STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LAWRENCE A. GROLEMUND, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5880

)

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND )

FINANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On January 7, 1991, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Tallahassee, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Edward W. Dougherty, Esquire

Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance

Legal Section The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Banking and Finance, should grant the application of the Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about May 9, 1990, the Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, applied for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc. Because of two complaints investigated and determined by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), the Department initially offered to grant the application conditionally, among other things, prohibiting Grolemund from acting as a principal, supervisor, or manager. Grolemund rejected the offer, and the Department denied the application. Grolemund requested formal administrative proceedings on the application denial.

At the hearing, the question was raised as to which party bore the burden of proof and persuasion. Initially, ruling on the burden of persuasion was reserved, and the Department was required to proceed with its evidence on Grolemund's worthiness or lack of it. The Department presented the testimony of two Department employees, through whom exhibits reflecting Department and NASD action were placed in evidence. After the Department rested (and after the applicant's first witness testified), the burden of persuasion was imposed on Grolemund to prove facts on which he was entitled to be registered in accordance with his application. A representative of Advest, Inc., and then Grolemund himself testified in support of the application. Grolemund also introduced an exhibit evidencing his offer to settle the first (1986) NASD complaint which he contends was the basis for the NASD action on that complaint. The March, 1990, NASD Manual was officially recognized.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Grolemund ordered the preparation of a transcript of the proceedings. The transcript was filed on February 1, 1991. Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' proposed recommended orders may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 90-5880.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, has been in the securities business for over 21 years. Except for two complaints--one in 1986 and a second 1988--he has not been the subject of complaint or investigation by the National Association of Securties Dealers (NASD) or any state. He earned a reputation as a successful securities dealer and, as his career progressed, as manager of securities dealership branch offices. As branch manager, one of Grolemund's primary responsibilities was to insure that his office functioned in compliance with applicable state and federal law, and the rules of the NASD.

   
   

2. Due to the reputation Grolemund had earned, the Chairman of the Board of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., personally recruited Grolemund as a branch manager. After a training period, Grolemund assumed duties at the company's New Orleans office in August, 1982. He did not become a registered options principal for the New Orleans office until December, 1982.

   
   

3. For several years before Grolemund's arrival, the company's New Orleans office had been a "problem office." A disproportionate share of securities violations occurred in that office, and management had difficulty controlling the associated persons in the office to achieve compliance. Several branch managers who preceded Grolemund had been disciplined by the NASD for inadequate supervision of the office. Grolemund knew some of the problems--he was hired to try to correct them--but he did not know the extent of the problems he would face when he took over.

   
   

4. On August 25, 1986, the District 5 Business Conduct Committee filed a complaint against Howard Hampton, E.F Hutton & Company, Inc., Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Grolemund and others. The gist of the complaint is that Hampton committed various violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, SEC rules and NASD rules while an associated person with E.F. Hutton and with Prudential-Bache. Hampton was with E.F. Hutton from February, 1981, through August, 1982, and was with Prudential-Bache in the New Orleans office from August, 1982, through February, 1984. The violations involve Hampton's dealings with clients he brought with him from E.F. Hutton to Prudential-Bache. Most of the violations involve the exercise of discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. Some of the alleged incidents

   occurred while Hampton was at E.F. Hutton. Some occurred while Hampton was at Prudential-Bache but before Grolemund arrived at the New Orleans office. Some occurred after Grolemund arrived but before he became an options principal for the office. In some cases, the information in the file on which Grolemund had to rely was incorrect. Grolemund fired Hampton in December, 1983. (At the time Hampton was fired, no complaints had yet been leveled against Hampton. In fact, all of the clients who ultimately complained against Hampton went with Hampton when he was fired from Prudential-Bache.) Grolemund also fired some other "unsavory" account executives in the New Orleans office. Grolemund was charged, along with other Prudential-Bache options principals, with failure and neglect to establish, maintain, and/or enforce written procedures which would enable Prudential-Bache to exercise reasonable and proper supervision of Hampton and with failure and neglect to supervise Hampton reasonably and properly.

