Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Thomas Patrick Boggs, resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and is employed with MCG Portfolio Management Corporation. On March 9, 1987, the Petitioner submitted an application for registration as an associated person with MCG Portfolio Management Corporation pursuant to the "Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act," Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. By letter dated April 9, 1987, the Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection, denied the Petitioner's application based on the incidents discussed in paragraphs three (3) to nine (9) below. Petitioner was arrested on August 8, 1975, in the State of Virginia for the alleged offense of passing a bad check to a service station. The charges were dropped when the Petitioner made payment on the check. In a letter dated July 24, 1978, the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") admonished Petitioner for failing to disclose his 1975 arrest for petty larceny on a Form U-4 (Uniform Application for Securities and Commodities Industry Representative and/or Agent). The NYSE took note of Petitioner's "explanation that [he] failed to report the offense because [he] considered the problem minor and that the charge against [him] was subsequently dropped." The letter to Petitioner went on to state that "[t]he Exchange hereby admonishes you for your conduct and cautions you that any future misconduct may result in formal disciplinary action. " In a letter dated March 20, 1981, the NYSE admonished Petitioner for failing to respond correctly to a question on a Form U-4 dated May 7, 1980. Question 50(a) of the Form U-4 read as follows: "In your previous business connections or employment, have you ever been . . . a subject of a major complaint or legal proceeding?" The Petitioner responded "no" to question 50(a), although he had been named as a party defendant in a lawsuit commenced in March 1980 by a customer of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert Incorporated where he was employed as a registered representative from January to May 1980. In a letter dated March 20, 1981, the NYSE took consideration of Petitioner's "explanation that [he] interpreted Question 50(a) as referring to [his] business connections and employment prior to entering the securities business, and that [he] had disclosed the litigation to Dean Witter personnel during [his] initial interview for employment." The NYSE's letter to Petitioner went on to state that "the Exchange hereby admonishes you for your conduct and cautions you that any misconduct on your part in the future will very likely lead the Exchange to take formal disciplinary action against you." On September 25, 1985, a suit was filed against Petitioner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit, Bernard, et al v. First Continental Resources, Inc.; T. Patrick Boggs (Petitioner); David Meeks; and First Continental Drilling Associates, a Nevada Limited Partnership (Civil Action No. 85-182), alleged fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence in connection with the sale of securities. First Continental Resources, Inc., was the corporation general partner of First Continental Drilling Associates. Petitioner was the individual general partner for First Continental Drilling Associates and President/Chief Operating Officer and Director of First Continental Resources, Inc. Petitioner was a controlling person of First Continental Resources, Inc., and First Continental Drilling Associates as that term is used in Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit sought compensatory damages of approximately $800,000, treble damages, and punitive damages of $20 million. The Petitioner and the other defendants failed to defend the suit and the Court entered an Order of Default against Petitioner on March 31, 1986. On May 31, 1986, the defendants obtained a judgment against Petitioner and all defendants for approximately $2.3 million. The Petitioner testified that he had a meritorious defense to the Bernard lawsuit but failed to present it because of lack of funds for legal representation. The Petitioner testified that he was in fact a victim of fraud along with the plaintiffs, perpetrated by some of the co-defendants in the lawsuit. George Bloukos, Executive Vice President of MCG Portfolio Management Corporation, has known the Petitioner since March of 1987 when Petitioner first sought employment with his company. Since that time, the Petitioner has been employed with MCG in a clerical-like capacity, pending resolution of his registration application. Bloukos has worked in the securities and investments profession for approximately thirty (30) years. Based on Bloukos' observation of Petitioner, the Petitioner has shown himself to be a person of good character, good business ethics and a conscientious worker. Bloukos believes that Petitioner is a trustworthy individual who would be an asset to his company and to the securities and investments profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of October, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Scarlett, Esq. Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Charles L. Stutts, Esq. General Counsel Department of Banking & Tallahassee, FL 32399 Finance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Thomas P. Boggs c/o George Bloukos MCG Portfolio Management Corp. 5301 North Federal Highway Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard L. Hoffman (Hoffman), applied to Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Department), for registration as an associated person with First Southern Investment Corporation. By letter dated November 25, 1986, the Department advised Hoffman that his application had been denied, and Hoffman filed a timely request for formal hearing. By "memorandum of understanding" dated June 10, 1986, Hoffman was employed by First Florida Securities Group, Inc. (First Florida) as the manager and compliance officer of its Fort Lauderdale branch office. Pertinent to this case, the memorandum of understandings provided: It is today agreed that Richard Hoffman, as manager of a branch office of First Florida Securities Group, Inc., and representing a certain "Group" in that office agrees to work for and manage the office for First Florida Securities Group, Inc., under the following conditions: 1/ * * * E. The "Group" will be allowed an inventory bank of $50,000.00 of cost -- no one item to exceed This will be reviewed periodically. It maybe exceeded only with written approval of two officers of First, Florida Securities Group Inc. 2/ The branch office opened on June 15, 1986, and by June 27, 1986, Serious problems in the operation of the branch office began to surface. These problems were addressed in a meeting on Monday, June 30, 1986, between Nick Christos, chief executive officer of First Florida; Jim Palmer, compliance officer for First Florida; and, Hoffman. The results of that meeting were memorialized in a memorandum to Hoffman of July 7, 1986, which provided, inter alia: This is to summarize the results of my meeting with you on Monday, June 30, 1986. In attendance, also, was Jim Palmer, Compliance Officer. The following is intended as a summary of conclusions, without benefit of detailed conversations that led to our mutual understanding Letter to be sent to Jim Palmer from you, with respect to "as of" trades and other trades Purchased by customers at prices under the market on Jocom. (Not yet received as of this date). * * * Understanding by you that your office would henceforth adhere strictly to the $25,000 limit with respect to maximum inventory levels per corpora- tion -- with a $50,000.00 maxi- mum for your office at the end of each trading day. (Note that this limit was violated on Friday, June 27 when 41,200 International Communications was in inventory, with a value of $51,500). * * * We reviewed the fact that our Bear Stearns Margin Clerk was concerned about the Sy Schwartz account (purchases of 30,000 and 110,000 shares of Jocom) of which 110,000 shares or $96,250 still remains unpaid as of this date. Review of concern about the number and total dollars involved in over-due payments of Ft. Lauderdale customers (not materially reduced as of this date). The proof established that Hoffman failed to comply with his agreement to explain the "as of" trades and other trades purchased by customers at prices under the market in Jocom, adhere to the maximum inventory levels, and address over- due payments. Since there was no improvement in the operation of the branch office, Mr. Christos advised Hoffman on Monday, July 14, 1986, that: Your Ft. Lauderdale group, as of pre-opening this morning, will have no authority to represent the firm in trading NASDAQ stocks. * * * 