The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(a) and (i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The admissions by the Respondent, together with the records introduced at the hearing by the Florida Real Estate Commission show that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker holding license no. 0122293. The Respondent admitted his participation in all the transactions referenced in the administrative complaint. The bank records and other evidence introduced at the hearing show that the Respondent's escrow account maintained at Liberty Bank of Cantonment lacked sufficient funds to pay the bills which Respondent admitted were owed Lawyers Title Insurance Co. in the amount of $44.00. The Respondent testified that he had paid these bills only two days before the instant hearing with a check on his personal bank account. From the Respondent's testimony, it is clear that he failed to maintain sufficiently detailed records to permit him to account for monies in his escrow account in the Liberty Bank of Cantonment and in the bank account which he maintained with the First State Bank in Pensacola, Florida. The closing statements relating to the Netzer/Hayes transaction showed that the Respondent received $1,225.00. His records for this transaction showed checks on his escrow account relating to this transaction in the amount of $1,481.60. Respondent testified that the error in this transaction occurred when he erroneously stubbed one check as relating to the Netzer/Hayes transaction, when in actuality it related to a separate transaction. However, under cross examination the Respondent could not identify the transaction to which this check related. The Respondent admitted depositing the money involved in the Netzer/Hayes transaction to his Cantonment Liberty Bank escrow account. He also admitted that he had made no transfer of funds from the Cantonment bank account to his First State Bank account. The Respondent admitted and the evidence indicates that payments were made at closing from the First State Bank account. The Liberty Bank account records show a balance of less thank $731.00 at all times after 9-30-76. Therefore, insufficient funds were maintained by the Respondent in the Liberty Bank escrow account to satisfy the obligations on the account arising from the Nitzer/Hayes transaction. Furthermore, the Respondent's handling of escrow account at the Liberty Bank in Cantonment was as it related to this transaction was improper The admissions of Respondent and the evidence introduced showed that he was the broker involved in the Suttles/ Kamplain transaction. No evidence was introduced that the Respondent failed to advise Suttles that he initially had accepted a $250.00 note in lieu of cash as an earnest money deposit. The evidence is clear that upon receipt of the money, the Respondent deposited this money to his account in the First State Bank of Pensacola. Although this account was not designated an escrow account, it did bear the designation of a management account. It was not established by substantial and competent evidence that a management account was not an escrow account. The Suttles/Kamplain transaction closed without problem; however, there is no explanation of the disbursement of the $250.00 received as an earnest money deposit in the records of this transaction. Regarding the Suttles/Gordon transaction, it was established that the Respondent was the broker who handled this transaction. No substantial and competent evidence was produced that the Respondent failed to disclose to the Gordons that he did not obtain an initial $100.00 deposit on the transaction. The record is clear that the Respondent did receive a check in the amount of $1,500.00 from Mr. Suttles which the Respondent deposited to his account in the First State Bank. The Gordons did testify that the Respondent was authorized to allow the Suttles to occupy the premises prior to closing. After occupying the property, the Suttles were to make rental payments to be credited to the payment of the mortgage. After moving into the house, Mr. Suttles and his wife began to have domestic problems, and he immediately ceased to make all rental payments upon the property. Mr. Suttles did not advise the Respondent that he was not making payments and did not intend to make further payments on the house. Mr. Suttles did avoid all of Respondents efforts to contact him. The Suttles and the Gordons did execute the closing papers but by the time the papers were executed, Mr. Suttles failure to make the rental payments had caused a deficiency in payment of the mortgage. Because the mortgage was in arrears, the transaction could not close. When the Respondent became aware of the Suttles' separation, he began to make arrangements to have them vacate the Gordon house. However, Respondent failed to keep the Gordons fully advised as to the statuts of this transaction. Further, the check given to the Gordons by Respondent was not honored by the First State Bank of Pensacola because of insufficient funds in the Respondent's account to meet this obligation. The Respondent retained and disbursed portions of the $1,500.00 deposited to the account, although the transaction did not close. Money was disbursed to the Gordons and Respondent took out his commission. Whether Respondent was not entitled to disburse the monies under the contract between Respondent and the Gordons cannot be determined upon the evidence presented. However, it is clear that Suttles was a bona fide purchaser, who after he entered into occupancy, determined that he would not complete the transaction; and under the terms of the contract between the Respondent and the Gordons, the Respondent earned his commission when a purchaser was obtained. It is clear that the Respondent did not keep the Gordons properly advised of the situation regarding the sale of their house to the Suttles; and that the Respondent's check to the Gordons on the First State Bank was not honored because the account was impaired. The evidence and testimony taken as a whole at the hearing shows that Respondent did not keep a running balance of the accounts which he maintained at the Liberty Bank of Cantonment or the First State Bank of Pensacola. The evidence further shows that the Respondent failed to withdraw commissions earned in their total amount subsequent to closings on property, did not pay bills which closing statements indicate he was obligated to pay, permitted inter-bank transfers of funds owed him by banking institutions to his escrow or management account, did not take steps to ensure that the First State account was properly and clearly titled as an escrow account, did not properly annotate withdrawals from his escrow accounts, and failed to maintain money in his escrow account until it was disbursed.
Recommendation The record taken as a whole indicates that the violations for which the Respondent is responsible are the result of his culpable negligence as opposed to any dishonest or fraudulent act. However, the Respondent is so devoid of any knowledge of his responsibilities with regard to monies entrusted to him that he may not safely be permitted to function as a real estate broker. Based upon the foregoing-findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the license of Respondent as a registered real estate broker. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 O. E. Adams, Esquire Post Office Box 12217 Pensacola, Florida 32002 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida November 27, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Manuel E. Oliver, Staff Attorney RE: PD 3267 (PD 15776) FREC vs. Ralph D. Villeneuve t/a Don's Realty 122293-1 DOAH Case No. 78-091 Please find enclosed copies of the Final Order filed on April 13, 1978, in the reference case together with the opinion filed on November 2, 1978 by the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, affirming the Commission's Order, as well as a copy of the mandate issued by said Court on November 20, 1978. By virtue of the foregoing, the order of the Commission revoking defendant's registration has become firm and effective in all respects. Please make the necessary annotations in the records for all effects. Manuel E. Oliver Staff Attorney MEO/km Enclosures:* * NOTE: Enclosures noted in this memorandum are not available at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner's disability.
