The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted registration as an associated person by the Department of Banking and Finance, or whether his application should be denied because of alleged misconduct outlined in the letter of denial.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Richard Graibus, was either a registered associated person associated with a security firm or an applicant for registration as an associated person in Florida, and the Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection, (Department), was and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the sale of securities in this state. On August 19, 1988, Mr. Graibus filed an application to be an associated person of Finnet Securities, Inc., (Finnet), with the Department. On March 3, 1989, by letter, the Department notified Mr. Graibus of its intent to deny his application on the basis that prior disciplinary action taken against him by other states was prima facie evidence of his unworthiness to act as a securities dealer in Florida. Specifically, the bases for denial were: A Minnesota Cease and Desist Order in December, 1977. A Securities and Exchange commission suspension order in May, 1983. The denial of Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with J. W. Gant and Associates by 10 states. Three judgements against Petitioner. His termination for cause from employment with American Western Securities. Petitioner was employed by American Western Securities in Denver, Colorado from November, 1977 to July 1980 when he left feeling a change would be beneficial to his career. No evidence was presented to support the Department's allegation that Petitioner was terminated for cause from that period of employment and that allegation is found to be unsupported. In December, 1977, the State of Minnesota issued a Cease and Desist Order against Petitioner alleging that he offered to sell, and did sell, unregistered securities while neither he, the firm, nor the securities were registered in that state as required by state law. Petitioner did not dispute the allegations of fact outlined in the Minnesota Order. The actual sale was made to a father and son who Petitioner had inherited as customers from his stepfather. The trades were unsolicited and were approved by petitioner's supervison who had many years experience in the securities trade. On May 23, 1983, the Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), found that Mr. Graibus had, at an unspecified time, wilfully violated and aided and abetted in violations of the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the United States security law, and had failed to reasonably supervise others under his control to prevent violations of the same law. Petitioner engaged in cross trading, manipulation of stock prices, and fraudulent representations to customers regarding two stocks. These findings were incorporated in a Findings and Order Imposing Remedial Sanctions which were drafted and adopted from an offer of settlement submitted by Mr. Graibus. In its Order, the SEC took the following disciplinary action: It suspended Petitioner from association with any broker/dealer for 60 days; It barred Petitioner from acting in a supervisory capacity as a principal, officer, director or employee for 12 months; and It stipulated that Petitioner was not to act in a supervisory position without prior approval from the Commission, after the expiration of the previously mentioned 12 month period. Mr. Graibus has twice previously been granted registration as an associated person in Florida. Specifically, on May 9, 1984, he was approved as an associated person with Chesley and Dunn; and on January 28, 1985, he was approved as an associated person with J. W. Gant and Associates. In both cases, the Department had knowledge of the Minnesota Order and the SEC action since Petitioner disclosed both on each application. In 1984, while Petitioner was a principle of the brokerage firm of Chesley and Dunn, Inc., the Securities and Exchange Commission revoked the firm's registration for violations of various net capital and financial reporting regulations. There was no charge against the Petitioner. As a result of his association with this firm, and his having signed notes on behalf of the firm in his personal capacity, Mr. Graibus incurred a substantial liability for obligations of the firm, which are memorialized by three default judgements against him. The initial loan totaled $150,000.00. While manager of the firm's Sarasota office, Petitioner also invested approximately $175,000.00 of his own money which was lost. All his private obligations were fully disclosed to prospective creditors when he borrowed the money for the firm. In 1985, Mr. Graibus submitted applications to several states for registration as an associated person with J. W. Gant and Associates. These applications fully disclosed the entry of the Minnesota Order and the results of the SEC action. His applications were approved in twenty-two states, but as a result of the aforementioned SEC action, were denied by the states of Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Ohio, and Tennessee. He protested the denial by Tennessee and on November 22, 1985, that state entered a Final Order confirming its denial of his application for registration, finding that he had failed to disclose the adverse finality of the Minnesota Cease and Desist Order claiming Instead that the order had been resolved by corporate counsel. This comment is also made- in Mr. Graibus's Gant application in Florida which granted his application. Mr. Graibus did not protest the entry of the Final Order In Tennessee. Mr. Peter Maftieu is a registered securities dealer in four separate classifications. He has worked for J. W. Gant and Chesley and Dunn since January, 1983. Petitioner trained him when he first started in the industry. Incorporated as a fundamental part of Petitioner's training [pg was the insistence on full disclosure of material facts to clients and the need to insure that he, as a salesman, educated himself as to his client's situation by a full and detailed questioning to insure the securities recommended were suitable for and consistent with the client's needs. As a part of his training, Petitioner showed Mr. Maftieu the SEC and Minnesota orders as examples of what can happen if there is not full compliance with the rules. Due to increasing instances of misconduct within the securities industry in this state, none of which was shown to relate to Petitioner, in 1985 the Florida Comptroller created a task force to study the problem and come up with recommendations for efforts to combat fraud in the securities industry in Florida. In March, 1986, the task force submitted its report which, in part, recommended that the Department tighten up its review of applications for registration as securities dealers to eliminate or disqualify applicants with a disciplinary record within the industry. As a result of this recommendation, the Department altered its policy in exercising its discretionary approval authority. Petitioner has, for many years now, practiced full disclosure in the conduct of his business and it has been in excess of six years since the last findings of any violations of securities laws, rules or regulations by Petitioner. Nonetheless, in this case, the Department's denial of Mr. Graibus' application, which was based on his disciplinary history in other states, was consistent with its policy against granting registration to "unworthy" persons, as outlined in the Department's rules, and the intent of the Legislature as outlined in Section 517.1205, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based, on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with Finnet Securities, Inc., be granted. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 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 January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Jr., Esquire Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 D. Jefferson St. Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3127 M. Catherine Green, Esquire Paul C. Stadler, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R.T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of April.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Patricia Smithwick Valz, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying administrative proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Seaton made application to the Division under the provisions of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes, for registration as a salesman of securities. Subsequently, the Division issued its intent to refuse or deny license or registration along with administrative charges and complaint alleging that Seaton was unworthy to transact the business of a salesman. On February 22, 1977, the Securities Commissioner of the State of South Carolina issued his order to cease and desist directed to Seaton on the dual grounds that Seaton engaged in conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade in that he offered for sale limited partnerships constituting securities while failing to register them as required and that Seaton failed to register as a broker, dealer or agent in South Carolina. On June 7, 1977, the District Business Conduct Committee for District number 4 of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., issued its complaint against Seaton for violations of Article III, Sections 1, 18 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the application of Petitioner for registration as an associated person with J.T. Moran and Company, Inc.should be approved by the Florida Department of Banking and Finance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, who turned 46 years old on May 25, 1989, first became involved in the securities industry in approximately January of 1983 when he began working with the firm of Huberman, Margaretten and Straus, Inc.(HMS). Petitioner was registered with the Department as an associated person with HMS from May, 1983 until January, 1984. Petitioner's involvement in the securities industry evolved from discussions that he had with Paul Michelin. After some preliminary conversations, Mr. Michelin (who was a partner at HMS and had been involved in the securities industry for over twenty years) hired Petitioner to work as an account executive at HMS. Prior to starting work at HMS in 1983, Petitioner had been employed in unrelated industries and had never sold securities or worked in a position of responsibility for a securities firm. During his employment at HMS, Petitioner was supervised and trained by Paul Michelin. In approximately January of 1984, Paul Michelin left HMS and started his own broker-dealer firm, Michelin and Company. Petitioner was hired by Paul Michelin to work at that company beginning in January of 1984. Petitioner was registered with the Department as an associated person with Michelin and Company effective February 28, 1984. Paul Michelin owned all of the stock of the company. He oversaw and was responsible for the day to day operations of Michelin and Company throughout the entire time period relevant to these proceedings. Paul Michelin also had ultimate and sole responsibility for hiring and firing at Michelin and Company. There is conflicting evidence as to Petitioner's job title and responsibilities when he first joined Michelin and Company. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that he was originally hired as an account executive and did not become a vice president until sometime around May or June of 1984. However, in early 1986, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Michelin and Company for commissions and money supposedly due. In pleadings filed on behalf of Petitioner in that lawsuit, allegations were made that Petitioner was hired as a vice president of Michelin and Company in January of 1984 and his job responsibilities included a role in the management of the company. After reviewing the testimony and the documents received into evidence, the undersigned finds that Petitioner did not actually become a vice-president of the company until May or June of 1984. Petitioner passed the Series 24 examination that was given in May of 1984 and his registration with the Department was upgraded to principal effective July 26, 1984. Petitioner did not supervise any other brokers at Michelin and Company prior to passing the Series 24 exam. During the time period involved in this case, there were at least four other individuals employed by Michelin and Company who were principals and held the title of vice president. At some point in time, Petitioner became president of Michelin and Company. There is conflicting testimony as to when Petitioner actually was made President of the company. At the hearing, Petitioner and several other witnesses testified that he was not made president until April of 1985. In the pleadings filed by Petitioner against Michelin and Company, there is an allegation that Petitioner assumed this position in October of 1984. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses and reviewing the evidence submitted, the undersigned accepts the testimony of Petitioner that he did not become president of the company until April of 1985. When Petitioner became president of the company, his job responsibilities did not significantly change with the assumption of this office. While Petitioner handled some administrative and managerial duties for the company, Paul Michelin became Chairman of the Board for the company and continued to be involved on a day to day basis and remained responsible for the overall operations of the company. During the entire time the company was in operation Paul Michelin was primarily responsible for generating business, determining which stocks Michelin and Company would make a market in, deciding whether the company would underwrite particular issues and coordinating due diligence on specific offerings. Paul Michelin advised the sales force of the selling price of everything sold by Michelin and Company. Throughout the entire period that he was employed at Michelin and Company, Petitioner reported to Paul Michelin. There is no evidence that Petitioner was ever involved in directing due diligence on behalf of the company, determining underwriting criteria or requirements, deciding which stocks the company would make a market in, or deciding when the company would take a market to issue. Petitioner did not have the authority to hire or fire brokers or staff employees at Michelin and Company. Petitioner assisted in recruiting some brokers to the firm and received an override on the commissions produced by some of those brokers Petitioner supervised some of these other brokers, including, on occasion, reviewing their order tickets. Petitioner occasionally provided the sales staff with general advice on sales techniques and motivation. However, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever instructed or directed sales personnel to push any particular stock nor is there any evidence that Petitioner knowingly advised sales personnel to sell unregistered securities. Beginning in March or April of 1984, Michelin and Company started selling "convertible notes" of a company called Mikrotek. The Mikrotek "convertible notes" constituted securities under Chapter 517 Florida Statutes and were required to be registered prior to sale pursuant to S. 517.017, Florida Statutes. Paul Michelin was instrumental in the structuring of the Mikrotek transaction and the offering of the notes for sale by Michelin and Company. Petitioner was not involved in structuring the Mikrotek transaction. While Petitioner had some managerial and administrative responsibilities with Michelin and Company at the time the Mikrotek convertible notes were sold, his involvement was administrative in nature and did not include review or decision- making authority with respect to the structuring of the Mikrotek transaction. Michelin and Company's involvement with the Mikrotek transaction was originated by Paul Michelin. Paul Michelin brought the president of Adeck Technology to Michelin and Company to explain the Mikrotek deal to the employees of Michelin and Company. The president of Adeck Technology explained to the Michelin and Company employees that his company was in need of raising capital and, therefore, would be offering for sale the convertible notes of a European subsidiary or affiliate referred to as Mikrotek. Paul Michelin provided additional information regarding the Mikrotek transaction to Petitioner and other brokers with the company and advised them that the convertible notes were exempt from registration. There is no evidence that Petitioner knew the notes had to be registered at the time that he was selling them. Petitioner accepted Paul Michelin's representations that the convertible notes did not need to be registered. Petitioner did not learn that the notes had to be registered until some time after October, 1985. Even as late as January, 1986 when the Department began investigating the sale of Mikrotek notes by Michelin and Company, Paul Michelin took the position that the notes did not need to be registered. Petitioner and other brokers with Michelin and Company conducted personal due diligence regarding the Nikrotek transaction prior to selling the notes. However, their due diligence was limited in scope because the transaction was being structured by and was the responsibility of Paul Michelin. The due diligence conducted by Petitioner and the other brokers included a visit to the Adeck Plant in West Palm Beach where they were provided with more details regarding the nature of the investment. The visit to the Adeck Plant revealed an ongoing business operation and did not provide any indication of an intended scheme to defraud investors Paul Michelin advised Petitioner and the other brokers at Michelin and Company as to the denominations of and anticipated conversion rates for the notes. During a period of time from August of 1984 through February of 1985, Petitioner sold the convertible notes of Mikrotek to twelve (12) purchasers The following is a list of investors to whom Petitioner sold the notes: Investor Amount Emmanuel Weinberger $10,000/ 10,000 shares ($1.00 per share) John Silvestri 21,000/ 21,000 shares ($1.00 per share) John Silvestri, Jr. 20,000/ 10,000 shares ($2.00 per share) Ester Palley Sol Palley 5,500/ 11,000/ 10,000 shares 20,000 shares ($0.55 ($0.55 per per share) share) Arthur & Ann Katz 2,750/ 5,000 shares ($0.55 per share) Mark Krowda 3,500/ 3,500 shares ($1.00 per share) Ed Dinkins 1,000/ 1,000 shares ($1.00 per share) Geraldine Faley Robert Brasington 5,500/ 12,250/ 10,000 shares 16,750 shares ($0.55 ($0.73 per per share) share) Robert Daniels 1,375/ 2,500 shares ($0.55 per share) Maxine Daniels 1,375/ 2,500 shares ($0.55 per share) 94,000/112,250 shares The sales of the notes by Petitioner were made on the following dates: Investor Date of Sale Emmanuel Weinberger November, 1984 John Silvestri September, 1984 John Silvestri, Jr. February, 1985 Ester Palley August, 1984 Sol Palley August, 1984 Arthur & Ann Katz August, 1984 Mark Krowda October, 1984 Ed Dinkins October, 1984 Geraldine Faley August, 1984 Robert Brasington September, 1984 Robert Daniels August, 1984 Maxine Daniels August, 1984 Included among the purchasers to whom Petitioner sold the notes were his own mother and father. Petitioner was not president of Michelin and Company at the time he sold the Mikrotek convertible notes. Paul Michelin and the president of Adeck Technology periodically provided the Michelin employees with updated information on the Mikrotek transaction during the period the notes were being sold. At no time was Petitioner advised that the notes had to be registered. Petitioner did not provide any of the purchasers of the Notes with an offering circular, prospectus or any other document constituting full and fair disclosure nor did he advise them that they were entitled to receive such a document. In connection with the sale of the convertible notes of Mikrotek, Petitioner did not inform the purchasers that they had a right to rescission under Florida law. In connection with the sale of the convertible notes of Mikrotek, Petitioner represented to the purchasers that Mikrotek intended to do a public offering of stock at a price range of $2 - $5 a share and the convertible notes could be converted and registered at that time and sold at the public offering price. At the time he made these representations, Petitioner believed them to be true. There was never a public offering of Mikrotek stock and, therefore, investors were not able to convert the notes to stock. Mikrotek was unable to repay the notes. In September of 1986, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Registration seeking to revoke Michelin and Company's registration. Petitioner was not employed by Michelin and Company and was, not registered with the Department at the time the complaint was filed and, therefore, Petitioner was not named in the Administrative Complaint. While the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed against Michelin and Company focused largely on the sale of Mikrotek convertible notes, several other transactions were also cited. However, no evidence was introduced with respect to those transactions. Aside from the sale of the Mikrotek convertible notes, there is no indication that Petitioner was ever involved in any other sales of securities in violation of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Ultimately, all of the investors who purchased Mikrotek convertible notes through Michelin and Company were repaid their investment by Paul Michelin from his personal funds. Or August 2, 1985, Petitioner and his wife were involved in a plane crash in Dallas, Texas. Petitioner was compelled to spend a considerable portion of the following months in Dallas with his wife. As a result, Petitioner was severely restricted in his ability to conduct his business in a regular manner. Not surprisingly, strains developed in his relationship with Michelin and Company. A dispute arose as to whether Petitioner was receiving all of the commissions and payments due him. This dispute resulted in a lawsuit brought by Petitioner against Michelin and Company, Paul Michelin and others in January of 1986. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was terminated from employment with Michelin and Company. A Form U-5 termination notice regarding Petitioner was submitted by Michelin and Company to the Department on January 26, 1986 and Petitioner has not been registered to sell securities in Florida since that time. On November 20, 1987, Petitioner filed with the Department a Form U-4 Application for registration as an associated person with J. T. Moran and Company. By letter dated July 1, 1988, the Department denied Petitioner's application. The denial letter sent by the Department references a customer complaint received by the Department regarding Petitioner and a civil lawsuit filed against Petitioner. Both of these matters arise from the sale of Mikrotek convertible notes. The customer complaint referenced in the denial letter was filed by John Silvestri (Silvestri) who was a client of Petitioner. In November of 1985, Silvestri filed a complaint with the Department alleging that Petitioner had forged the signature of Silvestri and his son to two letters of authorization to purchase Mikrotek convertible notes. Prior to filing this complaint, Silvestri had arranged to receive a check from Mikrotek in the amount of the investment. However, that check bounced and Silvestri then contacted Petitioner seeking assistance in obtaining a refund of the amount invested in Mikrotek notes in the name of Silvestri and his son. At the time Silvestri contacted him, Petitioner was in Dallas with his wife who had been critically injured in the plane crash on August 2, 1985. Because of his personal crisis, Petitioner advised Silvestri that he could not assist him at that time and told Silvestri that he should contact Paul Michelin. Silvestri had problems getting in touch with Paul Michelin and could not get prompt or sufficient assistance. At that point, Silvestri filed his complaint with the Department. There is no evidence to substantiate the allegations that Petitioner forged Silvestri's or any other customer's signature on authorization letters Although approximately $12,000 was withheld from Petitioner'S last paycheck from Michelin and Company, those withheld funds cannot be directly traced to the payments made to Mr. Silvestri or any other customer. Ultimately, Silvestri, like the other purchasers of Mikrotek convertible notes, received a refund from Paul Michelin for the full amount of the investment. While the allegations against Petitioner by Silvestri are very serious, the allegations have never been proven and there is no indication that Silvestri was treated any differently than the other purchasers of the Mikrotek notes in the settlements made by Paul Michelin with the purchasers of the notes. The civil action referred to in the denial letter was filed in October of 1985 by Warren Gersham, David Kaplan, Jeffrey Weiner, and Delia Weiner (the "Plaintiffs) in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint in that action alleges that Michelin and Company, through Petitioner and others, sold the Plaintiffs unregistered securities in violation of federal and Florida law and that such securities were acquired by the Plaintiffs as a result of negligence and/or misrepresentations committed by Petitioner and the other defendants. The Plaintiffs were actually customers of another broker of Michelin and Company and Petitioner did not sell any Mikrotek notes to them. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner had any contact with any of these Plaintiffs regarding the notes. The lawsuit was ultimately settled as a result of payments made by Paul Michelin. The Plaintiffs in that action were treated the same as the other purchasers of Mikrotek notes. No other customer complaints relating to Petitioner have been received by the Department. All of the grounds cited by the Department in support of its denial of Petitioner's application were predicated upon Petitioner's involvement in the sale of the Mikrotek convertible notes. Although at some point in time Petitioner was named president of the company, he did not assume this position until after the company had begun selling the notes and there is no evidence indicating that his involvement in the Mikrotek transaction was significantly greater than that of other brokers who have subsequently been registered by the Department. At least three other brokers who were employed by Michelin and Company and who sold Mikrotek convertible notes to investors have subsequently become registered with the Department. At least two of those other brokers were officers with Michelin and Company including Jeffrey Zwitter who was a witness for the Department at the hearing and was a vice president with Michelin and Company beginning in December, 1985. A second former Michelin broker who has subsequently been registered by the Department is Jack Leathers who was a vice president of sales for Michelin and Company and who, on some occasions when Paul Michelin was out of the office, supervised the office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting the application of Petitioner for registration as an associated person with J.T. Moran and Company, provided Petitioner agrees to receive strict supervision in his capacity as an associated person for a period of one year from the date of his registration, agrees not to exercise discretionary authority in any customer account, agrees not to act in a supervisory capacity for a period of one year from the date of his registration and agrees not to engage in any prohibited practice, as that term is defined by Rule 3E-600.13, Florida Administrative Code DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3935 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1,2 45 3,4 Included in the Preliminary Statement 5(a) 1 However, the evidence established that Petitioner began working at Huberman in January of 1983. 2 4 6 5 5 1 and 2 (h) 29 (i) 35 and 36 (j) 10 (k) 11 (l) 13 (m) 40 (n) 40 (o) 46 and 58 (p) 57 Included in the Preliminary Statement Included in the Preliminary Statement Included in the Preliminary Statement Included in the Preliminary Statement Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant 11 6,12,13 12 Rejected as phrased because the "relevant period" is not defined. However, this subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 5. 13 16 1. However, the evidence established that Petitioner began working at Huberman in January of 1983. 1 and 2 16 2 17 2 18 3 19 3 20 4 21 5 22 1,2 and 5 23 5 24 7 25 Rejected because the time period is not defined and it is unclear what is meant by "with Paul Michelin the entire period of time." However, Findings of Fact 2-5 cover related issues. 26 2 Rejected as being over-broad and non- specific. However, Findings of Fact 23 relates to this issue. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected because "ran" is not defined. However, Findings of Fact 6,11 and 12 cover related issues. Rejected because "ran" is not defined. However, Findings of Fact 6,11 and 12 cover related issues. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. 35 12 36 12 37 12 Rejected as simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant. 41 Rejected as irrelevant and over-broad. 42 12 43 6 44 11 45 Rejected as irrelevant. 46 Rejected as irrelevant. 47 Rejected as irrelevant. 48 Rejected as simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. 49 Rejected as subordinate. 50 13 51 7 The first sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 11. However, the remainder is rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 15. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 15 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. 54 10 55 11 56 11 57 11 Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected because the term "control" is not defined. However, this subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 13. Rejected because the term "managerial duties" is not defined. However, this subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 11. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 64 14 65 Rejected as irrelevant. 66 13 67 13 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 8 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected because the term "sales meeting" is not defined. This subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 15. 70 15 71 15 72 11 73 9 Rejected as simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Substantially adopted in Findings of Fact 46. 77 16 78 29 79 Substantially adopted in Findings of Fact 29. However, there was at least one sale made in February of 1985. 80-81 Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. A response to a request for admission is not evidence. 82 18 and 33. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected because the term "control" is not defined. However, this subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 33. 85 18 86 19 87 20 88 21 and 34 89 25 90 Rejected as vague and ambiguous. This subject is covered, in part, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 91 21 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 22 and 23 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Findings of Fact 21-24 are related to this subject. 94-100 Rejected as irrelevant and because they are simply a recitation of testimony and not findings of fact. Findings of Fact 22-24 are related to this subject. 101 23 Rejected as simply argument on the evidence. Rejected because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact. In addition, this proposal mischaracterizes the testimony. 104 42 105 48-49 106 Substantially adopted in Findings of Fact 50. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 50 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. 107 50 108-110 Rejected as irrelevant and because they are simply a recitation of testimony and not findings of fact. Findings of Fact 50 and 53 are related to this subject. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 48- 49. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 48-49 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 51- 53. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 51-53 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and because it is simply a recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact Rejected as over-broad. 116 54 117 Rejected as simply argument on the evidence. Findings of Fact 55-56 are related to this subject. 118-121 Rejected as simply a recitation of testimony and not findings of fact. Findings of Fact 55-56 are related to this subject. 122 56 Rejected as irrelevant. However, Findings of Fact 56 is related to this subject. Rejected as over-broad. 125 57 126 46 127-128 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 60. However, the portions of these proposals which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 60 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. 129-130 Rejected as irrelevant and because they are simply a recitation of testimony and not findings of fact. 131-133 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 60. However, the portions of these proposals which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 60 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. 134-135 40 136 57 137 45 138 44 139-148 Rejected as simply argument on the evidence. 149-153 Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 156-159 Rejected as over-broad. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended of Fact Number Order of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1,2 45 3 1 However, the evidence established that Petitioner began working at Huberman in January of 1983. 4 5 5 8 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3 and 15. However, the portions of this proposal which are contrary to or not set forth in Findings of Fact 3 and 15 (including, but not limited to, the date Petitioner became a vice president) are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The portions of this proposal which are contrary to or not set forth in Findings of Fact 10 (including, but not limited to, the date Petitioner became president) are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 15. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 15 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Substantially adopted in Findings of Fact 29, but Findings of Fact 10 and 33 establish that Petitioner was not president at the time the notes were sold. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 37. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 37 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. 11-14 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 35 and 36. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 35 and 36 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 47- 53. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 54-56. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 54-56 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 43- 44. Except as set forth in Findings of Fact 43 and 44, the reasons for Petitioner's termination are uncorroborated hearsay. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 40- 41. However, the portions of this proposal which are not set forth in Findings of Fact 40-41 are rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jan Douglas Atlas, Esquire Natalie Z. Aizpuru, Esquire Suite 300 700 S.R. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Carmen L. Leon Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 401 W. Second Avenue, Suite 708-N Miami, FL 33128-1796 Tamara Cain, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints relative to real estate transactions. (Official recognition of Florida Statutes, TR 6-7) Respondent is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued License No. 0149408. The last license to Respondent was as a broker, t/a Marathon Realty at Post Office Box 2386, Marathon Shores, Florida 33052. (Petitioner'S Exhibit 1) On or about May 2, 1985, Respondent solicited and obtained a sales contract entered into by Emily Cathy Cronnon, as purchaser, and W. J. and Delores Sarver , as sellers, for the purchase and sale of certain residential property (contract for sale). (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2) The sales transaction was scheduled to close on or about July 1, 1985, but the transaction did not close. On or about December 2, 1985, the purchaser and sellers terminated the sales contract. (Petitioner'S Exhibit 3) On or about May 13, 1985, the Respondent allowed Emily Cathy Cronnon and her live-in boyfriend, Billy Hull, to take possession and occupy the property with the knowledge and consent of seller W. J. Sarver. In this regard, W. J. Sarver denies giving permission to Ms. Cronnon to occupy the property prior to closing. However, it is found herein and the testimony of Billy Hull and Respondent substantiate the fact that Emily Cronnon and Billy Hull visited Respondent's office during early May, 1985, to find out whether they could move into the Sarver property with their furnishings prior to closing. Initially, Ms. Diabo advised Cannon and Hull that she was not at liberty to permit them to move in. However, she told them that if they liked, they could phone Mr. Server and get his permission. This was done and it is found that Mr. Sarver gave his permission to Respondent to allow Ms. Cronnon and Billy Hull to occupy the premises prior to closing, provided they turned the utilities off and then had the same turned on in their name. This was done, and the contract purchaser (Cronnon) and her boyfriend, Billy Hull, moved in prior to the time that the transaction closed. Respondent received a $500 rental payment from the purchaser on August 19, 1985. (Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) Respondent deposited said check in an appropriate bank account and waited eleven (11) days for that check to clear. On August 30, 1985, she wrote a $500 check to the Sarvers indicating that the same was rental payment to them for the use of their property by Cronnon and Hull. Respondent customarily waits at least ten (10) days for any check to clear before she writes a check drawn on those same funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings: 1. Accepted as modified. 7. Rejected based on credible evidence herein which reveals that Emily Cathy Cronnon and her live-in boyfriend, Billy Hull, took possession and occupied the property with the prior knowledge and consent of seller, W. J. Sarver. Rejected based on credible evidence which reveals that Respondent did not conceal the rent payment, but rather deposited the rent payment until the funds cleared her bank and she immediately thereafter transmitted the proceeds to the Sarvers. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary to decide the issues posed. Rejected as a conclusion and not a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings and conclusions are largely a brief in the form of resolutions of credibility, conflicts, recommendations as to how those conflicts should be resolved, and conclusions in the form of ultimate findings of fact. As such, they are not specifically addressed in the Appendix, but were carefully considered and reviewed by the under signed in preparation of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES H. GILLIS, ESQUIRE SENIOR ATTORNEY DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 MICHAEL H. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE WATSON & CLARK POST OFFICE BOX 11959 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33339 HAROLD HUFF, EXECUTIVE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE POST OFFICE BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32502 HONORABLE VAN B. POOLE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JOSEPH A. SOLE, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, by and through his employees: (a) sold unregistered securities in the secondary market which were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price and which were not exempt from registration; (b) permitted an agent to service accounts prior to the agent's effective date of registration in the State and concealed such action; and (c) failed to maintain minimum net capital requirements for his corporation; and (d) failed to properly supervise the activities of his employees and agents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owned the stock of a holding company and was an officer in a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company. Respondent and another individual owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Holding Company ("Holding"). Holding owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Securities, Inc. ("Securities"). Respondent was the Secretary of Securities. Respondent had ultimate responsibility for disbursements and profits for Holding and Securities. Respondent monitored the checkbooks and daily expenses for Securities. Respondent's accountant provided financial information to Respondent concerning the daily operations of both companies. The information was provided on forms supplied by Respondent. Respondent kept a daily record of how much each company made or lost, how much was owed, and other accounting information. Respondent made sure that the bills were paid and that the credit of each company remained good. Respondent also controlled the hiring of key personnel. Brent A. Peterson was a manager and principal for Securities. 2/ Mr. Peterson set prices for the firm. Mr. Peterson engaged in transactions in which prices were set for securities to be sold to customers in excess of 10 percent above and below the prevailing market price. Out of 457 trades, approximately 38 were sold at prices that exceeded a 10 percent markup (the "marked up securities"). The marked up securities were sold at prices in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market rate. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., ("NASD") determined that the securities were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price based upon Securities' contemporaneous costs. When a dealer is simultaneously making a market in a security (a "market maker"), the NASD looks to the prevailing market price for the purpose of determining if a markup exceeds 10 percent. The prevailing market price is the price at which dealers trade with one another, i.e., the "current inter-dealer market." 3/ When a dealer is not simultaneously making a market in a security (a "non-market maker"), the contemporaneous costs of the dealer are used for the purpose of determining if the securities have been marked up in excess of 10 percent. The contemporaneous costs reflect the prices paid for a security by a dealer in actual transactions closely related in time to the dealer's retail sales of that security. Such a standard is normally a reliable indication of prevailing market price in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities. Even though securities may be sold at the same market price by one firm that is a market maker and one that is not a market maker, the latter may be deemed by the NASD to have marked up the security by more than 10 percent depending on the firm's contemporaneous costs. Many of the marked up securities were sold to customers at the same market price as that the customers would have paid other brokerage houses. 4/ Since Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities, the standard used by the NASD to determine the amount of markup was the contemporaneous costs paid by Securities. The securities involved in the 38 trades were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Respondent sold unregistered securities that were not exempt from registration. Unregistered securities may be sold if they are reasonably related to the current market price. The marked up securities were not reasonably related to the prevailing market price because they were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Robert M. Long sold securities to customers as an employee of Securities prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner as a registered representative on May 18, 1988. Mr. Long was employed by Securities, from April 19, 1988, through September 20, 1989. Mr. Peterson advised Mr. Long that Mr. Long was authorized to trade securities. Pursuant to Mr. Paterson's advice, Mr. Long sold securities in Tel-optics prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner on May 18, 1988. Respondent concealed the sale of securities by Mr. Long prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long's registered representative number was 34. Relevant order tickets showed Mr. Long as the person engaged in the sale of securities prior to May 18, 1988. Registered representative number 30 had been used on the order tickets at the time of the trades. After Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner, Mr. Long's number 34 was added to the order tickets and number 30 was crossed out. Securities operated with a net capital deficiency of approximately $30,000. The net capital deficiency resulted from the failure to accrue liabilities. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long and Jeff Clark, an examiner for the NASD. The invoices for bills for the unaccrued liabilities were not filed where bills and invoices were normally filed and were found by Mr. Long concealed in drawers and other remote locations in the office. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long on August 28, 1989, but not reported to Petitioner until September 19, 1989. Mr. Long did not notify Petitioner of the net capital deficiency at Securities until the deficiency could be verified by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent to cease and desist from all violations of Florida statutes and rules, and imposing a fine in the aggregate amount of $9,000. The fine should be imposed in the amount of $2,000 for selling securities in excess of a 10 percent markup and $3,500 for each of the other two acts that constituted violations of applicable statutes and rules. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 July, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and exhibits in evidence, and the observed candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the following are found as facts: The Respondent, Shirley L. Kundsen, is a real estate broker, having been issued License No. 0048550. The Respondent, Robert S. Kingsland, is a real estate broker, having been issued License No. 0047741. The Respondent, Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker having been issued License No. 0047745. In 1972, Charles Pullen and Beverly Pullen owned Lots 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88, Kissimmee Heights Subdivision, in Osceola County, Florida. In 1972, Charles Pullen's sister, Myrtle Saulsbury, and her husband, Frank, owned lots 89, 90, 91, 133 and 134 in Kissimmee Heights Subdivision, Osceola County, Florida. Myrtle Saulsbury died on January 27, 1975, and Mr. Frank Saulsbury subsequently remarried to Mary E. Saulsbury. In 1972, the Respondent, Shirley L. Kundsen, then a salesperson for Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., presented a contract to Mr. and Mrs. Pullen for the purchase of their five lots for a price of $12,500.00 At approximately the same time, the Respondent, Shirley L. Kundsen, presented a contract to the Pullens offering to purchase the lots owned by the Saulsburys. This contract was delivered to the Saulsburys by Mr. Pullen. Upon initially being presented the contract for purchase of their lots, the Pullens contend that they refused to accept the offer and asked that the purchase price be raised to $17,500.00, with no real estate commission payable by the seller. They contend that they offered any excess over that price to Shirley L. Kundsen and Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., in lieu of a real estate commission. Shirley L. Kundsen subsequently crossed out the price of $12,500.00, and replaced it with the figure $17,500.00. With this change the contract was initialed by Mr. and Mrs. Pullen. The Saulsbury contract was drafted to indicate a purchase price of $17,500.00 as well. Mr. and Mrs. Pullen subsequently signed the contract, and contend that upon Shirley L. Kundsen's request, they placed the date "way over on the right hand side of the line", thereby leaving room for the later insertion of a commission percentage in the space to the left. The Saulsburys also subsequently signed their contract. At the time these contracts were executed by the Pullens and by the Saulsburys, they contend that there was no reference to any commission payable to Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc. The contracts with Mr. and Mrs. Pullen and with Mr. and Mrs. Saulsbury have been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3. The language now appearing in these contracts requiring the payment of a 10 percent commission to Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., was inserted after the signatures of the Sellers was placed on the contracts. This fact was established by evidence presented by a handwriting expert. The Pullens and the Saulsburys first learned of the addition of the real estate commission at the time of closing, and after learning of this addition they refused to close on the contracts. The Pullens and the Saulsburys never agreed to pay for any survey work performed for or by the prospective purchaser of the properties, and paragraph D on page 2 of the contracts obligated the buyer to bear this expense. When attempting to sell their property years later, in 1978, the Saulsburys, and subsequently the Pullens, learned that their property had been encumbered by recorded Affidavits prepared at the direction of Respondent, Robert S. Kingsland. Both Mr. and Mrs. Saulsbury's broker, and their title insurance agent, dealt directly and solely with the Respondents, Robert S. Kingsland and Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., in attempting to obtain the release of the lots encumbered by these Affidavits. The Affidavits had been recorded in order to preclude sale of the lots in question to another purchaser without payment to Robert S. Kingsland for expenses incurred in having the subject properties surveyed. Robert S. Kingsland refused to release the lots encumbered by the Affidavits until he had been reimbursed for the expense of the surveys. The Saulsburys paid $1,100.00, or $220.00 per lot for their five lots, to Robert S. Kingsland. Thereupon, the property of the Saulsburys was released by Quit- Claim Deed. The Saulsburys have requested a refund of the $1,100.00 paid to Robert S. Kingsland and Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., but this request has been refused. The Affidavit encumbering the property owned by the Pullens has never been released, although requests have been made by the Pullens, and the property remains encumbered to this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Shirley L. Kundsen, be found guilty of violating 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and that her license be suspended for six months. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondents, Robert S. Kingsland and Kingsland-Henry and Associates, Inc., found guilty of Violation of 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(j), Florida Statutes; and that their licenses be revoked, and that an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed upon these Respondents. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 12th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 12th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 A. Wayne Rich, Esquire Post Office Box 1911 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shirley L. Kundsen Post Office Box 1888 Kissimmee, Florida 32741
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to registration as an associated person of Brookstone Securities, Inc. ("Brookstone"), either by virtue of the default provision of Subsection 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, or by virtue of the substantive merits of his application.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Office of Financial Regulation, a part of the Financial Services Commission, is the state agency charged with regulation of the securities industry. § 20.121(3)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, is the "Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act." § 517.011, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to Section 517.012, Florida Statutes, OFR is responsible for the registration of persons associated with broker-dealers. Victor Alan Lessinger is 62 years old. He has been involved in the securities industry since 1976. He was registered with the State of Florida as an associated person from April 23, 1991, until October 31, 1994. He was later registered as an associated person with the State of Florida from June 5, 1997, through April 29, 2006, with the exception of the eight-day period between January 23, 2002, and February 1, 2002. This eight-day lapse was caused by Mr. Lessinger's changing jobs, which necessitated that he re-apply for registration. An associated person must be registered through the broker-dealer that employs him. From February 2005 until April 2006, Mr. Lessinger was a broker associated with Archer Alexander Securities Corporation, and was registered as such with the State of Florida. Archer Alexander went out of business in April 2006, and Mr. Lessinger accepted an offer of employment from Brookstone, a company based in Lakeland. Mr. Lessinger was to work as an associated person in Brookstone's Coral Springs branch. The Application Process and the Notice On July 5, 2007, Mr. Lessinger submitted his application for registration as an associated person with Brookstone to OFR through Web CRD, the central licensing and registration system for the U.S. securities industry operated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA").2 Mr. Lessinger's initial application for registration as an associated person with Brookstone disclosed the following disciplinary events: a 1993 Consent Order that Mr. Lessinger entered into with the relevant authorities in the State of Maine; a 1998 "Division Order" from the State of Ohio denying Mr. Lessinger's application for a securities salesman license; a 2000 letter of acceptance, waiver and consent ("AWC") issued by the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD"), the predecessor to FINRA; a 2002 arbitration award issued by NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc.; and two related actions taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in 2005. The 2000 AWC letter, the 2002 arbitration award, and the 2005 SEC actions all related to incidents and/or transactions that occurred in 1999. By letter dated July 18, 2007, Justin Mills, a financial analyst for OFR, notified Mr. Lessinger as follows: In order for the application to be deemed complete, it will be necessary to provide this office with a complete response to the following [sic] a copy of the complete Form U-4, as amended, and all documents pertaining to disciplinary matters, whether disclosable on the U-4 or not.[3] Documentation submitted must be certified by the issuer of such documents. Additionally, explain in detail the status of each pending action, and for each final action, summarize the action and the disposition. Specifically, but not limited to the following: * Certified copies of any regulatory actions by any state or federal regulator, or any self-regulatory organization, including but not limited to, the complaint, answer or reply, and final order or sanction. Certified documentation must be certified by the appropriate agency. Also, provide a brief narrative describing the causes that lead [sic] to the actions. Pursuant to Rule 69W-301.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, additional information shall be submitted within sixty (60) days after a request has been made by the Office. Failure to provide all the information may result in the application being denied. Mr. Lessinger responded with a package of documents and a cover letter dated July 23, 2007. OFR received the package and letter from Mr. Lessinger on July 24, 2007. On October 9, 2007, Ryan Stokes, a financial analyst supervisor for OFR, sent an e-mail to David Locy, then the executive vice president and compliance officer of Brookstone. Mr. Stokes requested the following documents in order to complete Mr. Lessinger's application: Certified copies of the complaint, Lessinger's answer/reply, and resolution for the actions taken by the SEC, State of Maine, State of Pennsylvania,[4] NASD, and State of Ohio. Certified copies of the statement of claim, Lessinger's response, settlement/arbitration panel's decision, and proof of payment of any awards/settlement for the arbitrations filed by Joseph Orlando and Muriel Hecht. Certified copy of the petition for bankruptcy and a discharge of bankruptcy. If any of the documents are unavailable due to age, a statement from the appropriate regulator/court to that effect, will suffice. At the hearing, Pamela Epting, chief of OFR's regulatory review bureau, testified that an e-mail such as that sent by Mr. Stokes is not OFR's usual method of doing business. OFR typically sends only an initial deficiency letter such as that sent by Mr. Mills on July 18, 2007. Richard White, director of OFR's division of securities, described Mr. Stokes' e-mail as a "courtesy" that provided Mr. Lessinger "with a reminder and greater detail as to what had not yet been provided." Mr. Lessinger responded with a package of documents and a cover letter dated November 5, 2007, which were received by OFR on November 6, 2007. The cover letter stated as follows, in relevant part: As requested, I am enclosing certified copies of all of the following: SEC, State of Maine (with additional prior correspondence), NASD. Joseph Orlando and Muriel Hecht (there were no payments made since Orlando was dismissed in its entirety with regard to me and Hecht was absolved as a result of my bankruptcy). Certified copy of the Petition for Bankruptcy and Discharge. I believe the State of Pennsylvania will be submitting directly to your office. I have not yet received the certification from the State of Ohio yet [sic]. I have enclosed the original Division Order which is signed and sealed by the Commissioner of Securities. If needed, I will forward the certification as soon as I receive the documents. . . . OFR did not respond in writing to Mr. Lessinger's November 5, 2007, submission. At some point in December 2007 or January 2008, Ms. Epting spoke to Mr. Locy by telephone. She told Mr. Locy that the agency intended to deny Mr. Lessinger's application and offered him an opportunity to withdraw the application in lieu of outright denial. In an e-mail to Ms. Epting dated February 4, 2008, Alan Wolper, attorney for Brookstone and Mr. Lessinger, wrote that his clients had decided not to withdraw the application, "notwithstanding the fact that you have indicated OFR's intent to deny that application." Mr. Wolper requested that Ms. Epting send a written notice of intent to deny, stating the particular grounds for the denial of Mr. Lessinger's application. At some point after writing the February 4, 2008, e-mail, Mr. Wolper wrote a letter to OFR asserting that Mr. Lessinger's registration should be deemed granted by default due to CFR's failure either to notify Mr. Lessinger of the application's incompleteness within 30 days of his November 5, 2007, submission or to act upon the completed application within 90 days of the November 5, 2007, submission, as required by Subsection 120.60(1), Florida Statutes. In a