3. You will have one week, effec- tive with the termination of business on Friday, July 18, 1986, for your branch to find another "home" ... (associate themselves with another deal- er). The principal of First Florida, Mr. Winkler, declined to support Mr. Christos because of his belief that the branch office had generated substantial revenues and that it would work out its problems. Accordingly, since Hoffman and the "Group" were not to be terminated, Mr. Christos and Mr. Palmer resigned as chief executive officer and compliance officer, respectively, for First Florida. On July 15, 1986, Hoffman, who held a principal's license, was elected president of First Florida, although he continued to operate as branch manager. The confidence Mr. Winkler placed in the branch office and Hoffman was short lived. Between July 19, 1986, and July 31, 1986, First Florida received complaints from over thirty customers of the branch office regarding unauthorized transactions, the failure to report or process trades, and the failure to provide confirmations or proceeds of sale. As a consequence of these complaints, Hoffman was terminated on July 31, 1986. First Florida's loss from the operation of the branch totaled approximately $657,000. Of this sum, $357,000 was expended to cover the debit balance with its correspondent Bear Stearns for unpaid securities accounts, and $300,000 for settlements with customers who alleged that purchases in their accounts were unauthorized. While First Florida's association with the "Group" may have been unprofitable, Hoffman benefited quite well. During the period of June 15-July 15, 1986, Hoffman earned over $60,000 in commissions through First Florida. While Hoffman concedes that trades he received from customers were not processed, he asserts that the blame for such failure rests on Mr. Brazel, the "trader" for the branch office. According to Hoffman, Mr. Brazel frequently traded at home, rather than at the office, and during the week of July 21- 25, 1986, traded exclusively at home. Because of Brazel's absence, Hoffman asserted that trades were not executed or they were "lost" because of some motivation of Brazel not to process them. Hoffman concludes: "I didn't have any idea what was going on" and there was "no way (I) could control the trades." Hoffman's attempt to "pass-the-buck" to Brazel is unpersuasive. While Brazel may be culpable, Hoffman also knew by mid-July 1986, if not by early July, that serious trading problems existed at the branch office, and that Brazel, if Hoffman is to be believed, was no small part of those problems. Yet Hoffman, who had been in the business for over 30 years, was the manager of the small branch office for First Florida, was president of the firm, was the firm's trader in Brazel's absence, and was a salesman for his own accounts, denies any responsibility for his failure to assure that trades were executed on behalf of his clients or the firm. Hoffman's testimony is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Hoffman's failure to diligently exercise his responsibilities as branch manager, president, trader, and salesman resulted in losses to his clients, as well as to other clients of the firm, since he failed to assure that their requests to sell securities were properly processed. 3/ In addition to Hoffman's failure to properly manage the branch office and his clients accounts, several other irregularities surfaced during his tenure with First Florida. Inexplicably, while employed by First Florida, Hoffman provided a customer, Sy Schwartz, with a written guarantee against loss. That guarantee provided: Sy Schwartz: This is to inform you, I agree that if Jocom is not up by July 7, 1986 you do not have to pay for it and I will take the trade back into my trading account. /s/ Richard L. Hoffman Also unexplained by Hoffman, was his personal payment of over $119,000 to his customer, Bruce Ross, between June 19, 1986, and July 15, 1986. These monies were variously described by Ross as involving the repayment of loans or his dealings in stocks. The substance of these transactions was not, however, further explained by either Mr. Ross or Hoffman. Following his termination with First Florida, Hoffman associated himself with First Southern Investment Corporation (First Southern). During his tenure at First Southern, although not registered, Hoffman held himself out as a senior account executive, and attempted to sell securities to customers he had previously serviced at First Florida. Both Hoffman and the Department offered the testimony of various witnesses concerning their opinion of Hoffman's reputation in the business community. Not surprisingly, those who had a good experience with Hoffman found him reputable, and those who felt they had suffered adversely under his representation found him to be of bad repute. The proof of Hoffman's reputation, offered through these witnesses, was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of petitioner, Richard L. Hoffman, for registration as an associated person with First Southern Investment Corporation be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed application for registration with respondent a a securities agent with First Florida Securities Inc., Pompano Beach, Florida, on March, 1977. Although he met the various statutory and regulatory procedural requirements for registration, on or about May 19, 1977, he was advised by the Director, Division of Securities, of intended denial of his application and advised of his right to petition for an administrative hearing. Petitioner did so request a hearing on June 2, 1977. The stated ground for the proposed denial of the application in accompanying "Administrative Charges and Complaint" was as follows: "The license application of respondent was refused or denied by the Division of Securities, Department of Banking and Finance, State of Florida, by stipulation and consent on February 18, 1976. Said denial constitutes prima facie of unworthiness to transact the business of a securities salesman In the State of Florida." The above-mentioned "Stipulation and Consent" resulted from a prior application denial by respondent of an application by MFP Petroleum Exploration and Investment, Inc., its officers and salesman, including petitioner. The grounds for denial of petitioner's application in that instance were that he had sold unregistered securities in the form of shares in oil drilling ventures in violation of Section 517.07, F.S., while not registered as a securities salesman in further violation of Section 517.12(1), F.S. The various parties in that administrative proceeding consented to the denial of their applications by stipulation without admitting the allegations of respondent. (Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5) Petitioner has never been registered with respondent as a securities dealer, agent or salesman. He testified that when he joined MFP sometime in 1974, its president, Mark F. Preddy, led him to believe that one selling interests in oil drilling ventures need not register as a salesman in Florida. Consequently, he sold such interests to clients for several months before he learned that it was necessary for him to be so registered. Some nine months after commencing employment with MFP, he went to Shreveport, Louisiana, to take securities examinations for Florida and the NASD. After waiting approximately three months more to obtain the results of the MFP application for registration, he resigned from the firm. He admitted selling during the entire nine-month period in which he had been associated with MFP, even though he knew during a substantial portion of that period that registration was required. After his resignation, he authorized an attorney to execute the "Stipulation and Consent" which authorized respondent to deny his application for registration. (Testimony of Weber, Exhibits 2, 3, 5) A client of petitioner testified as to the latter's honesty and conscientiousness. (Testimony of Hansis) Respondent's Assistant Director, Division of Securities, stated the Division's position that although it felt justified in denying petitioner's current application, it would be amenable to reevaluate any application submitted one year from the final order in this proceeding and, if petitioner's record was clear and he otherwise met requirements for registration, it would issue the same on a supervised basis for a period of one year. (Testimony of Brandi)