Findings Of Fact Mr. McMahon was a member of Suncoast beginning in approximately 1986. In 2008 and 2009, Mr. McMahon had a checking account, a VISA card, a savings account, and a loan with Suncoast. Mr. McMahon claims that he is disabled and that he suffers from personality disorders, post-traumatic stress, passive aggression, and obsessive compulsive disorder. No medical evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. He has been receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration based on a personality disorder since approximately 1996. Suncoast perceived Mr. McMahon as having a disability, based on his repeated assertions that he was disabled. In November 2008, Mr. McMahon filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. (BBB), alleging that Suncoast was discriminating against him by not accommodating his communication disability. The BBB investigated and found that Suncoast had blocked access to Mr. McMahon's accounts because he was delinquent on a loan. The BBB contacted Suncoast concerning the complaint, and Suncoast provided Mr. McMahon a three-month payment due date extension on the loan, lowered his monthly payments, and unblocked his account. In January 2009, Mr. McMahon was delinquent on his loan. Again Suncoast tried to help Mr. McMahon with his delinquent account. At some point, Mr. McMahon's loan payments were put on automatic payments in order to reduce his delinquencies. Money would automatically be taken out of his account to make the monthly loan payments. Mr. McMahon had a direct deposit for his Social Security benefits payments. After the loan payments began being deducted automatically, Mr. McMahon canceled his direct deposits into the account from which his payments were automatically being deducted. Thus, there was no money in the account to make the monthly payments on his loan, and Mr. McMahon ceased making payments on the loan and again became delinquent on his loan. When one of Suncoast's members becomes overdrawn with regards to either a checking or savings account or credit card, or is delinquent in making payments on any credit card or loan obligation, that member loses access to his or her services, including use of all internet services, ATM cards, ATM machines, credit cards, and debit cards. The member would also be unable to access his or her account balance or make deposits into overdrawn accounts if the member attempted to make a deposit via ATM, as those services are suspended. These restrictions are typically automatically placed upon the accounts of any member with a delinquent loan account after 60 days of delinquency, and within 30 days of any overdrawn share draft account. Any member with a delinquent or overdrawn account, where services were suspended would be prevented from applying for a mortgage loan. If the member contacted Suncoast staff to apply for a mortgage loan or to utilize any other services, the member would be directed to the loss mitigation section of Suncoast, and loss mitigation would attempt to collect the debt or rectify the delinquency. Because Mr. McMahon again became delinquent on his loan payments after stopping the direct deposits, his accounts were restricted, meaning that he could not access the accounts. Mr. McMahon began a campaign of making repeated calls to Suncoast, screaming and yelling at Suncoast representatives, talking over the representatives, making vulgar statements, and using profanity. Mr. McMahon attributes his behavior to his communication disability and requested on numerous occasions that Suncoast accommodate his disability with "patience and understanding." A note was placed in the loss mitigation's note system and in Suncoast's host system, so that all employees of Suncoast who were working with Mr. McMahon could see and accommodate his request for patience and understanding. Suncoast representatives did provide Mr. McMahon with an abundance of patience and understanding. However, nothing seemed to appease Mr. McMahon, and his repeated calls were unproductive. Because of the repeated nature of Mr. McMahon's calls and his behavior during the telephone calls, there were numerous complaints by Suncoast's representatives to management. Jacqueline Gilbert (Ms. Gilbert), vice president of loss mitigation, determined that in order to protect Suncoast's representatives from Mr. McMahon's harassing behavior that all calls should be directed to her; Linda Fales (Ms. Fales), vice president of risk management, cardholder disputes, and DSA compliance for Suncoast; or Ben Felder (Mr. Felder), Suncoast's general counsel. Suncoast's representatives were advised that Mr. McMahon's calls should be transferred to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, or Mr. Felder. When the representatives would tell Mr. McMahon that they could not help him and that his call would have to be transferred, Mr. McMahon was verbally abusive to the representatives. Many times, if Mr. McMahon was going to be transferred, he would hang up and call right back to speak with a different representative. Sometimes, Mr. McMahon would call and hang up when a representative answered the call. At different times, Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, and Mr. Felder talked with Mr. McMahon to attempt to discuss the reasons that his account was restricted. However, they had little success in communicating with Mr. McMahon because of his behavior. Although Mr. Felder was not able to service Mr. McMahon's account, he decided to handle all Mr. McMahon's requests and assign any work to be done to the appropriate employee because Mr. McMahon's behavior toward Ms. Gilbert and other Suncoast employees was unacceptable. Mr. McMahon did not make any loan payments between May 2009 and August 2009. During this same time period, Mr. McMahon's VISA credit card was well overdrawn. Carolyn Stepp (Ms. Stepp) had cosigned on Mr. McMahon's loan. On or about September 4, 2009, Suncoast exercised its "right of offset" and used funds in both Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts to pay off the loan. There was still an outstanding balance of $1,046.86 on his VISA credit card. On September 10 and 14, 2009, Mr. McMahon asked to apply for a mortgage loan by telephone. He was not sure that Suncoast would give him a loan because of his delinquent accounts, but he felt that he should have the opportunity to apply because the loan had been satisfied when Suncoast exercised its right of offset. Although the loan was satisfied, Mr. McMahon still had an outstanding balance on his VISA credit card, which he had not been able to use for several months because his accounts had been restricted. He was advised that he would have to contact Mr. Felder to discuss the status of his account. On September 11, 2009, Mr. Felder and Mr. McMahon discussed his account. Part of the discussion concerned Suncoast's writing off Mr. McMahon's loan and VISA credit card balance, returning the offset amounts to Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts, disbursing the remaining amounts in Mr. McMahon's account to him, and closing Mr. McMahon's accounts. At the conclusion of the conversation, Mr. Felder understood that Mr. McMahon was in favor of this solution and began to take steps to accomplish the tasks. Mr. Felder advised Mr. McMahon by telephone on September 17, 2009, that the tasks had been completed and that Mr. McMahon's accounts with Suncoast were closed, meaning that services at Suncoast were terminated and that Mr. McMahon's access to information was no longer available. Mr. Felder followed up the telephone conversation with a letter dated September 17, 2009, confirming the telephone conversation. Individuals who are not members of Suncoast are not qualified to apply for a mortgage loan with Suncoast. At the time that Mr. McMahon applied for a mortgage loan on September 14, 2009, his accounts at Suncoast were in the process of being closed. Mr. McMahon's requests to apply for a mortgage with Suncoast were not denied because Mr. McMahon was disabled. They were denied because Mr. McMahon had various account delinquencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Suncoast did not commit an unlawful housing practice and dismissing Mr. McMahon's Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Gulf State Bank of Franklin County is located in Carrabelle, Florida, and was established in 1971. There are no other banking facilities in Carrabelle and the applicant presently has no branch banking facilities. The applicant's total asset level is 8.1 million dollars, and it has maintained a capital to total assets ratio which has continuously exceeded seven percent. As of December 31, 1978, the capital to total asset ratio was 7.6 percent. With the exception of the first year of operation, the applicant's net earnings to total assets have exceeded the ratio of 0.5 percent. During the last two years, this ratio has exceeded one percent. As of the June 30, 1978, comparative figures report, the applicant had total deposits of $6,555,000.00, showing a decrease of about 5.4 percent from June of 1977. It has been the applicant's established policy to reinvest all earnings rather than paying dividends. The applicant proposes to open two branch banking facilities - one in Apalachicola and one in Eastpoint. Presently, the only banking facility in these areas is the protestant Apalachicola State Bank. This bank has its main office in downtown Apalachicola and it was established in 1906. It is a full service bank, and increased its total deposits by 18.6 percent between 1977 and 1978. On March 15, 1978, the Protestant opened a branch banking facility in Eastpoint, Florida. Although a $5,000.00 profit was projected for the first year of operation, the protestant's branch in Eastpoint is not presently operating at a profit. The protestant's Eastpoint branch has drive-in windows and offers all services with the exception of trust accounts and large loans. Both the main office and the Eastpoint branch of the protestant began offering Saturday morning banking hours approximately five weeks before the hearing in these proceedings. The only other financial institution in the area is a branch office of the Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of Port St. Joe, which was expected to begin operations in early March of 1979. As of July 1, 1977, Franklin County had an estimated population of 8,128, increasing only 1,063 above the 1970 population census. The majority of growth occurred in the unincorporated area of the County, which includes Eastpoint. The source of population growth is net migration. Between 1970 and 1977, net migration accounted for 85.32 percent of the County's growth, leaving about 14 percent attributable to natural increase. The percentage of the 15 to 44 year old age group has increased from 33.9 percent in 1960 to 38.9 percent in 1977. The age group of 65 and older has increased from 13 percent in 