   
   

5. Grolemund was represented in the proceedings before the district committee by in-house counsel for Prudential-Bache. Otherwise, Grolemund did not have independent advice of counsel. Prudential-Bache was involved in other proceedings before the SEC which made it in its best interest to resolve the matters arising out of the New Orleans office. For several months, Prudential- Bache tried to convince Grolemund to settle.

   
   

6. In addition, Grolemund was concerned whether the District 5 Business Conduct Committee would fairly consider the complaint against him. As part of his successful management of Prudential-Bache's New Orleans office, he competed directly against other securities dealers in the area, some of which were represented on, or had friends who were on, the Committee. When Grolemund came to New Orleans, there were 16 account executives in the office. Under his term of management, after he fired four to five account executives, including Hampton, the New Orleans office grew from 16 to 36 account executives. In addition, Grolemund opened satellite offices in Shreveport and Lafayette, Louisiana. These offices grew in size to 11 and 9 account executives, respectively. Many of the account executives Grolemund added were recruited away from competitors, and he was concerned that there might be hard feelings against him among the members on the Committee.

   
   

7. After spending considerable time weighing all factors, Grolemund agreed on or about November 3, 1987, to settle the Hampton matter on terms that included acceptance of a finding that he was guilty of the allegations against him and acceptance of a censure, a 21-day suspension, a requirement that he re- qualify as a registered options principal, and a $7,500 fine. The settlement was reduced to writing in final form on April 25, 1988.

   
   

8. As a result of the 21-day suspension, another options principal at Prudential-Bache was required to sign all options agreements during the suspension. Otherwise, Grolemund's job was the same as before the suspension, and Grolemund continued to receive his full normal compensation from Prudential- Bache. Prudential-Bache paid the fine for Grolemund. Re-qualification was a matter of passing a written examination, which did not present a problem for Grolemund.

   
   

9. In agreeing to settle, Grolemund misunderstood that the district committee's action would not be the basis of any other proceedings against him. He also misunderstood that the offer of settlement would resolve all pending matters involving the New Orleans office, including the so-called Keel matters.

10. Contrary to Grolemund's understanding, the NASD filed another complaint against Prudential-Bache and Grolemund on May 9, 1988. This complaint, which had been under investigation during the time the Hampton case was proceeding, involved an account executive named Patrick Keel. Like Hampton, Keel was alleged to have exercised discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. He also was alleged to have recommended unsuitable stock and option investments to two clients and to have falsely reported to Prudential-Bache that some of his clients enjoyed profits from the investments he had recommended and made for them, when in fact they had incurred losses. As with the Hampton matter, Grolemund was accused of having failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures that would have enabled him to exercise proper supervision of Keel and of having failed to properly supervise Keel.

    
    

11. The Keel matter went to hearing before the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on August 24-25, 1989.

    
    

    As to what it called Cause One, the Committee found that Keel engaged in unauthorized and unsuitable options transactions in the account of one customer and that Grolemund had failed to supervise Keel properly in connection with the options transactions.

    
    

    Under Cause Two, the Committee found that Keel made unauthorized and unsuitable stock and options transactions in the account of another customer and that Grolemund had ample early warning that Keel was not handling his options accounts properly. The Committee noted that in October, 1984, the customer had lodged complaints regarding Keel's options trading and that Grolemund had daily conversations with a superior concerning problems with Keel's options accounts. The Committee found that, even if Grolemund did not have the benefit of the early warnings of irregularity, his response to the concerns raised by the customer in her December 10, 1984, telephone conversation was inadequate. The Committee found that, given the customer's refusal to sign the activity letter that Grolemund sent her, it was incumbent upon Grolemund to determine whether the customer understood options, whether options transactions were consistent with her financial situation, and whether she had approved the options transactions before their execution. The Committee found that Grolemund did not compile and review the customer's account documentation, which would have revealed that options trading was inconsistent with her objectives and needs and that the customer was only approved for Level II trading although Keel had executed two Level III transactions. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice by failing to supervise Keel properly.