Recommendation That petitioner Paul Anthony Weber be issued a certificate of registration as a securities salesman pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ryland Terry Rigsby, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Paul Anthony Weber 1745 Northeast Fifty-Second Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glenn D. Whaley submitted a Form U-4, Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration, seeking registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. One of the states in which Petitioner sought registration was the State of Florida. The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is the Florida agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the Act), and its implementing rules. The Department denied Mr. Whaley's application for registration as an associated person in a letter dated August 27, 1990, based upon its determination that he had violated the Act, that he had filed an application for registration which contained a material false statement; and that his disciplinary history within the securities industry constituted prima facie evidence of his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Mr. Whaley has been employed in the securities industry since approximately 1984, and has been employed with several different securities dealers, including Rothschild Equity Management Group, Inc. (Rothschild), Fitzgerald Talman, Inc., and H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. The effective date for Mr. Whaley's registration as an associated person of Rothschild in the State of Florida was April 18, 1985. In October 1985, Department examiner Michael Blaker, conducted an examination of the books and records of Rothschild. The examination revealed violations of the provisions of the Act, including the sale of securities by unlicensed representatives. The commission reports and sales journals prepared by Rothschild revealed that Mr. Whaley, while unregistered with the Department, had effectuated approximately sixteen (16) sales of securities during the period of April 1 through 17, 1985. On May 15, 1989, the State of Missouri Commissioner of Securities issued a cease and desist order against Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. and Glenn D. Whaley. The order found that Mr. Whaley had offered for sale and sold securities on behalf of Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. in the State of Missouri without benefit of registration for himself or the securities. On or about November 8, 1989, the Department issued an Administrative Charges and Complaint against Mr. Whaley seeking revocation of his registration as an associated person of H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. based on his failed to timely notify the Department of the Missouri Cease and Desist Order, as required by Rule 3E-600.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Administrative Charges and Complaint were served on November 13, 1989. On or about December 12, 1989, the Department issued a Default Final Order revoking Mr. Whaley's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., based upon his failure to request a hearing regarding the Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Form U-4 requires the applicant to swear and affirm that the information on the application is true and complete to the best of his knowledge and that false or misleading answers will subject him to administrative penalties. The Form U-4 application contains no disclosure of the Department's December 1989, revocation of Petitioner's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., as required by Question 22E.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order denying the application of Mr. Whaley for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc., in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Legal Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Glenn D. Whaley 5400 Northwest Fifth Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact On or about September 3, 1986, WILLIAM E. DALY (hereinafter the "Petitioner") applied to the Department for a license to act as a real estate mortgage broker under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter the Department timely denied the application by letter dated January 15, 1987, and Petitioner duly requested a formal hearing concerning said denial under the authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The petition for formal hearing was granted and the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter "DOAH") to assign a hearing officer for the purpose of conducting said hearing. By formal order, DOAH assigned Donald R. Alexander, Esquire, as the hearing officer and designated its proceedings as William E. Daly, Petitioner vs. Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, Case No. 87-1421. Thereafter Hearing Officer Alexander conducted the formal hearing as provided by law on May 20, 1987, in West Palm Beach, Florida. After the conclusion of the hearing, both the Petitioner and the Department filed Proposed Recommended Orders On July 9, 1987, Hearing Officer Alexander issued his Recommended Order and copies thereof were duly served on all parties. No exceptions to this Recommended Order have been filed with the Department by either of the parties. In his Recommended Order, Hearing Officer Alexander set forth in separately numbered paragraphs his Findings of Fact and his Conclusions of Law. Based on these statements, Hearing Officer Alexander recommended that the license requested by Petitioner be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of William E. Daly for a mortgage brokerage license be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed in the securities industry since approximately 1957. He has worked for a number of broker/dealers over the years and is familiar with the procedures involved in transferring employment from one broker to another. It is the custom in the securities industry that when a securities salesperson changes employment, forms U-4 and U-5 are filed with the National Association of Securities Dealers. As registration is approved by that organization and by the various states involved, the states give that information to the National Association of Securities Dealers, which in turn gives that information to the securities firm which employs the associated person seeking registration, and that brokerage firm in turn notifies the applicant. Respondent began to work at Alison Baer Securities, Inc., in September, 1988, and remained employed there until February, 1989. When he associated himself with Alison Baer, Respondent applied for registration as an associated person with that company. As is the proper procedure, he submitted a U to the National Association of Securities Dealers. While waiting for his registration to be approved, Respondent maintained telephone and personal contact with his own clients. He did not, however, sell or offer to sell securities until after he was sure his registration was approved. Respondent's application for registration as an associated person with Alison Baer Securities, Inc., was approved by the National Association of Securities Dealers and was also approved by the states of New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma. In late October of 1988, Jeffrey Britz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Alison Baer Securities, told Respondent that his registration as an associated person with Alison Baer Securities had been approved by the state of Florida. In fact, Respondent was not registered as an associated person by the state of Florida until December 7, 1988. Respondent did not attempt to directly confirm with the Department of Banking and Finance his registration as an associated person with Alison Baer Securities. Respondent has applied for registration with the Department as an associated person with Shamrock Partners, Ltd. The Department denied that application based solely on the allegations which are the subject matter of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause, and granting his application for registration with the Department as an associated person with Shamrock Partners, Ltd. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 14th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 27 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5, 11-14, 16-18, 23- 26, 28, 29, and 31-34 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6-10, 15, 19, and 30 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 20-22 have been rejected as not being supported by any competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Guller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 211 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Richard Doggett, Esquire 808 Northeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to be registered as an associated person.