1960 to 17 percent in 1977. A medium projection for the county's population is 8,600 for the year 1980, 9,200 for 1985 and 10,200 for 1990. While the per capita income level of the County has grown at a higher percentage rate as compared to the state average, the per capita income level for Franklin County is the lowest in the State. In 1975-76, that figure was $3,061.00 as compared to a state average of $6,021.00. The unemployment rate in Franklin County was the highest in the State in September, 1978, sitting at 16.5 percent as compared to the state average of 7.6 percent. Franklin County's figure was down to 12 percent in October, 1978. Residents and business people in the area gave testimony to the effect that there is sufficient employment available in the area, but that it is difficult to find people willing to work. As indicated above, Eastpoint is among the fastest growing areas of Franklin County. Approximately one-third of the 75 businesses located in Eastpoint have come in or relocated to more modern facilities within the past three years. Another area of large growth is St. George Island. Leisure Properties, Inc. has eight approved subdivisions, three of which are presently completely sold. In 1978, that company realized $3,000,000.00 income from land sales on the Island. A 28-unit motel and a condominium is planned for St. George Island, as is a State park. It is estimated that when the State park becomes operational, 5,000 visitors will come to the Island on a daily basis during the 100-day season. It can be expected that such activity and traffic will promote and attract the existence of service facilities and service personnel. Approximately 80 percent of the construction work on St. George Island is performed by local contractors. The value of residential permits on the Island represented $1,021,360.00 in 1978. The proposed Apalachicola branch banking facility is to be located at 73 Avenue E, or on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 98-319 (Avenue E) and Sixth Street. This site is presently owned by the applicant and is located 22.5 miles West of the main Carrabelle office and 6.2 miles West of the proposed Eastpoint branch. The applicant proposes to construct a concrete story and a half building with 1500 square feet on the first floor and 540 square feet on the second floor. The applicant plans to utilize three inside teller stations, one walk-up teller station and one drive-in teller window. In December of 1978, 29 percent (or $2,111,000.00) of the applicant's total deposits represented accounts from the proposed Apalachicola service area. A majority of this amount (22.1 percent of the applicant's total deposits) were deposits of public funds by various county departments located in the courthouse in Apalachicola. In addition, the applicant has $576,000.00 (representing 12.22 percent of its total loan portfolio) in loans to individuals and businesses in the Apalachicola service area. It is projected that the total estimated deposits for the proposed Apalachicola branch will be $1,800,000.00 at the end of the first year of operation, $2,700,000.00 at the end of the second year and $3,300,000.00 at the end of the third year of operation. The management for the proposed Apalachicola branch was hired two years in advance of tee anticipated opening date for training and familiarization with the proposed service area. He is a vice president of the applicant bank and a member of its board of directors. Prior to that, he had an auditing and accounting background. At its February, 1979, meeting, the applicant's stockholders voted to authorize the board of directors to name two additional directors during the year. The board intends to name these two new directors from the new Apalachicola service area after approval is obtained. The proposed Eastpoint branch is to be placed on Lot 8, Block 1, of the David Brown Estate Subdivision located on the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Island Drive and Avenue C. This site is 16.4 miles West of the main Carrabelle office. This branch is considered to be a drive-in facility of the proposed Apalachicola branch, and only a 12 by 12 foot concrete block building with two teller stations is planned. During December of 1978, the applicant had $415,000.00 in deposit accounts (representing 5.7 percent of the applicant's total deposits) in the proposed Eastpoint service area. The applicant also has $788,500.00 in loans to individuals and businesses in the Eastpoint service area, representing 16.7 percent of its total loan portfolio. The applicant projects for the Eastpoint branch total estimated deposits in the amount of $300,000.00 by the end of the first year of operation, $450,000.00 by the end of the second year and $600,000.00 by the end of the third year. The primary service area of the proposed Eastpoint branch includes St. George Island which is connected to Eastpoint by a causeway. The proposed Eastpoint branch will be managed by a supervisor below officer level, but will be under the office management of the proposed Apalachicola branch manager. The Eastpoint branch will have all standard deposit, withdrawal and clearing services. The names of the proposed branches are Gulf State Bank of Franklin County - Apalachicola Branch and Gulf State Bank of Franklin County - Eastpoint Branch. There was no evidence to illustrate that the applicant was not in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws affecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred O. Shuler Post Office Box 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 J. Ben Watkins Watkins and Watkins 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Michael A. Gross Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Assistant General Counsel State of Florida Office of the Comptroller The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On September 5, 1978, the Applicant submitted to the Department its application pursuant to Sections 665.031 and 665.704(2), Florida Statutes, for authority to organize a corporation for the purpose of conducting a savings and loan association business to be located at the intersection of Kanner Highway (Colorado Avenue) and Monterey Road, Martin County, Florida. Notice of receipt of the application was published in a Florida Administrative Weekly on September 8, 1978. After receipt of the application, the Department requested additional information after receipt of which the application was deemed complete and assigned a filing date of December 7, 1978. The application as originally filed proposed the name AMERICAN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MARTIN COUNTY for the proposed association. On September 22, 1978, Applicant amended the Petition to change the name of the proposed corporation to CENTRAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA. This change was noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 6, 1978. As set forth above, the site of the proposed savings and loan association is at the intersection of Kanner Highway and Monterey Road, Martin County, Florida. The organizers of the Applicant obtained an option to purchase the property for the proposed site for $175,000. The option to purchase was obtained from Mr. Richard Geisinger, one of the proposed directors, with full disclosure to the other proposed directors. An MAI appraiser appraised the fair market value of the property for the proposed site at $210,000. The proposed site is directly on the corner of the subject intersection and represents 175 front feet on Kanner Highway and 300 front feet on Monterey Road. The applicants intend to build a freestanding building of approximately 6,400 square feet with two drive-in teller facilities. The total cost of land and building is projected at approximately $481,000 with an additional $85,514 to be spent for the purchase of fixtures and furniture. The applicant proposes to be capitalized at $1,000,000, with $500,000 of the total capital being held as paid in surplus. The capital will be raised from the issuance of 100,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $5.00 per share, selling at a price of $10.00 per share with a collection of an additional $.50 per share for an organizational expense fund. For the purposes of the application, 100 percent of the stock of the proposed association was subscribed to by the organizers. However, it is their intent to offer for sale approximately 46 percent of the stock of the association to the public prior to the opening of the proposed savings and loan association. Applicant's primary service area (PSA) incorporates most of the Northeast section of Martin County and includes the City of Stuart, Town of Sewalls Point and the communities of Palm City and Port Salerno. It is bounded on the north by the Martin-St. Lucie County line, on the west by the Sunshine State Parkway, on the south by the northern boundary of the Gomez Grant, and on the east by the Indian River. The PSA, as proposed, is the most densely populated area of Martin County, having approximately 38,400 residents. The per capita income for the residents of the PSA is above the state average. Both construction and sales of residential units within the PSA are increasing, with adequate room for future development. There is a high level of commercial activity in the PSA and the vacancy rate is low. The PSA contains the Monterey Shopping Plaza, which is directly opposite the proposed site, which shopping plaza opened for business in 1972, and which has expanded to over 100,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Within the PSA and directly across the street from the proposed site to the