    
    

    Under Cause Three, the Committee found that Keel recommended to a customer (the same customer involved in Cause Two) that she commit 25-30% of her net worth to a Hawaiian real estate private placement tax shelter that was not consistent with the customer's needs and objectives. However, the Committee noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Grolemund had reviewed the recommendation in light of the customer's personal financial strategy form.

    Although it was not Grolemund's job at Prudential-Bache to review suitability determinations with respect to private placements, the Committee expressed the view that Grolemund was in the best position to supervise the recommendations of salesmen and that he could not delegate this responsibility to other departments. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice under Cause Three.

    As to Causes Four through Eleven, the Committee dismissed all but two for insufficient evidence. As for the two that were not dismissed, the Committee found that Keel exercised discretion in the accounts of customers without prior written approval and that Grolemund failed to exercise proper supervision over Keel. The Committee reasoned that, by the time at issue, Grolemund had adequate warning of Keel's exercise of discretion without authority and that Grolemund allowed Keel not only to continue options trading but also allowed Keel to continue using special telephone and "bunching" privileges that, in the Committee's view, "greatly facilitated Keel's exercise of discretion."

    
    

    The Committee dismissed Cause Twelve to the extent that it alleged that Grolemund failed to supervise Keel reasonably with respect to the submittal of inaccurate active account information reports by him.

    
    

12. The Committee, in its June 21, 1990, decision, censured Grolemund, barred him from associating with any NASD member in any principal capacity and fined him $4,000. Under the bar, Grolemund would not have been permitted to apply for reinstatement for at least ten years.

    
    

13. Based on this decision, and the earlier disposition of the 1986 complaint in the Hampton matter, the Department offered to conditionally grant Grolemund's application, prohibiting Grolemund from acting as a principal, supervisor or manager. When Grolemund refused to accept the conditions, the Department denied the application.

    
    

14. Grolemund appealed the Committee decision in the Keel matter to the Board of Governors of the NASD. The appeal was heard on October 11-12, 1990. On appeal, the Board reversed the finding that Keel executed out-of-level options transactions. The Board also noted that the record demonstrates a high degree of direct interaction between Grolemund, Keel, Keel's clients, and Prudential-Bache's operations manager and that the firm's records distribution system may have prevented Grolemund from exercising greater supervision over Keel. Because branch managers did not receive copies of customer information relating to limited partnerships, such as the Maui/Waikiki deal, Grolemund had

    no opportunity to assess the suitability of Keel's customer for the offering, or to compare the documents that Keel had completed in connection with that deal with other account information regarding the customer. The Board also noted that Grolemund engaged in more-than-adequate follow-up with clients following the receipt of complaints and that the customer may have been less than candid regarding her lack of understanding of the investments that Keel recommended for her account. Nonetheless, the Board believed that Grolemund fell short of the standard of reasonable supervision in that it should have been clear to Grolemund that Keel had not been properly trained and lacked a basic understanding of the practices of the securities industry. The well-documented problems that Keel's options trading caused with respect to customers' margins, and Keel's documented confusion of cash and margin accounts, certainly should have put Grolemund on notice that Keel lacked sufficient training to engage in such risky trading strategies as writing options. The Board also thought Grolemund should have inquired why there was no options agreement on file for one customer until after options trading in her account had ceased. The Board concurred with the Committee that Grolemund fell below the standard of reasonable supervision, and thereby violated Article III, Section 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice.

    
    

15. The Board of Governors affirmed the censure and $4,000 fine against Grolemund. However, in light of the various mitigating factors regarding Grolemund's overall conduct, the Board ruled that barring him as a principal was

    an excessively harsh penalty. Instead, the Board suspended him from acting in any principal capacity for seven days and required him to requalify by examination in all principal capacities.

    
    

16. In July, 1985, long before either the Hampton or the Keel complaint was filed, Prudential-Bache promoted Grolemund to the new Tampa office. When Grolemund took over as branch manager, the Tampa office was only nine months old. Grolemund successfully managed the Tampa office until May, 1990, when he applied for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc. During Grolemund's time as branch manager, the Tampa office grew to 35 account executives. The evidence proved that no violations occurred in the Tampa office during the almost five years that Grolemund was the branch manager there.