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an uniform application for securities registration with the Department. This application sought registration as a general securities representative (5-7) and named Sheffield Securities, Inc. as the firm for whom she intended to work. The application sought information regarding Petitioner's past work experience and specifically inquired as to whether the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had ever found her to have been involved in a violation of investment-related regulations or statutes. The application also asked Petitioner to disclose whether the SEC had entered an order denying, suspending or revoking her registration or disciplined here by restricting her activities. To both of these questions Petitioner answered "yes." Petitioner's association with the securities industry began in 1972 when she was employed as a secretary for a securities firm. Her work prior to that had been as a bookkeeper. Petitioner obtained her registration and purchased a securities business, Adams & Whitney Securities Corp., in late 1973 or early 1974. Adams & Whitney was registered with the SEC and operated as a broker/dealer buying and selling interests for itself and others. Petitioner was the president and sole principal for Adams & Whitney. On February 9, 1976, the SEC issued a released which claimed Adams & Whitney and Petitioner had wilfully violated and wilfully aided and abetted violations of the anti-fraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities EXCHANGE ACT of 1934, and Rule lOb-5 in connection with an offer to purchase, and sale of ITS securities and manipulation of the price of the security. The release also alleged Petitioner had violated Section 15(c)(2) of the securities EXCHANGE ACT of 1934 and Rule 15c 2-7 by submitting quotations for ITS securities to a interdealer quotation system without notification to the system of arrangements with other brokers and guarantees of profits. Without admitting or denying the allegations against her, Petitioner submitted an offer of settlement regarding the ITS charges which the SEC determined to accept. As a result, the registration as a broker-dealer of Adams & Whitney was suspended for a period of four months. Also, Petitioner was suspended from association with any broker-dealer for a period of four months. On June 27, 2977, the SEC issued a release which charged that Petitioner had wilfully violated and wilfully aided and abetted violations of the registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, and had willfully violated an wilfully aided and abetted violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities EXCHANGE Act of 1934 in connection with the offer and sale of the common stock of Tucker Drilling Company, Inc. Without admitting or denying the allegations against her, Petitioner submitted an offer of settlement regarding the Tucker Drilling charges which the SEC decided to accept. As a result, the SEC found that Petitioner wilfully violated and wilfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. Further, it was found Petitioner willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Section 10(b) of the EXCHANGE act and Rule 10b-6. Based on its findings the SEC suspended Petitioner from association with any brokers, dealer or investment company for a period of twelve months and barred her from association with any broker, dealer or investment company in a supervisory or proprietary capacity. Prior to the entry of the administrative penalties imposed against Petitioner in connection with the Tucker Drilling charges, the SEC had obtained a civil injunction against Petitioner which permanently enjoined her from violating the federal securities laws in connection with the offer and sale of Tucker securities or any other securities. Petitioner maintained at hearing that the submitted of settlement were offered as an expedient means of resolving the charges since she did not have the financial resources needed to oppose the allegations. In connection with the ITS charges, Petitioner stated she did not improperly scheme to manipulate the stock prices, that she neither bought nor sold shares of ITS, and that she was charged with other broker-dealers who had "made a market" for ITS simply because of her association with them. Further, Petitioner denied she had ever received compensation for deals made with the ITS sales In connection with the Tucker Drilling charges, Petitioner admitted she actively participated in the purchase and sale of the Tucker stock but that she had not known of the improprieties of others involved in the trading. Petitioner denied she had knowingly violated the laws and alleged that by the time she determined something was improper, the investigations had begun. Petitioner found the Tucker incident a "stupid mistake. In 1976, Adams & Whitney went out of business. Petitioner subsequently devoted her energy to her own and family health problems and became a housewife. In 1985, Petitioner's family moved to Florida and she worked as a secretary for a brokerage firm called Brown & Hawk, Inc. From September, 1986 until the time of her application, Petitioner worked as a secretary for Sheffield Securities, Inc. During her employment with Sheffield, Petitioner studied for an successfully passed the examination for S-7 registration. According to Dennis Dixon, who was a financial principal and general securities associated person at Sheffield Securities, Petitioner is a very trustworthy person who is also very capable. According to Don Saxon, the determination that Petitioner had violated the anti-fraud provisions was a great concern to the Department since those violations are the most serious types perpetrated by an individual in the industry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, Division of Securities and Investor Protection enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's application for registration with restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Department. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0531 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 4 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the evidence. To the extent relevant see findings made in paragraphs 11 & 12. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent addressed in findings made in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 otherwise rejected as argument unsupported by the record, or irrelevant. The first sentence in paragraph 7 is accepted. The balance of paragraph 7 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument. The first 4 sentences of paragraph 10 are accepted. The balance of paragraph 10 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Scarlett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 517 S. W. First Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Boca Insurance Lenders, Inc. (hereinafter "Boca"), has been a Florida corporation involved in the business of purchasing life insurance assignments. Some beneficiaries of insurance policies are unable to pay for the funeral of the friend or relative insured by that policy, and most funeral homes require payment in full for the funeral expenses at the time the funeral is scheduled. Under the arrangement that Boca has with certain funeral homes, the beneficiary of the life insurance policy of a decedent can assign the policy to the selected funeral home. The funeral home then assigns the policy to Respondent Boca, and Boca pays the funeral home the cost of the funeral. Respondent Boca's profit results from a 6 percent discount on the monies paid. Shares of preferred stock of Respondent Boca were sold for $1,000 a share. Respondent Boca ceased selling its preferred stock in March 1994, converted and/or re-acquired the outstanding shares, and began selling bonds issued by the company instead. Purchasers of preferred shares of the stock of Respondent Boca earned a return of 12 percent, 14 percent if their investment was held longer than one year. Purchasers of the bonds issued instead of the preferred shares of stock received the same return on their investment as was paid on the preferred shares. At all times material hereto, Respondent Equity Investment Club, Inc. (hereinafter "Equity"), has been a Florida corporation. The business purpose of Respondent Equity is to allow persons to deposit small amounts of money in a personal account akin to a Christmas Club, except that such persons can withdraw their money on 24-hours notice. Account owners earn a return of 6 percent on their deposits. The monies deposited in such accounts were "pooled" by Respondent Equity and used by Respondent Equity to purchase Respondent Boca's shares of preferred stock. At all times material hereto, Respondent Alec Shatz was the president and the director of both Respondent Boca and Respondent Equity. He was also the sole stockholder of Respondent Equity. Respondents admit that Respondent Shatz directed, controlled, supervised, managed, and participated in the acts, practices, and policies of Respondents Boca and Equity. In conjunction with