent Wiley's advice.
I. Mitigation
Respondent Wiley is no longer in the investment brokerage business.
The Respondent suffered financial losses from making the same investments that he recommended to others. He has not recovered from these losses and is unable to pay large administrative penalties if they are imposed in these proceedings.
Respondent Wiley was acting alone from his small business known as Arlington Insurance and Financial Services. He was not part of a large scheme to defraud investors. His misconduct was not sanctioned by Invest America, Inc., Protect America, Inc. or Investment Brokers of America, Inc.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
In a proceeding to revoke certification and discipline the Respondent, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, has the burden of proof, and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
The charging document in these proceedings is a multi-count administrative complaint that deals with alleged violations which have been allegedly committed by multiple parties. The hearing dealt only with the
charges against Respondent Wiley and the alleged violations allegedly committed by him while transacting business as an investment broker and investment adviser in Florida.
While the Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent Wiley transacted business on behalf of Invest America, Inc., Protect America, Inc., and that Arlington Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invest America, there was no evidence presented at hearing to prove these allegations. The Respondent represented to prospective investors that he was a financial planner with Invest America, Inc. However, he never acquired a franchise and he did not have all of the prerequisite licenses which the company required in order to approve a franchise. It appears from the proof adduced at hearing that Respondent misrepresented his affiliations with that company in order to sell Trend TRAC which in turn would allow him to sell mutual funds as an investment broker with Invest America, Inc. He had access to the investment advice published by Invest America, Inc. through his insurance business.
Protect America, Inc. was managed by Invest America, Inc. Again, there was no showing that Protect America, Inc. knowingly allowed Respondent Wiley to represent the company in any way other than as an investment broker through his agency with Investment Brokers of America, Inc. The disclosure forms Protect America, Inc. provided to investors advised them that members of Invest America, Inc. were the financial planners and that they were purchasing the service from this solicitor. If Respondent Wiley was not authorized to transact business for Invest America, Inc., it follows that he could not transact business for Protect America, Inc. as a financial planner. Although these misrepresentations were material and would affect the Respondent's certification, he was not charged with this particular misconduct in the complaint.
Arlington Insurance and Financial Services was the name used solely by Respondent Wiley at his business offices in Fort Myers, Florida. Although this name is similar to the name "Arlington Services" which is set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, there was no showing that the business is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invest America, Inc., with offices in California. Accordingly, none of these allegations in the complaint regarding Arlington Services withstood the evidentiary burdens of an administrative hearing.
The allegation that the Respondent coerced clients into subscribing to Trend TRAC was also without merit. The evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent Wiley used any threatening sale tactics to force clients to purchase the service. The Respondent is not guilty of this allegation as set forth in paragraph 14 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
The allegation in paragraph 15(d) of the amended complaint charges that Respondent Wiley acted as an associated person of Invest America without benefit of registration with the Department was clearly documented by various exhibits placed into evidence at hearing. He is guilty of this violation, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 517.12(4), Florida Statutes. This law provides:
No investment adviser or associated person of an investment adviser shall engage in business from offices in this state, or render any investment advice to persons of this state, by mail or otherwise, unless the investment adviser and associated persons have been
registered with the department pursuant to this section. A dealer or associated person who is registered pursuant to this section may render investment advice upon notification to and approval from the department.
The next violation proved by the Department is found in paragraph 15(f). The Respondent was charged with selling shares of Investment Brokers of America, Inc. in Florida without such shares being lawfully registered or being exempt from registration requirements.
Section 517.07, Florida Statutes, provides:
No securities except a class exempt under any of the provisions of Section 517.051 or unless sold in any transaction exempt under any of the provisions of Section 517.061 shall be sold or offered for sale within this state unless such securities have been registered, as hereinafter defined, and unless prior to each sale the purchaser is furnished with a prospectus meeting the requirements of rules adopted by the department. The department shall issue a permit when such registration has been granted by the department.
Because Respondent Wiley sold the shares and did not provide the client with a prospectus, he is guilty of selling unregistered securities.
Paragraph 15(h) of the amended complaint relates to the actions of some of the other respondents who were charged with violations of law in the same complaint. This paragraph charges Invest America, Protect America and/or Arlington Services acting through Respondent Wiley, with having fraudulently induced investors to purchase the mutual funds computerized investment management service, (Trend TRAC), in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Because these charges are directed to the actions of others who are not involved in this proceeding, they do not apply to Respondent Wiley. Accordingly, the Respondent is not guilty of the charges. Even if it were proved that the Respondent personally committed the acts, the charges cannot apply to him due to the lack of an agency relationship between the Respondent and the named companies, as set forth in the factual findings.
There was no evidence presented as to the allegations set forth in paragraph 15(i) of the complaint during the hearing. This count charges the Respondent sold convertible subordinated debentures in Invest America, Inc. Therefore, Respondent is found not guilty of these charges.
Paragraph 15(l) alleges that the Respondent falsified information on a subscription agreement for the sale of shares in Energy Vault III, Ltd. and that this false information qualified the investor for an investment which was unsuitable for him, in violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes.
Although there was no showing that the misrepresentations made by Respondent Wiley were material and caused the general partner in Energy Vault III, Ltd. to accept the investor in the venture, Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, only requires that the violator engaged in a practice that "would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person." Because the Respondent placed
false information on the questionnaire accompanying the subscription agreement which misstated that the investor had been an engineer and had a history of investments, he is guilty of this violation.