East, a 26 acre shopping mall is being developed. Downtown Stuart is less than one-half mile from the proposed site and in the PSA. The population of Martin County and the primary service area is a matter of dispute. The Martin County Planning and Zoning Department estimates the county's population at 61,692 residents. The University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimated the county population at 53,895 as of July 1, 1978. No annual estimates relating to census tracts or parts thereof are available from official U.S. or State of Florida sources in order to determine the population of the PSA. However, the trends of population changes in Martin County, Stuart, Sewalls point, Jupiter Island and Ocean Breeze Park and in the unincorporated areas of the county, which comprise much of the designated PSA should apply to the PSA. Relevant population data of these areas, compiled by the University of Florida, Division of Population Studies, are as follows: Martin 1970 County 28,035 1975 47,726 1976 48,496 1977 50,341 1973 53,895 1980 54,700 to 61,800 (projected) Stuart 4,280 8,787 8,479 8,520 8,942 NA Sewalls Point 298 741 791 829 1,025 Jupiter Island 295 349 352 353 355 Ocean Breeze Park 714 813 1,080 1,080 1,065 Unincorporated 21,908 36,936 37,794 39,559 42,468 NA Martin County population has risen dramatically since 1970, and that growth is expected to continue, essentially from in-migration. Since 1970 there has been a negative natural increase in population. The median age of the county population of 1977 was 45 years of age, with 26 percent of its residents 65 years or older. This is fairly representative of the PSA which includes the majority of the county's population. Within five miles of the site, there are four major shopping centers including Stuart Shopping Center with approximately 103,000 square feet, K-Mart Plaza with approximately 100,000 square feet, East Ocean Mall with approximately 100,000 square feet and Monterey Shopping Plaza referred to above. From 1971 to 1978, 17,088 housing units were built in Martin County. Permit activity in the county shows that there were $81,726,000 in permits issued in 1978. The proposed site is along a line of travel for a large number of commuters as well as shoppers who come to that area as a destination point. The latest unemployment data for Martin County shows an unemployment rate of 5.4 percent for November, 1978 (revised), and a 5.5 percent rate for December, 1978 (preliminary). This compares to a state average of 6.2 percent and 6.4 percent respectively. The per capita personal income for the county increased from $5,735 in 1975 to $6,156 in 1976. This was a 7.3 percent increase which was somewhat slower than the 7.6 percent state average. However, the county's absolute averages remained above the state average of $5,596 and $6,021 respectively for the same years. Commercial activity in Martin County is strong. There are presently eleven existing or approved savings and loan association offices within the proposed PSA. One of these is a main office and ten of these are branches or limited facilities. There are also four additional savings and loan association offices located outside the PSA, but within Martin County. There are nine commercial bank offices, including four main banking offices and five branches, within the PSA and another six hank and branch offices located outside the PSA, but within Martin County. There have been significant increases in savings deposits in Martin County. Significant factors in this increase is the in-migration of new residents and inflation. A continuation of this pattern will maintain the growth experience in recent years. The county summary for nine savings and loan offices indicates an increase of 27.1 percent in deposits between March 31, 1977 and March 31, 1978. This continues a similar growth rate achieved during 1976- 1977. A similar growth trend is being experienced by the commercial banks in the area. Savings and loan associations doing business in Martin County have total aggregate savings as of September 30, 1978 of $235,416,000. Commercial banks doing business in Martin County show total assets of $297,774,000 as of the same date. Only one savings and loan doing business in Martin County is headquartered in Martin County. All other savings and loans in Martin County are branches of institutions with headquarters outside Martin County. The Applicant expects to be competitive with the existing savings and loan offices in the PSA with regard to interest rates and breadth of services. Some of the services that the Applicant intends to offer to the community include the following: a mobile facility to serve the elderly and disabled, direct deposit of Social Security and other government checks, retirement plans such as IRA and KEOUGH, electronic funds transfer, Christmas Club and educational savings programs, certificate plans, and Saturday and extended Friday hours. With the exception of the mobile facility and Saturday hours, these services are currently offered by existing associations. The Applicant has not designated a chief managing officer. An informal offer and acceptance of employment exists with a capable individual having savings and loan experience. This individual did not assist in preparation of the pending application. The proposed Board of Directors is composed of nine members, all of whom are residents of the State of Florida and U.S. citizens. Although all of the proposed directors appear to be successful businessmen, none of them have any savings and loan experience. Six of the nine organizers are presently commercial bank directors and one is a former bank director. Mr. J. M. Brown is Director and Chief Executive Officer of American Bank of Martin County; Mr. Richard K. Carroll is a director of Jensen Beach Bank; Mr. John A. Darlson is a director of the American Bank of Martin County; Mr. Richard Geisinger is Chairman of the Board of Directors of American Bank of Martin County; Mr. Terry N. Keathley is a director of American Bank of Martin County; and Mr. Lawrence J. Timon is a director of American Bank of Martin County. Mr. Brown and Mr. Darlson do not intend to become directors of the proposed savings and loan association but do intend to held their stock in the proposed association. Those remaining proposed directors who also serve the Board of American Bank, Messrs. Geisinger, Keathley and Timen, have indicated their intent to resign their directorates in American Bank to serve on the Board of Directors of the proposed association in keeping with the requirements of the Financial Institutions Regulatory Act. The remaining proposed directors are Mr. Rockford H. Ern, Mr. Armando Farina, and Mr. John M. Fort. Mr. Brown, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Darlson, Mr. Geisinger, Mr. Keathley and Mr. Timon have each subscribed to more than 5 percent of the stock of the proposed savings and loan association and also presently own stock in a commercial bank in the PSA. All intend to retain that stock as well as their stock in the proposed savings and loan association. The Applicant has projected savings deposits at the end of the first, second and third years of operation to be $5,000,000, $10,000,000 end $15,000,000 respectively. The Applicant has presented a revised budget which projected net profit for the first three years of operation to be $55,000, $131,000, and $188,000 respectively. The Applicant has proposed that the new association bear the name CENTRAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA. No evidence was presented to show this name was confusing or misleading to the public. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57 (1)(a)(12), Florida Statutes, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation are not included in this REPORT. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Karlyn Anne Loucks, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barry E. Chapnick, Esquire 1666 Kennedy Causeway, Suite 700 Miami, Florida 33141 C. R. McDonald, Jr., Esquire Suite 200, Citizens Federal Bldg. 1600 South Federal Highway Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 Frank Fee, III, Esquire Post Office Box 100 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 Richard J. Dungey, Esquire Post Office Box 288 Stuart, Florida 33494