commencing sales of its preferred shares, Respondent Boca filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission a Form D which is a Notice of Sale of Securities pursuant to Regulation D, Section 4(6), a Uniform Limited Offering Exemption. When Respondent Equity was formed, it also filed a Form D with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Rule 504. Filing a Form D notice that stock will be sold pursuant to an exemption from registration is not the same as registering a stock with the Securites and Exchange Commission. Respondents Boca and Shatz did not register the preferred shares of stock with the Department, and neither Respondent Boca nor Shatz is or has been registered with the Department to sell or offer for sale securities as a dealer, as an associated person, or as an issuer. One of the ways in which Respondent Boca marketed its preferred shares of stock was by advertising seminars which could be attended by members of the public. Advertisements appeared in newspapers and were aired on the radio. It was not necessary that a potential investor attend one of Respondent Boca's seminars in order to purchase Boca's preferred shares. Employees of Respondent Boca attended the seminars and gave presentations. They also answered questions from members of the public attending the seminars. Information about Respondent Boca, Respondent Equity, and Respondent Shatz' other companies was given out at the seminars. A prospectus for Respondent Boca was also given out. The seminar advertisement which appeared in The Palm Beach Post on February 22, 1993, on behalf of Respondent Boca represented that one could earn 12 percent interest on a "No Risk Return", that there was no penalty for withdrawal, that the investment was "liquid," and that interest was paid every 60 days. The advertisement also read: "Registered with S.E.C". (Part of the advertisement, which was admitted as Joint Exhibit numbered l, is illegible.) By September 27, 1993, the advertisement which appeared in The Palm Beach Post remained substantially the same except that the interest rate was 14 percent, the phrase "Your Money Guaranteed through Insurance Payments" had been added, and the ad read "Register [sic] under S.E.C. exemptions". An October 25, 1993, advertisement was the same except that the word "interest" now read "dividend". However, a February 14, 1994, advertisement used the word "interest" rather than "dividend". Respondent Boca's September 18, 1995, advertisement also used the word "interest", represented that "This is a Minimum Risk Return!", and stated that "Our Investment Involve [sic] Insurance Company". The advertisement contained no language as to any registration with either the S.E.C. or the Department. Although some persons purchasing Respondent Boca's preferred shares were "accredited investors", no purchasers were questioned by Respondents Boca or Shatz as to their financial ability or experience to determine if they were accredited investors prior to their purchase of Boca's preferred shares. At some of the seminars conducted by Respondents Boca and Shatz, attendees were also given information regarding the membership accounts offered by Respondent Equity. Between May 7, 1992, and March 14, 1994, Respondent Boca made 137 sales of its preferred shares of stock. In April 1993 Respondent Shatz announced the establishment of Respondent Equity as an investment club for the purpose of raising money for Respondent Boca by having the investment club purchase Respondent Boca's stock. In May 1993 five membership accounts in Respondent Equity were opened, and those members subsequently made additional deposits in their accounts. Once the accounts were opened, Respondent Equity became the sole manager of those funds. On July 2, 1993, Respondent Equity purchased five shares of Respondent Boca's stock with the combined monies from the membership accounts. Respondent Equity has not registered its securities with the Department, and neither Respondent Equity nor Respondent Shatz is registered with the Department to sell or offer to sell its membership accounts as an issuer, as a broker/dealer, or as an associated person. A pamphlet regarding Respondent Boca's offering, labeled "prospectus" but generally known as a private placement memorandum, was given to attendees who wanted one at each seminar. No prospectus was available regarding Respondent Equity's offering. As the advertisements placed by Respondents Boca and Shatz changed, so did the prospectus for Respondent Boca. Boca's February 1, 1993, prospectus carried a caveat on the cover page that the securities of Boca and its prospectus were neither approved or disapproved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The September 1, 1993, prospectus carried the same caveat. However, the November 1, 1993, and the April l, 1994, prospectuses added to that caveat an additional statement that the securities of Respondent Boca were not registered with the Department but the firm was registered as an issuer/dealer to sell its own securities. Between June 15, 1993, and January 14, 1994, neither Respondent Boca nor Respondent Shatz had access to all of the corporate books and records for the time period prior to June 15, 1993, since those records were in the possession of Respondent Boca's accountant/escrow agent. Respondent Boca's September 1, 1993, prospectus, its September 1, 1993, revised prospectus, and its November 1, 1993, prospectus represented that any purchaser of Boca's preferred shares had the right of access upon reasonable notice to Boca's books and records. Further, the November 1, 1993, prospectus offered that right of access to potential purchasers. Respondent Boca's September 1, 1993, prospectus represents that Larry Rosenman was Boca's escrow agent possessing copies of all assignments of insurance policies. That information was also provided orally to those attending Respondent Boca's September 30, 1993, seminar. On October 7, 1993, Rosenman wrote a letter to Respondents Boca and Shatz denying that he had agreed to be Boca's escrow agent, demanding that Boca and Shatz cease any representations to the contrary, and demanding that Boca and Shatz notify anyone who had received the September 1, 1993, prospectus that the representation in the prospectus that Rosenman was the escrow agent was not accurate. By letter dated October 8, Respondent Shatz wrote Rosenman apologizing for the error, agreeing to remove Rosenman's name from Boca's prospectus, and agreeing to notify all persons who had received the prospectus that Rosenman's name should not have been listed. Respondents Shatz and Boca issued a revised September 1, 1993, prospectus deleting any reference to an escrow agent and, specifically, deleting Rosenman's name. They did not notify all persons who may have received the original September 1 prospectus. Thereafter, none of Respondent Boca's prospectuses represented that Boca had an escrow agent. Attorney Tina Talarchyk was Respondent Boca's "in-house counsel" from October 1, 1993, through December 1993. She denied at hearing that she was also Boca's escrow agent during that time period and that she had ever executed the temporary escrow agent agreement written on her letterhead and admitted in evidence in this cause. She offered no explanation for the other items of correspondence admitted in evidence which reflect she was the person handling the redemption of stock certificates when investors wished to withdraw their monies invested in Respondent Boca. As she appeared to be carrying out the duties of an escrow agent on her professional letterhead and as she represented herself to an investor to be Boca's escrow agent, she acted as an escrow agent on behalf of Respondent Boca during that time period. On October 7, 1994, Respondents Boca and Shatz directed a letter to all investors that incorrect statements had been made in the past. The letter specifically advised that Respondent Boca did not have an escrow agent at that time, that Respondent Boca had never been registered as an issuer/dealer to sell its own securities, and that, although any investor could examine the company's books and records, no audit had been performed at that time. The letter also offered to return any investor's money. No investor requested the return of any monies based upon the contents of that letter. No investor relied upon any misrepresentation or "incorrect statement" in investing in Respondent Boca. The investors who testified at the final hearing conducted their own "due diligence" inquiry before investing in Respondent Boca and discovered, as the Department's own investigators discovered, that there were no complaints regarding Respondents made to any local or state agency. On occasion, a former employee of Respondent Boca found that an entry in Boca's accounts