The next alleged violation filed against Respondent charges him with failing to inform the Department of the outcome of an administrative proceeding conducted by NASD based upon Respondent Wiley's violation of the association rules regarding the handlings of client funds by investment brokers, in violation of Rule 3E-600.010, Florida Administrative Code.
Evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department was informed of the original decision of NASD and the appeal to the Board of Governors. Because Rule 3E-600.010, Florida Administrative Code, does not place a duty on the applicant to inform the Department of the outcome of the appeal from the underlying decision, Respondent is not guilty of having committed the violation in paragraph 15(m). While it is true that he was informed by the Department that it wanted him to tell them of the outcome of the appeal, the rule is not written so that the Respondent had a legal obligation to do so.
Paragraph 16 alleges that the Respondent committed various prohibited business practices during his registration as an investment broker. During hearing, it was proved that three different inexperienced investors were placed in highly speculative investments recommended to them by Respondent Wiley notwithstanding that the principal for each investment was derived from retirement funds. This is a violation of Rule 3E-600.013(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code in that dealers are not allowed to recommend the purchase of any security without reasonable grounds to believe that the recommendation is suitable, based on the information furnished by the customer. As all three customers made their financial needs known to the Respondent and informed him that they could not risk the loss of their principal, the investment advice given to them to place their money in highly speculative investments was improper. Accordingly, the Respondent is guilty of the violation charged in paragraph 16(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
The execution of the order for the purchase of shares in the unregistered securities in Investment Brokers of America, Inc. by Respondent Wiley was proven and is a violation of Rule 3E-600.013(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the Respondent is guilty of the charge in paragraph 16(b).
The charge that Respondent Wiley recommended that customers engage the management services of Invest America, Protect America or Arlington Services was incorrect. Respondent Wiley used Invest America and Protect America for his own purposes, without ever properly informing the two companies of his misconduct. Again, these material misrepresentations by Respondent Wiley were not set forth in the charging document. The Respondent is not guilty of the charge in paragraph 16(c).
It was established at hearing that the investor who purchased shares in Investment Brokers of America, Inc. did not receive a prospectus. However, a subscription agreement was provided to the investor. Nevertheless, the failure to provide the prospectus is a rule violation. The Respondent is guilty of the charge set forth in paragraph 16(d).
Although the evidence presented at hearing did not conform to major portions of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the charges which were proved demonstrated that many provisions of the Florida Securities and Investor
Protection Act, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, were violated by the Respondent. Section 517.161(1), Florida Statutes, allows the Department to revoke, restrict, or suspend any registration granted by the Department in such instance. In addition, the Department may impose and collect an administrative fine against any person found to have violated the provisions of the act, or any rule or order promulgated by the Department in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each violation. Section 517.221(3), Florida Statutes.
A review of only the charges filed and proved require the Hearing Officer to consider the mitigation information submitted by Respondent Wiley. Many of the charges filed as statutory violations were also charged as rule violations. Because the Respondent should not be fined under two or more separate laws or rules for the same misconduct, the maximum fine which could be imposed is $2,000.00. In mitigation, this amount should be reduced to
$1,500.00.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the Respondent's registration as an investment broker be revoked as he is unworthy to transact any business involving the sale of securities in Florida.
That the Respondent be found guilty of the following allegations: Acting as an investment adviser without benefit of registration; selling shares of Investment Brokers of America, Inc. without the shares being lawfully registered or exempt from registration by furnishing a prospectus; recommending to inexperienced investors that they place their money in highly speculative investments when such recommendations were unsuitable, based upon the information furnished by these customers to Respondent; and falsifying information on a subscription agreement and questionnaire for the sale of a limited partnership.
That Respondent be fined $1,500.00.
DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
VERONICA E. DONNELLY
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1990.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6698
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows:
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant. Improper ultimate conclusion.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4, #8, #13 and #14.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #3 - #4.
Accepted. See HO #2, #4, #5 and #14.
Accepted.
Rejected. Improper name of business.
Reject as to Invest America and Protect America. See HO #6 and #14.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Accepted.
Reject first sentence. Contrary to fact. Accept second sentence.
Accepted. See HO #12.
Accepted. See HO #14.
Accepted. See HO #16.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Rejected. Redundant.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
Accepted. See HO #16.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #7.
Accepted. See HO #25.
Accept that Wiley represented he was a financial planner. See HO #21. The rest is rejected as contrary to fact.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Accepted. See HO #13.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See HO #25.
Rejected. Contrary to fact and redundant.
Accepted. See HO #25.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
Rejected. See HO #14 and #17.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #21.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See HO #18.
Accepted. See HO #19.
Accept as to IBA. Reject the rest. Contrary to fact.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #18.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #18.
Accepted. See HO #20.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected. Redundant.
Rejected. Redundant.
Accepted. See HO #21.
Accepted. See HO #21.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22.
Accepted. See HO #24.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22.
Rejected. This testimony by the investor was not believable.
Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges.
Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges.
Rejected. See HO #22.
Accepted. See HO #25.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #18 and #25.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges.
Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges.
Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges.
Accepted. See HO #25.
Accepted. See HO #9.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller
400 West Robinson Street Suite 501
Orlando, Florida 32801
David C. Wiley
2701 Cleveland Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33902
William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 27, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 18, 1990 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 27, 1990 | Recommended Order | Respondent acted as investment advision without registration gave unsuitable advice and falsifying information on subscription agreement fined for activities. |