The Issue Whether the Department of Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") should remove Respondent from the office of President of Perry & Company, a premium finance company authorized to do business in Florida, pursuant to Section 624.310, Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent's Early Employment After graduating from Miami Dade Community College with an A.A. degree in computer science, Respondent was employed as a teller, and then as the head teller, at Pan American Bank in Miami, Florida. He remained in the employ of Pan American Bank for approximately six months. Respondent then went to work for Brickell Bank, another bank located in the Miami area. He started as a new accounts representative, but ultimately became the bank's "in-house computer person" and worked on various computer- related projects for the bank. Respondent was employed by Brickell Bank for a period of two to three years. Respondent left Brickell Bank to become the Vice President of Computer Operations at General Bank. At the time, First Miami Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "First Miami"), as well as its immediate parent corporation, General Trust Mortgage Corporation, were wholly owned subsidiaries of General Bank. First Miami was a Florida domestic property and casualty insurer, specializing in the issuance of "non-standard" automobile insurance policies. It was initially licensed by the Department in 1988. The majority shareholders of General Bank were Pedro Ramon Lopez and his wife, Teresa Saldise, who, at all times material to the instant case were practicing attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. Lopez was General Bank's Chairman of the Board. Saldise was its Vice Chairman of the Board. In late 1988 or early 1989, Respondent, who at the time had no previous experience working in the insurance industry, was assigned by General Bank the task of better automating and otherwise improving the efficiency of First Miami's operations. First Miami was having problems with its telephone and computer systems which, combined with other operational deficiencies, were resulting in delays in policy issuance and claims payments. The Department had received complaints from consumers regarding these delays, which it was investigating. During the investigation, Respondent met with a Department official and explained to him First Miami's computer operations. In the middle of 1989, Respondent became a full-time employee of First Miami. He was given the same title that he had had with General Bank, Vice President of Computer Operations. As Vice President of Computer Operations, Respondent initially reported to Frank Santanaria, who at the time was First Miami's Chief Financial Officer. Subsequently, when he assumed greater responsibility for the operations of the company, he reported to Diana Madero, First Miami's then Executive Vice President. The "Spin Off" of First Miami In August or September of 1989, General Bank decided to "spin off" both First Miami and General Trust Mortgage Corporation and make them independent of the General Bank corporate structure. The "spin off" was intended to satisfy the concerns of federal banking regulators. At the time of the "spin off," Respondent was actively involved in the day-to-day operations of First Miami. Although he did not participate in the decision to "spin off" First Miami, nor was he involved in taking any of the steps necessary to effectuate the "spin off," he was aware, before the "spin off" occurred, that the "spin off" decision had been made and was in the process of being implemented. The Post-"Spin Off" First Miami Following the "spin off," Lopez transferred his ownership interest in First Miami to Saldise. From the date of this transfer until First Miami's liquidation, Saldise was the principal shareholder and President of First Miami and, as such, the person in effective control of the company. She exercised such control through a holding company, First Miami Holding Company, in which she had a 75 percent ownership interest. Respondent was either an officer or director, or both, of First Miami Holding Company from May 23, 1990, until the administrative dissolution of the company on October 9, 1992. Although Lopez was neither a shareholder, officer nor director of First Miami following the transfer, he served as a consultant to the company and, along with his wife, made strategic decisions about the company's direction, its business activities, and its investments. In making these decisions, Saldise and Lopez occasionally sought the legal advice of other attorneys, including Stephen Rubin, with whom they dealt directly. Rubin is a member of The Florida Bar 4/ who has been practicing law since 1969, following his graduation from Columbia University Law School. 5/ He is primarily a litigator who specializes in complex corporate, commercial and regulatory matters, however, he also does general transaction work. Respondent replaced Diana Madero as First Miami's Executive Vice President, in charge of the company's day-to-day operations, sometime around the time of the "spin off" 6/ and he remained in that position until the Department's takeover of the company in June of 1992, receiving a salary of approximately $75,000.00 a year. As Executive Vice President, Respondent reported to Saldise and Lopez. For a period of time following the "spin off" Respondent also held the office of Treasurer. From at least February of 1990, until the Department's takeover of First Miami, Respondent was on its Board of Directors. As of December 31, 1991, the other members of the Board were as follows: Saldise; Raimundo Aleman, the Vice President of Accounting and Treasurer, who was responsible, throughout the period that Respondent was Executive Vice President, for the preparation of all of company's financial statements and reports; Orlando Roberto Soto, the Secretary; and Juan Saldise. November, 1989 Petition for Order to Show Cause Following the "spin off," First Miami acquired approximately $5,000,000.00 of General Bank stock. In November of 1989, federal banking regulators placed General Bank into conservatorship and seized its assets. Such action rendered worthless the General Bank stock held by First Miami. Following the takeover, an article appearing in a Miami newspaper quoted the Department's General Counsel as having said that First Miami was insolvent and that its majority shareholder, Saldise, and her husband, Lopez, had "walked off" with the $5,000,000.00 that First Miami had paid for the General Bank stock that was now worthless. Shortly thereafter, the Department filed in Leon County Circuit Court a Petition for Order to Show Cause against First Miami alleging that there was reason to believe that the company was insolvent. First Miami's business declined after the publication of the newspaper article and the filing of the Petition for Order to Show Cause. Independent insurance agents and premium finance companies were reluctant to continue their dealings with the company. Representatives of two large premium finance companies that had done a considerable amount of First Miami business, Perry & Company and Equivest Premium Finance, visited with Respondent and others at First Miami's offices to inquire about First Miami's solvency. During the pendency of the Petition for Order to Show Cause, the Department, with the assistance of auditors employed by Coopers & Lybrand, conducted an investigation of First Miami. The investigation was headed by Curt O'Shields. During his investigation, O'Shields had discussions with Respondent regarding First Miami's capital and surplus position as of September 30, 1989. Following the investigation, in a February 7, 1990, memorandum to the Department's General Counsel, O'Shields recommended that the Department "settle with [First Miami] and drop the rehabilitation proceedings." O'Shields noted in his memorandum that "[o]perationally, the Company has greatly improved" and "[f]inancially, [it] ha[s] provided evidence to support admitting certain assets sufficient to make the Company solvent." O'Shields' recommendation was followed. On or about February 13, 1990, the Department and First Miami entered into a stipulation which provided as follows: THIS STIPULATION is by and between the State of Florida, Department of Insurance and Treasurer and First Miami Insurance Company. For and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth hereinbelow, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: The parties stipulate and agree to entry of an Order of Dismissal of Civil Action 89-4343 pending in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County, Florida, and further agree immediately upon the execution of this Stipulation to enter into the Stipulation for Dismissal attached hereto as Exhibit A. First Miami agrees that it will not carry as an admitted asset any stock it may own in General Bank. The parties stipulate and agree that because Forum Reinsurance Company Limited at this time is not an approved reinsurer for purposes of its 1989 annual statement First Miami may not carry as an admissible asset the amount of reinsurance ceded in excess of the amount of First Miami's trust; provided, however, that the Department agrees to promptly review an application for approval of Forum Reinsurance Company Limited as an approved reinsurer, or a request for approval of Forum Reinsurance Company Limited as a SNAR, in good faith and on the same basis as it would review an application from any other insurer. 7/ First Miami for purposes of its 1989 annual statement shall carry its wholly-owned subsidiary, PRLS, Inc. 8/ as an admitted asset at a value of $650,000.00; provided however, that said valuation is contingent on First Miami's obtaining a fully executed contract for sale of said subsid- iary by June 30, 1990. If First Miami does not obtain an executed contract for sale of said sub- sidiary by June 30, 1990, on its June 30, 1990 financial statement and thereafter it shall not carry PRLS, Inc. as an admitted asset. Respondent, approved, but did not execute, the stipulation. The Stipulation for Dismissal, attached to the stipulation as Exhibit A, provided that the parties had "resolved all matters relevant that gave cause to the filing of the PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" and that "THEREFORE, the parties agree[d] to entry of an Order by the Court dismissing this action." Such an order was entered on February 13, 1990. Carrera Insurance Underwriters and the "No Down Payment" Program After the entry of the Order of Dismissal, First Miami engaged in a campaign to repair its relationships with independent insurance agents and premium finance companies. It also formed, in June of 1990, a subsidiary, Carrera Insurance Underwriters (hereinafter referred to as "Carrera"), so as to reduce its reliance upon business generated by independent insurance agents. Saldise, Lopez, Madero, Soto and Respondent were the initial members of Carrera's Board of Directors. To