receivable journal had not yet been deleted when he thought it should have been. From August 18 to August 25, 1993, one of Respondent Boca's bookkeepers gave Respondent Shatz a report that she prepared indicating that Respondent Boca had a negative bank balance. Respondent Boca never missed making timely any interest or dividend payment to any investor who purchased Boca's preferred shares and, later, Boca's bonds. Similarly, Respondent Equity never missed making timely any interest payment to any investor having a membership account. Every person who purchased preferred shares in Respondent Boca was able to redeem those certificates and receive back the money invested in Boca upon electing to do so. Similarly, every member of Respondent Equity was able to withdraw their monies upon electing to do so. The Department has never received a complaint from any investor in Respondent Boca regarding Boca's or Respondent Shatz' business practices. Similarly, the Department has never received a complaint from any member of Respondent Equity regarding Equity's or Respondent Shatz' business practices. Although the Department has examined and copied Respondents' business records at the corporate office on several occasions, and although the Department has interrogated investors in Respondent Boca and members of Respondent Equity, some of them on repeated occasions, the Department has not discovered any investor or member who has been injured by Respondents' business practices, by Respondents' failure to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department, or by any representations made by Respondent Shatz at Boca's seminars or by Respondents Shatz or Boca in any of Boca's prospectuses. Further, the Department has not discovered any investor or member who relied on any erroneous or inaccurate statement made by any Respondent in deciding to invest in Respondent Boca or open a membership account in Respondent Equity. A Department investigator attended the September 30, 1993, seminar after seeing the newspaper advertisement and ascertaining that Respondents Boca and Shatz and Boca's securities were not registered with the Department. He also attended the February 17, 1994, seminar. Fifty-five of the 137 sales made by Respondents Boca and Shatz occurred after the first seminar which he attended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondents Boca and Shatz not guilty of the allegations contained in counts 1-4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them; Finding Respondents Equity and Shatz guilty of the allegations against them contained in counts 5-19; Finding Respondents Boca and Shatz guilty of the allegations against them contained in counts 20-430; Ordering Respondents to cease and desist from the sale of unregistered securities by unregistered persons and entities; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for each of the 137 transactions against Respondents Boca and Shatz, jointly and severally, for a total of $13,700; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for each of the 5 membership accounts against Respondents Equity and Shatz, jointly and severally, for a total of $500. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 30th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-6671 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16- 18, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 7, 9, 15, 19, and 20 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 21, 23, 27, and 31 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 26, 30, 32, and 37- 40 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 34 and 36 have been rejected since they are illegible. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 35 has been rejected as being irrelevant. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 11, 13, 18, 23, 40, and 41 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6-10, 12, 19-21, 24, 29, 30, 32-34, 36-39, 42, and 43 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 14-17, and 35 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 22, 25, 28, and 31 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 26 and 27 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. O'Neill, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Division of Securities and Investor Protection The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Alec Shatz 5850 West Atlantic Avenue Suite 103 Delray Beach, Florida 33484 Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a principal with Monvest Securities, Inc., should be granted by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities (Department).
Findings Of Fact The petitioner was registered with the Department as an associated person pursuant to Chapter 517, as follows: DATE COMPANY 9/22/82 to 9/19/83 Blinder, Robinson & Co. 11/23/83 to 6/26/84 First Interwest Securities Co. 9/4/84 to 12/27/84 Wall Street West, Inc. 3/11/85 to 10/3/85 R. H. Stewart & Co., Inc. 9/25/85 to 12/3/85 Allied Capital Group, Inc. Petitioner has not been registered with the Department in any capacity since December 3, 1985. The Department uses the forms adopted and approved by the National Association of Securities Dealers (N.A.S.D.) and filed with the Central Registration Depository (C.R.D.). Customarily, the registration application, Form U-4, is filled out by the applicant and given to the Broker-Dealer with whom the applicant is to be licensed. The Broker-Dealer then completes the form with the information concerning that Broker-Dealer and sends the completed form to the C.R.D. After Form U-4 has been filed with the C.R.D., the information is transmitted to the Department. The Broker-Dealer is advised when the applicant has been approved, and the Broker-Dealer informs the applicant that he can begin selling securities. It generally takes between one and two weeks for an applicant to be approved. No license or other paper is transmitted to the applicant from the Department to inform the applicant of his registration. However, the applicant can telephone the Department and determine his status. When an individual leaves the employ of a Broker-Dealer, the Broker- Dealer is required to send a Form U-5 to the C.R.D. within 30 days of termination. The individual never receives a copy of this form from either the C.R.D. or the Department or knows when it has been sent or received. Again, the associated person relies on the Broker-Dealer to advise him of his status. There is a procedure whereby an individual registered with one Broker- Dealer can transfer to another Broker-Dealer. This procedure, known as T.A.T., allows the individual to sell securities for 30 days while his application for registration with the new Broker-Dealer is pending. However, this procedure applies only to individuals who transfer their affiliation. It does not apply to individuals who terminate their affiliation with one company and then apply for registration with another company. Petitioner's registration as an associated person with Allied Capital terminated on December 3, 1985, and petitioner was advised by Allied Capital of his termination around December 1, 1985. Petitioner was terminated by Allied Capital due to insufficient business. On or about December 16, 1985, petitioner traveled to New York and spoke with representatives of Monvest Securities, Inc. (Monvest), regarding his registration through that company to open a branch office in Apopka, Florida. The same day he filled out a portion of a Form U-4 and gave it to the company for them to complete and send on to the C.R.D. Monvest also agreed to prepare the necessary documents to register the branch office in Apopka. Generally, the Broker-Dealer submits the application for the branch office. The application was submitted by Monvest on January 8, 1986. According to the application, petitioner was to be employed with Monvest in their office at 116-C East 5th Street, Apopka, Florida. There is no branch office of Monvest registered with the Department at that address. Petitioner stated in the employment history section of the application that from September of 1984 through November of 1984 he was unemployed. However, from September 4, 1984, until December 27, 1984, petitioner was registered as an associated person with Wall Street West. Petitioner made this error because he merely copied the employment history section from the previous application submitted for registration with Allied Capital. However, there was not a satisfactory explanation given as to why Wall Street West was omitted from the employment history listed on the Allied Capital application. Petitioner also stated in his employment history that he worked for R. H. Stewart & Company as a branch manager from December 1984 until August 1984. Petitioner was actually registered with R. H. Stewart from March 11, 1985 until