letter dated April 23, 2008, OFR assistant general counsel Jennifer Hrdlicka responded to Mr. Wolper with the assertion that the statutory default provision had not been triggered because Mr. Lessinger had yet to submit a completed application: Mr. Lessinger's application is still deficient. He has not provided to the Office the information requested in its July 18, 2007, letter to him. Still missing from his application are: Certified copies of the complaint, Lessinger's answer/reply, and resolution for the actions taken by the SEC; Certified copies of the resolution for the actions taken by the State of Ohio; and Certified copies of the statement of claim, Lessinger's response, settlement/arbitration panel's decision, and proof of payment of any awards/settlement for the arbitrations filed by Joseph Orlando. Mr. Lessinger did submit a certified copy of the Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Securities Salesman License from the State of Ohio, dated July 9, 1997. However, he did not submit any document, certified or not, regarding the resolution from that Notice of Intent of July 9, 1997, such as a Final Order. * * * Mr. Lessinger was timely notified of deficiencies in his application on July 18, 2007, thirteen days after submittal of his application and well within the thirty (30) day period set by the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act and the Office's corresponding Rule [Florida Administrative Code Rule 69W-301.002]. Your interpretation of Florida's Administrative Procedure Act and the Office's Rules contemplates an additional thirty day time period from Mr. Lessinger's November 6, 2007, submittal of additional information; this is a mistaken interpretation of Florida statutes. Mr. Lessinger's application was not considered complete on December 5, 2007. In fact, he has not yet delivered to the Office all requested information and so his application is currently not considered complete. His application will not be considered complete until such time as all requested information is received by the Office. . . . (Emphasis added.) On April 30, 2008, Mr. Lessinger submitted to Ms. Epting an affidavit attesting that the additional documents requested by Mr. Stokes on October 9, 2007, had been submitted to the agency on November 6, 2007. At the hearing, OFR continued to assert that Mr. Lessinger's November 6, 2007, submission did not contain all the information requested by Mr. Stokes. OFR submitted into evidence a sheaf of documents purporting to be Mr. Lessinger's November 6, 2007, submission. The documents had been unstapled for copying and re-stapled, and bore no consistent marks of date stamping or numbering that would allow a fact finder to conclude with confidence that the documents had been maintained in the form they were submitted by Mr. Lessinger. Ms. Epting could testify only as to OFR's general practice in maintaining its files, not as to the manner in which this particular file had been maintained. At the hearing, Mr. Lessinger stated under oath that he had provided OFR with every document it had asked for with the exception of the final order in the 1998 Ohio denial of his application. Mr. Lessinger conceded that he had only provided OFR with the notice of intent to deny in that case. Ms. Epting testified that OFR obtained the final order directly from the State of Ohio some time during the Spring of 2008. The only other item that OFR asserted was missing from the November 6, 2007, submission was a certified copy of the SEC's 2005 order barring Mr. Lessinger from association in a supervisory capacity with any broker or dealer for a period of two years. Mr. Lessinger's November 6, 2007, submission contained what appeared to be a non-certified copy of the order. The faint image of a seal is visible on the last page, with Mr. Lessinger's notation: "Raised seal unable to make darker." Ms. Epting testified that Mr. Lessinger submitted a certified copy of the order some time around May 2008. It is found that Mr. Lessinger submitted a certified copy of the SEC's 2005 order with his November 6, 2007, submission. On May 5, 2008, OFR issued the Notice to Mr. Lessinger. In the Notice, OFR identified a third "completeness" issue that Ms. Epting testified she discovered only during her inquiry to the State of Ohio regarding the final order in the 1998 denial. As to this issue, the Notice recited as follows under heading, "Statement of Facts": On October 3, 2007, the State of Ohio, Department of Commerce, Division of Securities, issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Securities Salesperson License for Lessinger, Order No. 07-387. On April 7, 2008, the State of Ohio, Division of Securities issued a Final Order against Lessinger Denying the Application for a Securities Salesperson License, Order No. 08-052. The Final Order states that on October 15, 2007, Lessinger requested an adjudicative hearing of the Notice of Intent to Deny; the Final Order further states that such a hearing was held on December 18, 2007, and on January 23, 2008, the Hearing Examiners Report and Recommendation was issued, upholding the Division's Notice of Intent. The Final Order states that the Division found that Lessinger was not of "good business repute" as that term is used in Ohio Revised Code 1707.19(A)(1) and Ohio Administrative Code 1301:6-3-19(D)(2),(6),(7),(9), and (D)(11) . . ." Notice was not given to the Office of these administrative actions by the State of Ohio. Lessinger did not update his Form U-4 until April 23, 2008, and subsequent to the Office's inquiry as to this matter; further, his update to his Form U-4 is misleading in that it cites that the date of initiation of this matter was April 7, 2008. Under the heading "Conclusions of Law," the Notice states that Mr. Lessinger's failure to update his Form U-4 constitutes a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69W-600.002(1)(c)5 and therefore a basis for denial pursuant to Subsection 517.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that violation of any rule promulgated pursuant to Chapter 517 constitutes grounds for denial of registration. The parties agreed that Mr. Lessinger's application file at OFR was complete at the time of the hearing. The Notice cited additional grounds for denial based on Subsections 517.161(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, which provide: (1) Registration under s. 517.12 may be denied or any registration granted may be revoked, restricted, or suspended by the office if the office determines that such applicant or registrant: * * * (h) Has demonstrated unworthiness to transact the business of dealer, investment adviser, or associated person; * * * (m) Has been the subject of any decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order by any court of competent jurisdiction, administrative law judge, or by any state or federal agency, national securities, commodities, or option exchange, or national securities, commodities, or option association, involving a violation of any federal or state securities or commodities law or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, or any rule or regulation of any national securities, commodities, or options exchange or national securities, commodities, or options association, or has been the subject of any injunction or adverse administrative order by a state or federal agency regulating banking, insurance, finance or small loan companies, real estate, mortgage brokers or lenders, money transmitters, or other related or similar industries. For purposes of this subsection, the office may not deny registration to any applicant who has been continuously registered with the office for 5 years from the entry of such decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order provided such decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order has been timely reported to the office pursuant to the commission's rules. . . . As the basis for OFR's conclusions that Mr. Lessinger had demonstrated "unworthiness" as described in Subsection 517.161(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and that Mr. Lessinger was the subject of decisions, findings, injunctions and/or prohibitions as set forth in Subsection 517.161(1)(m), Florida Statutes, the Notice cited the 1993 Maine consent order, the 1998 Ohio final order denying Mr. Lessinger's application for a securities salesman license, the 2000 AWC letter from NASD, the 2002 arbitration award issued by NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc., the 2005 SEC actions, and the April 7, 2008, Ohio final order denying Mr. Lessinger's application for a salesperson's license. Petitioner's Disciplinary History During his career, Mr. Lessinger has been employed in various capacities: as a broker/registered representative, a supervisor, and a general securities principal. He has lived and worked in Florida since 1997. From November 1976 through October 1994, Mr. Lessinger was employed by First Investors Corporation ("First Investors") in New York, working his way up to senior vice president and director of the company. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Lessinger entered into a Consent Agreement with the Attorney General of the State of Maine, "for the sole purpose of effecting a settlement of the civil action against Lessinger," First Investors and other individual defendants commenced by the Attorney General and the Maine Securities Administrator in 1991. Mr. Lessinger did not admit or deny that his conduct violated the Revised Maine Securities Act. The Consent Agreement does not provide the details of the grounds for the civil action. Mr. Lessinger testified that First Investors sold mutual funds, one of which was a junk bond fund that lost a great deal of money for investors in the late 1980s. First Investors had an office in Maine, and the Attorney General instituted a civil action against First Investors and certain supervisory personnel, including Mr. Lessinger, for failure to disclose to investors the risk inherent in these bond funds. Mr. Lessinger had no customers in Maine and did not personally sell the junk bond fund to any of his clients. Under the Consent Agreement, Mr. Lessinger agreed not to apply for a license as a sales representative in Maine for a period of one year. Mr. Lessinger also agreed to pay the sum of $50,000 to the State of Maine; First Investors paid the money for Mr. Lessinger. He eventually reapplied and was approved as a sales representative in the State of Maine. In mid-1997, Mr. Lessinger moved from New York to Boca Raton, becoming president of Preferred Securities Group, Inc. ("Preferred"). Mr. Lessinger was obliged to seek licensure in the states in which Preferred had brokers, which included Ohio. In March 1998, the State of Ohio, Department of Commerce, Division of Securities issued a "Division Order" denying Mr. Lessinger's application for securities salesman license. The Division Order found that Mr. Lessinger was not of "good business repute" under the Ohio statutory and rule provisions named in the quotation portion of Finding of Fact 20, supra. The only factual basis stated for the Division Order's "good business repute" finding was the 1993 Consent Agreement with the State of Maine. On November 16, 2000, Mr. Lessinger entered into the NASD AWC letter along with Preferred and Kenneth Hynd, Preferred's financial operations principal ("FINOP"). The recipients of the AWC letter agreed that the letter would become part of their permanent disciplinary record and may be considered in any future actions brought by NASD against them. They also agreed to the following: We may not take any action or make or permit to be made any public statement, including in regulatory filings or otherwise, denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in this AWC or create the impression that the AWC is without factual basis. Nothing in this provision affects our testimonial obligations or right to take legal positions in litigation in which the NASD is not a party. Only