attract business, Carrera, at the suggestion of Lopez, instituted a "no down payment" program. Based on the legal research he had done, Lopez concluded that the "no down payment" program was not unlawful. Other insurance companies, independent agents, and agent associations, such as the Latin-American Agents Association and the Specialty Agents Association, complained to the Department about the program. After having received these complaints, the Department contacted First Miami and a meeting between representatives of First Miami and the Department was arranged. The meeting was held in Tallahassee. Among First Miami's representatives at the meeting were Saldise, Lopez and Respondent. The primary spokesperson at the meeting for First Miami was Lopez. Respondent's role at the meeting was to address computer-related issues. Neither at the meeting, nor at any other time, did the Department advise First Miami that it had concerns regarding the legality of the "no down payment" program. The Forum and Munauto Reinsurance Agreements First Miami's reinsurance agreement with Forum Reinsurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Forum"), which was referred to in the February 13, 1990, stipulation between First Miami and the Department, had been entered into on November 27, 1989. The reinsurance agreement with Forum was negotiated, on First Miami's behalf, by Erin Doherty of Saturn Intermediaries. She received input regarding the preferences of First Miami primarily from Saldise, Lopez and Madero. Respondent assisted in the negotiations by providing computer-generated reports and data. Respondent did not then, nor did he at any time he was with First Miami, have the authority to independently enter into contracts of reinsurance on behalf of First Miami without the prior approval of Saldise or Lopez. In conjunction with this reinsurance agreement, a Trust Agreement was entered into by Forum (as "Grantor"), First Miami (as "Beneficiary") and the Bank of New York Trust Company (as "Trustee"). Under the Trust Agreement, First Miami, rather than Forum, had the authority to direct and control the investment of trust fund assets. This was an unusual arrangement inasmuch as it is generally the reinsurer which exercises such direction and control. First Miami directed that the assets of the Forum reinsurance trust fund be invested in insurance premium finance contracts of South Florida Premium Finance Company. South Florida Premium Finance Company was a "captive" premium finance company. It financed only premiums due on policies issued by First Miami. First Miami owned 9.09 percent of the shares of South Florida Premium Finance Company. General Trust Mortgage Corporation owned the remaining shares. Respondent was an officer and director of South Florida Premium Finance Company from February 21, 1990, until October 9, 1992, the date of the administrative dissolution of the corporation. From August 1, 1989, until June 5, 1992, Respondent was either an officer or director, or both, of General Trust Mortgage Corporation. First Miami sought the Department's approval of its reinsurance arrangement with Forum. By letter dated February 26, 1990, which read as follows, the Department granted the requested approval: This is pursuant to your request for the Department to approve Forum Reinsurance Co., Ltd. of Bermuda ("Forum Re") as a "Satisfactory Non-Approved Reinsurer" for purposes of taking credit in First Miami Insurance Company's ("First Miami") accounting and financial statements for calendar year ended December 31, 1989. Your request is hereby granted under Sec. 624.610(2)(b)1, F.S., with the condition that the reinsurance contract entered into by First Miami and Forum Re shall be commuted on or before December 31, 1990 and replaced with another reinsur- ance contract satisfactory to the department. 9/ Forum commuted its reinsurance agreement with First Miami in July or August of 1990. 10/ Forum notified Doherty of its action. Doherty then contacted First Miami and discussed the matter with Respondent. Respondent asked Doherty to find an admitted reinsurer for First Miami that would be agreeable to allowing First Miami to exercise control over the investment of reinsurance trust fund assets. Doherty unsuccessfully attempted to locate such a reinsurer for First Miami. On October 11, 1990, First Miami entered into a written reinsurance agreement with Munauto, S.A., a non-admitted Spanish reinsurer, which covered both current and prior business and was particularly advantageous to First Miami. In conjunction therewith, a Trust Agreement which permitted First Miami to direct and control the investment of trust fund assets was entered into by Munauto (as "Grantor"), First Miami (as "Beneficiary") and the Bank of New York Trust Company (as "Trustee"). 11/ The reinsurance agreement contained an addendum which was signed by Respondent in his capacity as First Miami's Executive Vice President. The Munauto reinsurance and trust agreements were drafted by First Miami's retained attorney, Stephen Rubin. Saldise and Lopez had negotiated these agreements on behalf of First Miami. They first met with Munauto representatives in Spain approximately two to three months before the written agreements were executed. Following this initial meeting, Munauto's Chairman of the Board and its President visited First Miami's offices in Miami where they continued their discussions with Saldise and Lopez. During their visit, they also met with Respondent, who provided them with information regarding First Miami's operations and introduced them to the department heads. Doherty was not in any way involved in the negotiations that culminated in the execution of these agreements. In fact, she was not even aware of the existence of the agreements. As requested by Respondent, Doherty continued her efforts to obtain a suitable reinsurer for First Miami even after these agreements had been executed. Respondent had made such a request at the direction of Saldise, who wanted to explore other reinsurance options. On its Quarterly Statement for the quarter ending September 30, 1990, which was signed by Respondent and filed with Department on November 15, 1990, First Miami provided the Department with the following advisement: Forum has cancelled the Reinsurance Agreement. Munauto S.A. has replaced Forum Reinsurance Co. (P's FOF 46, 1st and 2nd sent) The Munauto reinsurance and trust agreements, however, were never submitted to the Department for approval. Investment in Premium Finance Contracts First Miami was advised by its retained attorney, Stephen Rubin, that it was legally permissible for it invest in the premium finance contract accounts receivable of South Florida Premium Finance Company. Rubin further informed First Miami that it was his legal opinion that First Miami's ownership of these premium finance contract accounts receivable constituted an admitted asset of First Miami under the Insurance Code. He explained that, in his view, First Miami's "participations" in these accounts receivable, based upon promissory notes, were tantamount to "securities," within the meaning of Section 625.012, Florida Statutes. Respondent was among those at First Miami with whom Rubin discussed this matter, and he relied upon Rubin's legal advice. The $1,000,000.00 Dividend On January 29, 1991, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of South Florida Premium Finance Company, the Board declared a "cash dividend of $1,000,000 to the shareholders of record as of December 1, 1990:" First Miami, which held 9.09 percent of the shares; and General Trust Mortgage Corporation, which held 90.91 percent of the shares. Saldise and Respondent were among the Board members present at the meeting. After the meeting, South Florida Premium Finance Company issued the following checks to First Miami and General Trust Mortgage Corporation on the dates and in the amounts indicated: check number 003541, dated May 10, 1991, to First Miami in the amount of $61,325.80; check number 003542, dated May 10, 1991, to General Trust Mortgage Corporation in the amount of $613,325.51; check number 003543, dated April 26, 1991, to First Miami in the amount of $37,387.32; check number 003545, dated April 26, 1991, to General Trust Mortgage Corporation in the amount of $373,914.31. 12/ All four of these checks were signed by Respondent and Aleman for South Florida Premium Finance Company. They all cleared the bank on May 13, 1991. The Immediate Final Order On or about March 1, 1991, the Department received First Miami's Annual Statement for the year ending December 31, 1990. The Department reviewed the statement to ascertain, applying the principles of "statutory accounting" (which differ from generally accepted accounting principles or "GAAP accounting"), First Miami's current ability to meet its obligations. 