October 3, 1985. However, because of the way the registration and termination systems work, it is not surprising that an individual's employment dates might be somewhat different from the dates of his official registration. When petitioner filled out the application form and left it with Monvest, he though that the application would be routinely processed, as all his others had been, and that approval would be forthcoming. In the meantime, petitioner had been involved in another business venture known as Global 2000 along with two other individuals. The group retained a law firm in Miami versed in securities regulations which prepared a document called "Confidential Private Placement Memorandum, Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Company" and a "Supplement to Private Offering". Petitioner is a principal in Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Company (collectively known as the Global 2000 Group). The number of investors in the Global 2000 Group is limited to no more than thirty-five, and the total offering is less than $500,000.00. Petitioner testified that the offering was a "Regulation D" offering, and therefore formal registration was not required. At the time of the hearing, petitioner was unaware of any sale of Global 2000 Group stock. On January 1, 1986, the Global 2000 Group published a "Supplement to Private Offering Memorandum, Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Corporation." The supplement had been sent to the printers on or about December 1, 1986, but was dated January 1, 1986. The last page of this supplement contains a picture of Woerz and the following: Melvin W. Woerz President Global 2000 Securities Company (Age 55) Licensed General Securities Principal and Registered Representative with the Division of Securities, Department of Banking and Finance, State of Florida; Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.; NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers . . . In the bottom right corner of this page was the following: Global 2000 Securities Company 116-C East Fifth Street Apopka, Florida 32708 1-800-782-7710 This supplement was sent to all individuals who received the Private Placement Memorandum for Global 2000, Inc., and ten or fifteen other individuals. The Private Placement Memorandum and supplement were mailed shortly after January 1, 1986. At the time the supplement was mailed, petitioner was not registered with the Department nor was Global 2000 Securities Company. On or about January 22, 1986, petitioner mailed to forty or fifty individuals copies of a three page publication entitled "Our Recommendations." This publication advocates the purchase of various over the counter securities. The bottom of page three of this publication reads as follows: WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU!!! TAKE CARE MEL WOERZ AND ART BESCH SECURITIES BROKERS 116-C East Fifth Street Apopka, Florida 32703 PHONE: (305) 886-2288 COLLECT (800) 782-7710 IN FLORIDA (800) 423-0219 OUTSIDE FLORIDA There was no Broker-Dealer registered with the Department by the name of Mel Woerz and Art Besch. When "Our Recommendations" was mailed, petitioner was not sure whether his application for registration with Monvest had been approved in Florida. However, since Monvest had notified petitioner of his approval in six states, but not Florida, petitioner should have known that his application had not yet been approved in Florida. "Our Recommendations" was sent to prior clients of petitioner and Art Besch. Both Besch and petitioner stated that the intent of the communication was merely to keep in touch with their customers while awaiting approval. Petitioner has not sold any securities since leaving Allied Capital. On the application filed with the Department, petitioner agreed "to abide by, comply with, and adhere to all the provisions, conditions, and covenants of the statutes . . . and rules and regulationns of the states. "
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for registration pursuant to Section 517.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that petitioner has violated Sections 517.12(1) and 517.311(2), Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Section 517.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that petitioner's application contains a material false statement. It is also recommended that petitioner's application be denied because it designates as petitioner's place of employment a branch office that has not been registered. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 86-1785 Petitoner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1 & 2. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 7. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 4. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 5. 8 & 9. Accepted that petitioner's employment history did not correlate with his registration in Paragraph 10. Remainder rejected as unnecessary. 10-12. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted as stated in Paragraph 6. Accepted in Paragraph 1. Accepted, Paragraph 7. 16-18. Accepted in Paragraph 8. 19. Accepted in Paragraph 11. 20-22. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 12 and 13, last sentence and date of mailing rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Accepted generally in Paragraph 14. Accepted generally in Paragraph 17'. Accepted in Paragraph 15. Accepted in Paragraph 1. First sentence accepted in Paragraph 9, second sentence rejected for reason stated in Paragraph 9, last sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1-3. Accepted in Paragraph 8, except date changed to January 8th because that is when Monvest signed application. Accepted in Paragraph 1. Accepted generally in Paragraph 13. 6 & 7. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 8. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 14 and 16. 9. Accepted in Paragraph 15. 10. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 11. Accepted in Paragraphs 9 and 10. 12. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 13. Accepted in Paragraph 3. 14. Accepted in Paragraph 5. 15. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 1 and 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Kieffer, Esquire Post Office Box 2021 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties on August 30, 1990, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that: Petitioner, Edward T. Strehlau, is President and control person of Deerfield Securities, Inc. On or about February 3, 1989, Petitioners filed an application, (Form BD), for registration as a broker/dealer, which was signed by Mr. Strehlau. On or about March 15, 1989, Petitioners filed with the Division an amendment to that Form BD. On or about April 19, June 22, and July 20, 1989, Petitioners filed additional amendments to the Form BD initially signed and submitted on behalf of the Petitioners by Mr. Strehlau. All of the Forms BD and amendments filed by Petitioner, Strehlau, with the Division were represented by him as true and complete. On February 3, 1989, Petitioner, Strehlau, also filed the Articles of Incorporation of Deerfield Securities, Inc., with the Florida Secretary of State. These Articles listed Edward T. Strehlau, Patericia O'Dell, William Manger, and Patricia Strehlau as Directors. The Division of Securities requires the filing of the Articles of Incorporation along with the dorm BD. This requirement is outlined in Section 517.12, Florida Statutes. Neither William Manger nor Patricia Strehlau were listed as Directors of Deerfield Securities, Inc., on the Form BD or on any amendments thereto which were filed with the Division. Mr. Manger is the subject of a complaint relating to securities violations committed by Eiffel Securities, Inc., Mr. Manger, a Mr. Riddle, and a Mr. Ashbee, in the State of Tennessee. On or about February 23, 1989, Mr. Strehlau, as President of Deerfield, withdrew the application for registration of Deerfield Securities, Inc., as a broker dealer with the State of Tennessee, and further agreed not to reapply for registration as a broker/dealer in that State, and not to sell Deerfield Investments, Inc.'s investment units in Tennessee. Deerfield Securities, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deerfield Investments, Inc. Edward T. Strehlau is a control person and President of Deerfield Investments, Inc. The principal place of business of Deerfield Securities, Inc. is Sarasota, Florida. William Manger, at all times pertinent hereto, was President and a control person of the aforementioned Eiffel Securities, Inc., a Tennessee corporation. Petitioner, Edward T. Strehlau, was a control person of Eiffel Securities, Inc., during the period June 1, 1988 through September 21, 1988. Eiffel Securities, Inc. was a wholly owned subsidiary of Tennessee