    
    

17. Since the Hampton and Keel matters, the securities industry has changed remarkably, in part as a result of the October, 1987, stock market crash. Before the crash, options trading generally was viewed as a conservative investment--a way to participate in the market with limited resources and to provide an additional source of income from a conservative investment. The risks of options trading now are widely recognized, and management generally has become sensitive and responsive to those risks. In addition, the data processing and informations systems now in general use in the industry have given management new and effective tools for supervising the activities of account executives. Some of these systems make it impossible for some of the Hampton and Keel violations to occur today. For example, the systems will not process options trades for which there is no record of prior written authorization in the file. For these reasons, it is not likely that activities such as those in which Hampton and Keel were involved in 1981 through 1984 would go undetected today by a manager of Grolemund's caliber or that, detected, they would go unchecked.

    
    

18. Advest, Inc., the securities dealer that wants to associate Grolemund to manage its new Clearwater office, is a respectable securities dealer that places reasonably strong emphasis on compliance with the requirements of the various regulatory agencies under which it must operate. It specializes in relatively safe investments, certainly as compared with the activities of the New Orleans office of Prudential-Bache in the early 1980s. Options trading represents only 14 to 15 percent of Advest's total business nationwide. Less than six percent of the business of its new Clearwater office consists of options trading.

    
    

19. Advest's compliance department generates a monthly computer report called a "commission versus equity" run which displays the account name and number, the account executive's number, gross commission generated for the month and year, the number of trades for the month and year to date, the amount of cash and securities in the account, and the value of the account in relationship to the trading on a percentage basis. Some variation of the report is provided to the branch managers, to the division managers, and to the branch group manager, with each higher level of management getting more and more information in the report.

    
    

20. An options activity report is produced in the Advest compliance department on a daily basis listing all accounts that traded outside their levels, if any, and any accounts that have a trade executed where the appropriate forms are not on file within the allowed period.

21. Advest compliance sends out active account letters to verify customer satisfaction. If the customer does not respond within ten days, a second letter is sent. If the customer does not respond to the second letter within ten days, the account is restricted from further activity.

    
    

22. The Advest compliance department reviews all aspects of the branch offices on an annual audit. Compliance then issues a report to the branch manager, the division manager, and the branch group manager.

    
    

23. The computer generated commission report would automatically detect a trade executed by a registered representative not assigned to the account for which the trade is completed and would place an asterisk around the account executive number. The manager would then be contacted by the compliance department and asked to explain the discrepancy.

    
    

24. In addition to the ordinary compliance procedures in place at Advest, to address the concerns of the Department and other regulatory agencies, Advest proposes several measures to reduce even further the likelihood of violations in the new Clearwater office to which it will assign Grolemund as branch manager. First, it will limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year. Second, it will require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance; during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, two annual routine compliance monitoring visits will be made, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, the branch group manager personally will review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The pertinent issue on Grolemund's application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., is whether he has the requisite good reputation and character. See Sections 517.12(11) and 517.1205, Florida Statutes (1989).

    
    

26. The burden in this case in on Grolemund to prove that he has the requisite good reputation and character. See Section 517.1205, Florida Statutes (1989). See also Castleman v. Office of Comptroller, 538 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dept. of Banking and Finance v. Evans, 540 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

    
    

27. Under Section 517.1205, a finding that Grolemund is of good repute and character "is precluded by a determination that the applicant may be denied registration on grounds provided by law."

    
    

28. Under Section 517.161(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1989), registration may be denied if the Department determines that the applicant: "Has demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the business of dealer, investment adviser, or associated person."

29. F.A.C. Rule 3E-600.011 provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    Prima Facie evidence of unworthiness to trans- act the business of a dealer, investment adviser, principal, or agent in the State of Florida shall include, but shall not be limited to:

    * * *

    (2) Any injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial or administrative order by any . . . national securities association, involving a violation of any federal . . . securities law or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder . . ..

    
    

30. Prima facie evidence of "unworthiness to transact the business of dealer, investment adviser, or associated person" places the burden on the applicant to come forward with evidence to overcome the prima facie evidence. The burden of persuasion on the main issue remains at all times on the applicant. See Castleman and Evans, supra.