13/ The review caused the Department to be concerned that First Miami was not currently able to meet its obligations. On March 12, 1991, the Department sent First Miami a letter in which it stated the following: A review of First Miami Insurance Company's Annual Statement indicates that real estate (page 2, line 4.1) was listed at appraised market value, instead of cost, less depreciation. Premium and Agents' balances and installments booked but deferred and not yet due were $6,732,243 at December 31, 1990. Please explain the justification for the admission of this asset. Further, please indicate, how much and when the unearned premium was set up for this asset. Page 72, Schedule P-part 2b, line 12 shows a redun[dan]cy figure of (833), please explain this. The above referenced filing inconsistencies reported in the 1990 Annual Statement should be revised and reported properly in the amended 1990 Annual Statement to be filed with the Department within fifteen (15) days from the date of your receipt of this letter. In addition to the above reporting inconsistencies, the Department has conducted a Diversification analysis of First Miami Insurance Company's Annual Statement, which indicates that the company is not diversified by approximately $4,192,253. With respect to the improper diversification, please submit a business plan to the Department within thirty (30) days from the date of your receipt of this letter, indicating the company's plan of action to correct this concern. Since time is of the essence with respect to these matters, failure to respond could result in further administrative action. Should you have further questions or comments regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. Two days later, on March 14, 1991, the Department wrote to Respondent advising him that it was "imperative that [he] submit to this Department upon receipt of this letter, Premium Volume Written, Policyholders Surplus, Earned Premiums, and Losses Incurred for the months of January and February, 1991." Respondent responded immediately. In his cover letter to the Department, he stated the following: As per your request, I am attaching a copy of our total page of premiums written for January. The net premium written is $1,110,697.20, our Data processing Department is producing the end of month February reports and should be available by 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 1991. In order to determine our net surplus of January and February Mr. Raimundo Aleman, Vice President of Accounting, is presently working on producing these numbers. Please forgive us for not having these numbers available, but as you know we have spent January and February preparing the end of year blanket. Mr. Aleman will have a full set of Financial Statements for January ready for you by March 22nd. We believe that the February Financial Statement will be completed by the second or third week of April. Should you need further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. In a follow-up letter dated March 27, 1991, Respondent informed the Department of the following: As per your request, please be advised the accounting department has been able to finish the Financial Statement for January 1991. Our net surplus is $3,535,987.00. We are continuing to close February 1991 and as soon as the numbers become available we will forward them to you. Should you need further information regarding the aforementioned, please do not hesitate to call me. By letter dated April 9, 1991, the Department requested the following of Respondent: Pursuant to our conversation on April 1, 1991 concerning issues that are important to the Department of Insurance please confirm in writing. First Miami Insurance Company will not take credit for reinsurance because the reinsurer is an unauthorized Alien carrier, non-approved by the Department. First Miami Insurance Company, Mrs Teresa Saldise, nor her husband, Mr. Pedro Ramon Lopez, have any investments in banks in the United States or abroad. With regards to the 1990 Annual Statement, premiums, Agents Balances and installments booked but deferred and not yet due were $6,732,243, please provide documents substantiating unearned premiums excluding net of reinsurance. In addition, how much of that balance is over ninety days old? The Statement of Actuarial Opinion was not submitted with the Annual Statement, please remit within five (5) days from receipt of this letter. The company's short term assets less short term liabilities indicates a liquidity deficiency of $4,504,955. What is the company doing to improve this deficiency? Since time is of the essence with respect to these matters, failure to respond could result in further administrative action. Should you have further questions or comments regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respondent wrote to the Department on April 15, 1991. In his letter, he stated the following: In response to your letter dated March 12th, 1991, in reference to our Annual Statement, please be advised of the following: Premiums and Agents balances and installments booked but deferred, and not yet due were $6,732,243 at December 31, 1990. This amount reflects premium finance contracts that have been purchased from South Florida Premium Finance. The total of this amount is all outstanding monthly payments from insureds. The amount is backed by unearned premiums in the amount of $11,627,613.73. The net of that amount is also reflected on page 3, number 9. Unearned premiums Part 2A, Column 5, Item 34. Page 72 Schedule P, Part 2B line 12 shows a negative figure of $833. Please see attached. I don't believe that an amended Annual Statement is necessary due to the fact that the above two numbers in my opinion are shown correctly. Should you have any further questions about them let me know. In reference to the Diversification analysis of the First Miami Insurance Company 1990 Annual Statement, I am not sure what statute you are basing yourself on to determine whether there is a diversification problem nor how you arrive at the $4,192,253.00 figure. Can you please refer me to a particular statute or explain the manner you calculate the diversification analysis. If this amount reflects the amount invested in premiums, I believe it is a fully admitted asset according to statute 625.012(3). "Premium notes policy, policy loans, and other policy assets and liens on policies and certificates of life insurance and annuity contracts and accrued interest hereon, in an amount not exceeding the legal reserve and other policy liabilities carried on each individual policy." Should you have any further questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me. On Friday, May 10, 1991, the Department issued an Immediate Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the "IFO") in which it directed that First Miami "CEASE AND DESIST instanter from writing any new, reinsurance and/or renewal business effective 5:00 P.M. Friday, May 10, 1991," inasmuch as grounds "exist[ed] for the immediate suspension or revocation of FIRST MIAMI'S certificate of authority." The IFO alleged that FIRST MIAMI in the conduct of business under its certificate of authority Is in unsound financial condition. (Section 624.418(1)(a), Florida Statutes) Is using methods and practices in the conduct of its business as to render its further transaction of insurance in this state hazardous or injurious to its policyholders or the public. (Section 624.418(1)(b), Florida Statutes) No longer meets the requirements for the authority originally granted. (624.418(1)(d), Florida Statutes) Has violated any lawful order or rule of the department or any provision of this code. (Section 624.418(2)(a), Florida Statutes) Is impaired or insolvent. (Section 624.418(3)(a), Florida Statutes Has failed to have and keep to the extent of an amount equal to its entire reserve and the minimum capital and surplus required to be maintained. (Section 625.305(1), Florida Statutes Has entered into and ceded reinsurance to non-approved reinsurers. (Section 624.610(2)(b), Florida Statutes) Has excess investments in subsidiaries and affiliates. (Section 625.325(2), Florida Statutes) With respect to the issue of reinsurance, the IFO further, more specifically, alleged the following: FIRST MIAMI took a credit for reinsurance in Forum Reinsurance Company, Ltd., a non-approved reinsurer, in the amount of $3,479,939.00, which contract, pursuant to agreement with the DEPART- MENT, was to be replaced with another reinsurance contract satisfactory to the DEPARTMENT by December 31, 1990. In addition, FIRST MIAMI'S 1990 Annual Statement reflects a credit for reinsurance in Munauto Reinsurance, S.A., a non-approved reinsurer, in the amount of $6,358,231.00. The reinsurance contract was entered into in 1990 by FIRST MIAMI with a non-approved reinsurer and has not been approved by the Department in violation of Section 624.610, Florida Statutes. Since neither of these companies are approved by the Department, the Department cannot determine if either can satisfactorily pay current or future claims of the insureds in this state. With respect to the "Premium and Agents' balances and installments booked but deferred and not yet due" referred to in the Department's March 12, 1991, letter to First Miami, the IFO alleged the following: The balance of $6,732,243.00 due from FIRST MIAMI'S subsidiary and premium finance company, South Florida Premium Finance Company, consisting of FIRST MIAMI'S premiums, agents balances and installments shown on the books but deferred and not yet due was 201 percent of policyholders surplus. Such amounts should have been submitted to FIRST MIAMI at the time premiums were financed. As reflected on the 1990 Annual Statement, the amount represents a loan back to South Florida Premium Finance Company and as such, is a receivable from an affiliate which exceeds the allowable statutory limitation by $5,837,107.00 in violation of Section 625.325(2), Florida Statutes. In addition, such amount is not shown as a loan on the 1990 Annual Statement for South Florida Premium Finance Company. Pursuant to section 625.012, Florida Statutes, only those investments and loans held in accordance with the Florida Insurance Code may be considered in determination of financial condition. Therefore the $5.8 million cannot be considered an asset of the company. According to the IFO, although "FIRST MIAMI'S policyholders surplus as indicated on its 1990 annual statement was $3,347,596[, w]ith the adjustments of