Investments Marketing Enterprises, (TIME), and Edward T. Strehlau was vice-president of TIME between June, 1988 and September, 1988. On February 3, 1989, Petitioner Strehlau paid $200.00 in filing fees for Deerfield Securities, Inc. with the Florida Division of Securities. On February 10, 1989, The Division of Securities notified Deerfield of several deficiencies in its application for registration as a securities dealer. These deficiencies included a requirement for: the officer or partner names of the parent firm; registration as a foreign corporation or a legal opinion indicating no need therefor;+ a clearing agreement from a dealer in Florida signed by both firms; Articles of Incorporation or partnership agreement; proof of securities effectiveness and compliance with SIPC (Securities Investors Protection Corporation). Thereafter, on February 27, March 16, April 20, June 22, and July 18, 1989, Mr. Strehlau sent letters to the Division of Securities in which he attempted to convince the Division of his compliance with the requirements set forth in the February 10, 1989 deficiencies letter. The Petitioner's efforts, however, were not supported by facts in some particulars. For example, the clearing agreement with OTRA, to be signed by both parties, was signed only by Petitioner Strehlau as President of Deerfield Securities, Inc., and attested by Patericia O'Dell of the firm. No signature from any responsible party of OTRA appears on the document. By letter dated December 2, 1988, Mr. Strehlau submitted this unilaterally executed clearing agreement. By letter dated February 22, 1989, the vice- president for finance of the SIPC attested that Deerfield Securities, Inc. was, as of that date, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), as a securities broker under Section 15(b), of the 1934 Securities Investor Protection Act, and by operation of that Act, the corporation would be a member of SIPC unless its business consisted exclusively of various activities which are not pertinent to this hearing. It would appear, therefore, that Deerfield Securities, Inc. was, at the time of application at least, a member of SIPC. It is also found, however, that the application for registration submitted by Mr. Strehlau on behalf of himself and Deerfield Securities, Inc. contained what appears to be a material misrepresentation of fact in that it did not list Mr. Manger and Mrs. Strehlau as Directors. Mr. Manger had a disciplinary history in the industry in Tennessee and his omission was material. Article VI of Deerfield Securities' Articles of Incorporation filed with the Florida's Secretary of State's office listed Mr. Manger as one of the original Directors of Deerfield Securities, Inc. as of February 3, 1989. However, when Mr. Strehlau submitted the application for registration for Deerfield, (Form BD), neither that form nor any of the subsequent amendments listed Manger as a Director or affiliated person even though the form required that all Directors be listed. Mr. Strehlau contends that Manger and Mrs. Strehlau were omitted because neither were to take an active part in the management of Deerfield's operations. The Division, however, considered the omission to be a false material statement since the Directors of an applicant are considered to be pertinent to its operation. In this, the Division is correct. The Division also took the position that the pending Tennessee disciplinary action against Mr. Manger was significant. It surmised that Manger, seeing he could not be licensed in Florida on his own, was attempting to achieve this end through Mr. Strehlau, and the Department was concerned there was still a relationship between Manger and Deerfield. There is no evidence, direct or otherwise, to support that suspicion. When an application form is sent to an applicant, upon the applicant's request, an instruction sheet is sent with it which outlines the basic requirements for filing. These instructions are not, however, all inclusive or controlling. The statutes and Rules of the Department, pertinent to criteria for application and registration, constitute the ultimate guidelines over who is approved for registration. When Division analysts review an application, they check it against a requirements check list to insure that all requirements are met. If required information is not included with the application, the Division must notify the applicant of the omitted information within 30 days. If the requested information is received within 60 days, the Division then has an additional 90 days in which to rule on the application. If the omitted information is not timely received, however, the Division can deny the application for incompleteness or approve it if appropriate. On the other hand, when all required information is received timely, if the Division does not act on the application within 90 days, the application is automatically approved and if a discrepancy is thereafter noted, corrective action must be through disciplinary action rather than denial. The Division's denial action here was based on two grounds. The first was the failure to list Mr. Manger as a Director on the original Form BD or any of the amendments thereto. The second was Mr. Manger's prior and pending disciplinary record. Even if the pending action were not considered, the Division would still have denied the Petitioner, Deerfield's, application based on the prior, completed disciplinary actions against Mr. Manger in Tennessee. Petitioner claims that the Division did not request a second time those items listed on the initial deficiency letter and which were not thereafter provided by him. It is the Division's policy that once the initial deficiency letter is sent, calling for additional information, if the applicant submits only a part of those items identified, it will not send out another notification reminding the applicant of the still- missing items. It is not required that such follow-up notification be sent. If, however, the applicant calls and inquires if its application is complete, the Division will advise the applicant which of the previously noted deficiencies have not yet been corrected. Here, no such inquiry by the Petitioner was made. In this case, the Division took the position that Petitioner's application was never complete since there was no clearing agreement signed by the required parties prior to approval. Further, Mr. Strehlau's application as a principal failed to include a proper copy of his personal disciplinary history regarding a dismissed charge of felonious pointing a fire arm in Oklahoma in 1981. Under Florida law, every securities dealership must have a registered principal and Mr. Strehlau was to fill that capacity for Deerfield. Since his application could not be deemed complete because of the failure to provide all the required information, neither could Deerfield's be deemed complete. The State of Florida will not approve the application of a broker/securities dealer without approval of the National Association of Securities Dealers, (NASD). It is normal practice for NASD and Florida approval to be at the same time. There is an attempt at coordination, but Florida cannot approve a dealer for registration without the approval of the SEC and NASD. As of March 8, 1989, the state had been advised that NASD was prepared to approve Deerfield Securities, Inc., though it had some reservations about the firm which were insufficient to support denial. Even had NASD granted approval, however, NASD registration and membership does not guarantee Florida registration. The standards for registration are different. No doubt Mr. Strehlau made many phone calls to the Division in an effort to get approval of these applications. Without question he submitted numerous amendments to the Form BD in an effort to provide that information that the Division asked for in a timely and proper manner. His claims that neither Mr. Manger nor Mrs. Strehlau were listed as Directors on any of the forms because they were not involved in the operation of the business, and that had it been intended for them to work in an operational capacity, they would have been listed are not persuasive, however. Notwithstanding his argument that if the Division had any questions about that, it should have inquired, clearly, that is not the Division's responsibility to do.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the application of Deerfield Securities, Inc. to be registered as a broker/dealer, and the application of Edward T. Strehlau to be registered as an associated person/principal of Deerfield Securities, Inc., in Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 5th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Strehlau, pro se 13122 Woodington Drive Houston, Texas 77038 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