one of the allegations that prompted the AWC letter directly involved Mr. Lessinger. Without admitting or denying the alleged violation, Mr. Lessinger and Preferred consented to the entry of the following finding by NASD Regulation, Inc.: During the period from about March 22, 1999, until about April 21, 1999, Respondent [Preferred], acting through Respondent Lessinger, allowed an inactive registered representative to effect three securities transactions for customers, in violation of NASD Membership and Registration Rule 1120 and Conduct Rule 2110. Mr. Lessinger and Preferred also consented to the entry of a $3,000 fine, imposed jointly and severally. Mr. Lessinger paid the fine. Mr. Lessinger testified that the representative who effected the improper transactions was in Preferred's Pompano Beach branch office, which was open only from March to June 1999. The manager on premises had not notified Mr. Lessinger that a registered representative in the office was deemed "inactive" for failure to complete mandatory continuing education. On April 30, 2002, a NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc.6 arbitration panel issued an award against Mr. Lessinger in a case that had been filed by a former Preferred customer against Preferred, Mr. Lessinger, and three other individuals associated with the firm, including the owner, Anthony Rotonde, and two brokers. The initial statement of claim in the matter was filed in 1999. The claims included misrepresentation, unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, violations of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, and common law fraud and negligence. Mr. Lessinger was not the broker of record for the complaining customer and never had anything directly to do with her account. He did not know her. She had been a client of the two brokers for several years. As president of the company, Mr. Lessinger was ultimately responsible for supervision of the brokers, though he was not their direct supervisor. Preferred, Mr. Rotonde, and Mr. Lessinger were found jointly and severally liable on the claims of suitability and failure to supervise and were required to pay damages of $42,294.90, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The liability for attorneys' fees was expressly based on Sections 517.301 and 517.211, Florida Statutes. Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, generally prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with securities transactions. Section 517.211, Florida Statutes, sets forth the remedies available for unlawful sales, including those in violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes. Subsection 517.211(6), Florida Statutes, provides for attorneys' fees to the prevailing party unless the court finds that the award of such fees would be unjust. After the arbitration award, Preferred went out of business. Mr. Rotonde was a non-licensed owner and simply walked away from the matter. Thus, Mr. Lessinger was left on the hook for the entire arbitration award. He was unable to pay it, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. In April 2004, Mr. Lessinger was named in a civil action filed by the SEC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The SEC alleged that Preferred's Pompano Beach office was opened in March 1999 to operate as a boiler room for a "pump and dump" operation involving a penny stock, Orex Gold Mines Corporation ("Orex"). Orex claimed to be in the business of extracting gold from iron ore by means of an environmentally safe process. The SEC alleged that Orex was in fact a shell corporation owned by a "recidivist securities law violator and disbarred attorney." Though its promotional video, literature, and website touted Orex as an active, established company with gold mines, employees, and a revolutionary gold extraction process, Orex in fact owned no mines or mining equipment and had never commercially tested its claimed extraction process. As to Mr. Lessinger, the SEC's complaint alleged as follows: According to Preferred's written supervisory procedures, the form prohibited the solicitation of "penny stocks" as defined under Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1, and restricted the purchase of penny stocks unless it received an unsolicited letter, signed by the investor, requesting to purchase a particular penny stock. Despite the firm's prohibition against soliciting transactions in penny stocks, Lessinger authorized the Pompano Beach branch office's request to solicit transactions in Orex. Prior to authorizing the firm's solicitation of Orex, Lessinger simply reviewed the Orex brochure, the Orex private placement memo, and an Orex press release. He did not conduct any independent research or assessment regarding Orex's officers, assets, or prospects for success. Orex quickly accounted for a high percentage of the overall transactions conducted by Preferred's Pompano Beach branch. Although Lessinger retained responsibility for reviewing, authorizing, and approving customers' transactions in Orex stock, and although he was the senior official of Preferred and functioned as a compliance officer, he failed to exercise appropriate supervision and to take the necessary steps to ensure that Preferred, and the personnel operating out of Preferred's Pompano Beach branch in particular, complied with applicable procedures, securities laws and regulations in connection with transactions in Orex stock. The brokers in the Pompano Beach branch sold more than $3 million in Orex stock between March and July 1999 through fraudulent representations regarding the company, forgery of penny stock disclosure forms, bait and switch tactics, refusal to execute sell orders, or delaying sell orders until a buyer for the shares could be found. The stock ballooned to a value of $7.81 in late May 1999. By late July, it was trading for pennies per share. To his credit, Mr. Lessinger closed the Pompano Beach branch of Preferred after a site visit in June offered him a glimpse of the office's actual operations. However, had Mr. Lessinger showed more curiosity at the outset, or had he merely enforced the company policy against soliciting penny stock sales, the situation in Pompano Beach might never have developed. On September 7, 2005, the court entered final judgment as to Mr. Lessinger. He was permanently restrained and enjoined from: violating the fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; violating the NASD Conduct Rule regarding supervision of the activities of registered representatives and associated persons; and participating in any offering involving penny stocks. He was also ordered to pay a civil penalty of $20,000. On September 23, 2005, the SEC also issued an Administrative Order making findings and imposing remedial sanctions in connection with the Orex matter. The order barred Mr. Lessinger from association in a supervisory capacity with any broker or dealer for two years, with a right to reapply at end of the two-year period. The SEC's Administrative Order left Mr. Lessinger free to continue to act as a registered representative. However, the two SEC actions rendered Mr. Lessinger statutorily disqualified from membership in the securities industry under FINRA rules. To remain active in the industry, Mr. Lessinger was required to go through the MC-400, or "Membership Continuance," process with FINRA. The Form MC-400 must be filed by a member firm on behalf of the disqualified person. In this case, Archer Alexander Securities, Mr. Lessinger's employer at the time of his disqualification, filed the MC-400 application on his behalf. However, Archer Alexander went out of business before the application could be considered. Mr. Lessinger was hired by Brookstone in April 2006. Brookstone filed a Form MC-400 with FINRA on Mr. Lessinger's behalf on May 15, 2006. Brookstone is owned by Antony Turbeville, a certified financial planner who has been licensed in the securities industry since 1987. Mr. Turbeville has never been the subject of disciplinary actions by the SEC, NASD, or the State of Florida. David Locy is currently the president of Brookstone. At the time Brookstone filed the MC-400 application for Mr. Lessinger, Mr. Locy was Brookstone's chief compliance officer. He has been a certified public accountant since 1974, licensed in the securities industry since 2003, and has never been the subject of regulatory or disciplinary action by any professional or licensing entity. Michael Classie is the branch manager and supervisor of Brookstone's Coral Springs office, where Mr. Lessinger works.7 He has been licensed to sell securities since 1995 and has never been the subject of disciplinary actions by the SEC, NASD, or the State of Florida. In its MC-400 application, Brookstone stated that Mr. Lessinger did not seek licensure as a supervisor or control person, and that Brookstone would not allow him to work in a supervisory capacity. Brookstone agreed that Mr. Lessinger would work only as a registered representative, and then only under highly controlled supervisory conditions. FINRA's Department of Member Regulation, which conducts the initial review of all MC-400 applications, recommended that Brookstone's application on behalf of Mr. Lessinger should be denied. By order dated December 13, 2006, following an evidentiary hearing, FINRA's National Adjudicatory Council ("NAC") disagreed with the recommendation of the Department of Member Regulation and granted the application, subject to approval by the SEC. The NAC's order provided as follows: After considering all of the facts, we approve Lessinger as a general securities representative with Brookstone, supervised by Classie and Locy, and subject to the following terms and conditions of employment: Classie and Locy will review, initial, and date all of Lessinger's order tickets on a daily basis; Classie will review all of Lessinger's incoming correspondence daily and will review all of Lessinger's outgoing correspondence prior to its being sent. Lessinger will print out a daily log of faxes from the fax machine for Classie to review; Classie and Locy will review every new account form for Lessinger and, if approved, sign such form; Classie will be in the office with Lessinger at least four times per week from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. If Classie is not in the office, Lessinger will be prohibited from effecting trades on the computer and will, instead, call them in to Locy for approval; Locy will make random unannounced office visits to Lessinger's home office at least once during each calendar quarter; Brookstone will amend its written supervisory procedures to state that Classie is the primary responsible supervisor for Lessinger, and that Locy is the backup supervisor; Lessinger will provide a list of all sales contacts to Classie, including the nature of the contacts, on a daily basis; Classie will review Lessinger's written sales contacts and investigate any irregular activity; Locy will conduct five random telephone calls per quarter to Lessinger's customers to verify information or ascertain the customers' level of satisifaction; Lessinger will not participate in any manner, directly or indirectly, in the purchase, sale, recommendation, or solicitation of penny stocks (this is defined in the Court Judgment as "any equity security that has a price of less than five dollars, except as provided in Rule 3a5-1 under the Exchange Act [17 C.F.R. 240.3a51-1]"); Classie must certify quarterly (March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st) to the Compliance Department that Lessinger and Classie are in compliance with all of the above conditions of heightened supervision; and For the duration of Lessinger's statutory disqualification, Brookstone must obtain prior approval from Member Regulation if it wishes to change Lessinger's responsible supervisor from Classie to another person. On June 29, 2007, the SEC issued a letter approving the NAC's decision to permit Mr. Lessinger to register with Brookstone as a registered