    
    

31. In this case, the Department introduced evidence that the District 5 Business Conduct Committee has entered a final administrative order on the 1986 complaint; a second administrative order entered by the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on the 1988 complaint was appealed to the Board of Governors of the NASD, which entered an order on appeal.

    
    

32. Both of these administrative orders involve a violation of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice, promulgated under the Federal Securities Law. The NASD is authorized by the Maloney Act of 1938 (Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). The NASD is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a self-regulating organization. Under the Maloney Act, the NASD is required to promulgate and enforce rules, including the Rules of Fair Practice. The SEC may abrogate any rule of the NASD and may disapprove any change in the rules proposed by the NASD. The SEC can suspend or revoke the NASD's registration for failure to enforce NASD rules.

    
    

33. The NASD operates through a Board of Governors and thirteen district committees. Operating as the district business conduct committee, the district committees are primarily responsible for enforcement of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice and By-Laws. The district business conduct committee investigates complaints against NASD members and conducts disciplinary proceedings at which the accused member is entitled to confront the evidence, cross-examine witnesses, testify, present the testimony of witnesses and introduce exhibits. The district business conduct committee renders a decision and imposes penalties. The accused member has the right to review of the committee decision by the Board of Governors of the NASD. The Board decision is reviewable by the SEC.

    
    

34. Since they meet the requirements of F.A.C. Rule 3E-600.011, the District 5 Business Conduct Committee and Board of Governor administrative orders constitute prima facie evidence that Grolemund is unworthy to transact the business of dealer, investment adviser, or associated person.

35. Despite the prima facie evidence against him, Grolemund's evidence overcame the prima facie evidence and proved that he is of good repute and character and that his application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., should be granted, especially in view of the conditions offered by Grolemund and Advest, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order granting Grolemund's application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., subject only to the following conditions:

First, that Advest limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year;

Second, that Advest require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year.

Third, that Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance and that, during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice.

Fourth, that Advest make two annual routine compliance monitoring visits to Grolemund's office, instead of the usual one visit.

Finally, that the branch group manager personally review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly.

RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of February, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5880

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated.

2. Rejected in part in that the Department did not consider the order of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the order of the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on the 1988 "Keel" complaint before giving notice of intent to deny the application. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated.

3. Accepted and incorporated.

4. Rejected in the sense that final action has not yet been taken. As it refers to Department notice of intended action, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

5. Accepted and incorporated.

6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

8.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

1. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary.

2. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

3. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect.

4. Rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect.

5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

16.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

2. Accepted but unnecessary.

3. Rejected as not proven that the system was in operation since 1980. 21.-23. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

24. Accepted and incorporated.

25.-28. Accepted and incorporated.

29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted and incorporated.

1. Rejected as not proven.

2. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

3. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary.

4. First clause, accepted; second clause, rejected consistent with the NASD orders.

5. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary.

6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

43.-46. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted and incorporated in the form of the findings of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the 1988 "Keel" complaint.

2. Accepted but unnecessary.

49.-50. Accepted and incorporated.

51.-52 Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

2. Accepted and incorporated.

3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

5. Accepted and incorporated.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1.-2. Accepted and incorporated.

1. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary.

2. Rejected that the orders were entered in 1986 and 1988; otherwise, accepted and incorporated.

5.-7. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary.

8.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted but unnecessary.

2. Accepted that the Committee characterized its decision in those terms by way of explaining why it was just to differentiate between Prudential-Bache and its representatives, including Grolemund, and E.F. Hutton and its representatives. However, in fact, the various dispositions were agreed by the parties. It is unnecessary to include this finding.

15.-18. Accepted and incorporated.

19. Accepted but unnecessary.

20.-21. Accepted and incorporated.

22. Accepted but unnecessary.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Edward W. Dougherty, Esquire Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance

Legal Section The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Banking and Finance

The Capitol

Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE CONCERNING ITS RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER.

Docket for Case No: 90-005880

Orders for Case No: 90-005880