representative under the heightened supervisory restrictions set out in the NAC's order. Brookstone and Mr. Lessinger have agreed that they will abide by the same list of heightened supervisory restrictions should the State of Florida approve the application at issue in this proceeding.8 As noted at Findings of Fact 20 and 21, supra, the Notice alleged that Mr. Lessinger failed to timely update his Form U-4 to disclose receipt of a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Securities Salesperson from the State of Ohio, Department of Commerce, Division of Securities ("Ohio Notice") dated October 5, 2007. The Ohio Notice stated that on July 9, 2007, Mr. Lessinger had applied for a securities salesperson license via submission of his Form U-4, and that his application disclosed the September 23, 2005, SEC order, the April 2004 filing of the SEC complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the 2000 NASD AWC letter, the NASD Dispute Resolution arbitration award, the 1998 Ohio application denial, and the Maine Consent Agreement. Based on these disclosures, the Ohio Division of Securities alleged that Mr. Lessinger was not of "good business repute" according to Ohio statutes and rules, and stated its intent to issue an order denying Mr. Lessinger's application for a salesperson's license. The Ohio Notice provided that Mr. Lessinger had 30 days in which to request an administrative hearing contesting the agency's intended denial of his application. Mr. Lessinger timely filed the appropriate documents contesting the Ohio Notice and requesting an evidentiary hearing. Immediately after receiving the Ohio Notice, Mr. Lessinger brought it to the attention of Mr. Locy, then Brookstone's chief compliance officer, in order to determine whether his Form U-4 should be amended. Only Brookstone, as the broker/dealer employing Mr. Lessinger, had authority to amend his Form U-4. Mr. Lessinger did not have independent access to the Web CRD database and thus had no ability to amend the document on his own. Mr. Locy considered the situation and decided that the Ohio Notice did not require an amendment to Mr. Lessinger's Form U-4. Because Mr. Lessinger had appealed the intended denial of his Ohio application, Mr. Locy concluded that that matter was not reportable until the Ohio action ripened into a final order. Mr. Lessinger deferred to Mr. Locy's greater expertise regarding compliance issues. Though Mr. Lessinger could not amend his Form U-4, there was no obstacle to Mr. Lessinger's directly informing OFR of the Ohio Notice. However, there was also no evidence that Mr. Lessinger attempted to conceal the existence of the Ohio Notice, or was anything other than forthright in his dealings with employers and regulatory authorities. The credible evidence established that he simply relied on the opinion of Mr. Locy. The State of Ohio issued a final order denying Mr. Lessinger's application on April 7, 2008. Upon receipt of the final order, Mr. Lessinger promptly notified his employer, and Brookstone updated Mr. Lessinger's Form U-4 on April 23, 2008, to reflect the actions of the Ohio regulators. At the hearing, Mr. Lessinger emphasized that he seeks only to act as a registered representative. Most of his clients are retirees invested in fixed-income mutual funds. They are conservative to moderate in their risk tolerance. Mr. Lessinger does not trade in their accounts on margin, and does not have discretion to make trades without express client authorization. Mr. Lessinger gets new customers through referrals. He makes no cold calls to prospective customers. Mr. Lessinger has never been the subject of a complaint by one of his own customers, and had never been disciplined for any actions he has taken as a registered representative. All of the disciplinary proceedings involving Mr. Lessinger concerned his actions in a supervisory capacity. Mr. Lessinger has forsworn any intention to ever again act in a supervisory capacity in the securities industry. Mr. Turbeville and Mr. Locy were emphatic that Mr. Lessinger would not be permitted to act in a supervisory capacity at Brookstone. Mr. Classie convincingly testified that he would closely monitor Mr. Lessinger's actions in accordance with the NAC order, and understood that failure to do so could place his own registration in jeopardy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with Brookstone Securities, subject to such heightened supervisory restrictions as the Office of Financial Regulation shall deem prudent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Columbus Equities International, Inc. (Columbus Equities), was registered as a broker/dealer with petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Division), having been issued broker/dealer registration number 30936. The business address of the firm was 6321 East Livingston Avenue, Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Respondent, Roger L. Parsons, was registered with the Division as an agent with Columbus Equities. He was also registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) as the financial and operations principal, general principal and representative of Columbus Equities. As such, Parsons was responsible for supervising the employees of Columbus Equities. Similarly, under the terms of Rule 3E-600.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, Columbus Equities was also responsible for the acts of its employees. Prior to June 1990, Columbus Equities was known as Parsons Securities, Inc. The business was originally formed in 1978 by Parsons, who is majority stockholder and serves as its president, secretary and director. In June 1990, the firm's name was changed to Columbus Equities International, Inc. In January 1991, Columbus Equities filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the Federal Bankruptcy Law. When the events herein occurred, Vincent C. Lombardi was registered with the NASD as general securities principal, representative and registered options principal of Columbus Equities. Lombardi's business address was 450 Tuscarora Road, Crystal Bay, Nevada, where he managed the Nevada branch office of Columbus Equities. Except for Ohio, Lombardi was not registered to sell securities in any other state, including Florida. In the fall of 1990, a Division financial analyst, Joanne Kraynek, received a letter from the Nevada Securities Commission. Based upon that letter, Kraynek wrote a letter on November 21, 1990, to "Parsons Securities/Columbus Equities International, Inc." regarding that firm's alleged sale of unregistered securities to a Florida resident. The letter requested various items of information. On December 6, 1990, Lombardi replied to Kraynek's letter on behalf of Columbus Equities and enclosed a number of documents in response to her request. Based upon this information and a subsequent investigation by the Division, the following facts were determined. On May 31, 1990, Charles D. Flynn conducted a transaction on behalf of his wife, Susan, for the purchase of 4,933 shares of World Videophone, an unregistered security. On June 22, 1990, Flynn purchased 2,500 shares of White Knight Resources Limited on behalf of his wife. That security was also not registered in the State of Florida. On July 9, 1990, Flynn purchased an additional 2,000 shares of White Knight Resources Limited on behalf of his wife. In each transaction, the trade was executed by Lombardi from the Nevada branch office of Columbus Equities. When the sales occurred, Flynn and his wife resided at 2045 Parkside Circle South, Boca Raton, Florida. In finding that the Flynns were Florida residents at the time of the trades, the undersigned has rejected a contention by Parsons that Flynn purchased the stocks while residing in Canada and thus the transactions were not subject to the Division's jurisdiction. Evidence of these transactions and the Flynns' Florida domicile is confirmed by the deposition testimony of Mr. Flynn, admissions by Lombardi, and copies of the order tickets from the Nevada branch office. The order tickets reflect the code "MM" (market maker), which means that Columbus Equities held the securities in its own inventory and did not have to go to an outside source to obtain the stocks. Thus, Parsons (on behalf of Columbus Equities) should have been familiar with these securities. However, at hearing he acknowledged that he was not. This in itself is an indication that Parsons was not properly supervising his employees. Finally, there was no evidence that the three transactions were exempt within the meaning of Sections 517.051 and 517.061, Florida Statutes, and thus were beyond the Division's jurisdiction. As the principal for Columbus Equities, Parsons was responsible for supervising the activities of both Lombardi and the Nevada branch office. Indeed, section 27, article III of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice requires that a NASD member such as Parsons supervise the activities of all associated persons to insure that those persons are complying with all securities laws and regulations. In order to fulfill this duty, Parsons should have reviewed on a timely basis the monthly statements generated by the Nevada office as well as that office's new account applications. For the reasons stated hereinafter, Parsons' review of Lombardi's activities was neither complete nor timely. The Flynn account was opened by Lombardi in April 1990 and Lombardi was the only employee who dealt with the Flynns. Parsons had no knowledge that the Flynn account had been opened because he did not review new account applications. This failure to review new account applications prevented Parsons from detecting whether Lombardi was selling securities in states such as Florida where he was not registered. Lombardi was required to send Parsons a monthly statement reflecting the activity of the branch office. During his review of the May statement in the second or third week of June 1990, Parsons became aware of the first Flynn transaction. Just prior to that, Parsons had learned that Lombardi had also engaged in another illicit trade. In addition, Parsons subsequently became aware of at least four other transactions (including two more with the Flynns) involving the sale of securities by Lombardi in states where he was not registered. However, except for a verbal warning given to Lombardi to discontinue that type of trade, Parsons took no disciplinary action against Lombardi until September 13, 1990, when Lombardi was terminated as an employee and the Nevada branch office closed. By failing to review the new account applications and to take prompt action against Lombardi after having learned of his indiscretions, Parsons failed to properly supervise his employees. Rule 3E-600.014(6), Florida Administrative Code, requires that each member establish, maintain and enforce written procedures governing the conduct of its employees to ensure compliance with all security laws and regulations. To this end, Parsons developed a policy (compliance) manual which was to serve as a guide in the conduct of all employees of Parsons Securities, Inc. and its successor, Columbus Equities. A copy of this manual should have been given to each employee, including Lombardi, for his or her review. However, Parsons did not know if Lombardi ever received and reviewed the manual. In addition, the manual itself was deficient in that it failed to indicate whether employees were to be given a copy for review, and it contained no provisions for taking disciplinary action against an agent if he violated a manual proscription. By failing to develop and utilize an appropriate manual, respondents violated the above cited rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by petitioner finding respondents guilty of all violations alleged in the administrative complaint, ordering respondents to cease and desist all unlawful activities, and imposing a $5,000 fine, jointly and severally, against them. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 26th day of May, 1992.