assets and liabilities required in order to comply with applicable statutes, FIRST MIAMI'S surplus [was] really a negative $7,498,838.00" and therefore it was "in violation of section 624.408, Florida Statutes which require[d] surplus of $1,370,321.00 and [was] impaired or insolvent." The IFO did not specifically address First Miami's "no down payment" program. First Miami received the IFO the afternoon of May 10, 1991, and immediately contacted its attorneys in Tallahassee for legal advice. Respondent was involved in discussions with First Miami's attorneys concerning the IFO. First Miami's Tallahassee attorneys sought and obtained, on Monday, May 13, 1991, an order from a Leon County Circuit Court judge enjoining the Department from enforcing the IFO. Doherty was among the witnesses who gave testimony at the injunction hearing for First Miami. She testified that an admitted carrier, namely U.S. Capital Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. Capital"), was ready, willing and able to enter into a reinsurance agreement with First Miami. Doherty had begun negotiating with U.S. Capital, on behalf of First Miami, in 1990. In addition to enjoining the enforcement of the IFO, the judge ordered First Miami to take the following action: Within twenty-four (24) hours of the time this Order is entered, [First Miami] shall provide to the [Department] an English Language version of any and all reinsurance Treaties or Agreements to which First Miami is currently a party, unless such English version treaties have been previously provided to [the Department]. No later than 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 1991, [First Miami] shall provide to the [Department] proof of existing reinsurance, if not already provided. No later than 4:00 p.m. on May 21, 1991, [First Miami] shall deposit the aggregate amount of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars of its funds into the registry of the court or with the Division of Collateral Securities of the Office of the Treasurer as additional security for the issuance of this Order. No later than 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 1991, First Miami Insurance Company, shall receive unimproved real estate with a fair market value of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars and in exchange therefor shall give to the contributor a surplus note in the form and on the terms customarily approved by the Department of Insurance, and the value of the contributed asset shall not be available for the purpose of writing insurance. [First Miami] shall file, in a timely manner, as required by law, any and all statutorily required, quarterly financial statements, and provide a copy of same immediately to the [Department]. After obtaining the injunction, First Miami resumed its solicitation and acceptance of premiums and continued to engage in such activity until its takeover by the Department in June of 1992. The One Million Dollar Security Deposit On May 14, 1991, Respondent and Aleman, in their capacities as officers of General Trust Mortgage Corporation, gave Sun Bank of Miami written "authorization to debit General Trust Mortgage Corporation master Account #0189000017703 the amount of $1,000,000 and issue a cashier[']s check payable to Teresa Saldise." On or about May 15, 1991, Saldise deposited the check in her money market account at Commercial Trust Bank in Hialeah. On or about May 22, 1991, Saldise withdrew from this account $1,000,000.00, with which she purchased a $1,000,000.00 cashier's check made payable to the Leon County Clerk of the Court. The cashier's check was thereafter deposited with the Leon County Clerk of the Court on First Miami's behalf to comply with the judge's order enjoining the IFO. On May 21, 1991, First Miami executed a note promising to repay the $1,000,000.00 to Saldise and General Trust Mortgage Corporation at an interest rate of 12 percent per year. The note provided that the "principal [was] payable on demand." This note was secured by a mortgage on First Miami's home office property, Units A and D-1 of the Brickell Bay Club Condominium, as well as parking spaces 181 through 381 at the condominium complex. This property was valued at $2.7 million on First Miami's 1990 Annual Statement. In addition, First Miami agreed to pay $25,000.00 in loan points, $10,000.00 in attorney's fees and $63,024.36 for 12 months of "condominium association assessments." Respondent, along with Soto, signed the note and mortgage for First Miami. The documents were duly recorded and a UCC-1 form was filed. In order to facilitate First Miami's compliance with the judge's order, the Department approved the arrangements First Miami had made to obtain the $1,000,000.00 First Miami was required to deposit "as additional security for the issuance of this Order." Subsequently, on January 19, 1992, Saldise and General Trust Mortgage Corporation made a demand for full payment of the loan. First Miami then sought an extension of the repayment period. Saldise and General Trust Mortgage Corporation agreed to an extension of 60 days. In return for the extension, Saldise and General Trust Mortgage Corporation were given additional collateral for their $1,000,000.00 loan, in the form of four mortgage notes having a total value of $1,473,750.00. Respondent and Soto signed, on behalf of First Miami, the paperwork necessary to effectuate this mortgage note extension agreement. Before Respondent did so, though, he consulted with First Miami's attorney, Stephen Rubin, concerning the appropriateness of giving additional collateral for the loan. Rubin told Respondent during their discussion regarding the matter that the additional collateral would still be considered assets of First Miami even after the agreement was executed. In its Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1992, that it submitted to the Department, First Miami disclosed the following regarding the mortgage note extension agreement: The Company notes that certain promissory notes owned by the Company in the original principal amount of $1.47 million have been pledged as additional security for the note issued by the Company on May 21, 1991. The Company's note is also secured by the previously-disclosed mortgage on the Company's headquarters office. The "Company's headquarters office" was listed on the statement as a $2,700,000.00 asset of First Miami, as it had been on all previous quarterly and annual statements submitted to the Department since 1989 Annual Statement. The Saga Bay Property With respect to the requirement contained in the judge's order enjoining the IFO that First Miami "receive unimproved real estate with a fair market value of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars," Saldise and/or Lopez contributed to First Miami 13 real estate parcels located in the Saga Bay development in Dade County, Florida. In exchange therefor, First Miami gave a surplus note, which the Department approved. Post-IFO Reinsurance On May 15 and 16, 1991, Jim Smith, a Reinsurance Financial Specialist with the Department, visited the offices of First Miami. The purpose of his visit was to analyze and review First Miami's reinsurance program. Smith issued a written report detailing his findings on May 20, 1991. In the "Summary" section of his report, Smith stated the following: Based on the information available, the current reinsurance program is highly suspect. I believe there is a possibility that First Miami is re- insuring itself or at a minimum only obtaining limited financial reinsurance. The use of the trust agreement would normally provide some assurance as to the availability of funds. However, the purchase of premium finance contracts from South Florida Premium Finance Company circumvents this normal protection feature. First Miami has purchased over 6 million [dollars] of these contracts since March 20, 1991. 14/ The lack of correspondence between First Miami and Silver Breeze, Ltd. 15/ and/or Munauto S.A. is also of concern. I find it unconscionable that a company would accept a potential $20 million liability without having some preliminary written negotiations or correspondence. Another concern is that Munauto S.A. accepted the previous reinsurer's contract without modifying the terms to protect its interest. 16/ Such action is not characteristic of an arm's length transaction in the reinsurance industry. Also atypical is the wire transfer of funds through General Trust Mortgage, an affiliate, to the intermediary and reinsurer. Smith went on to further state the following: I have reviewed the accounting entries in regard to the Munauto reinsurance treaty and they appear to be normal and booked correctly. I also reviewed debits and credits to the re- insurance trust account at Sun Bank. These entries appeared normal except for use of these trust funds to purchase or invest in South Florida Premium Finance contracts. The terms of the temporary restraining order (TRO) require First Miami Insurance Company to replace the current reinsurer with an approved reinsurer acceptable to the Department. I highly agree with this provision. I would suggest that First Miami has no effective reinsurance lacking supportive evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is imperative they replace the current re- insurance with an approved reinsurance treaty which actually transfers the underwriting risk. At the request of First Miami, following the issuance of the IFO, Doherty, on First Miami's behalf, while still negotiating with U.S. Capital, commenced negotiations with another potential reinsurer, Dai Ichi Kyoto. In July of 1991, Doherty met with representatives of Dai Ichi Kyoto in London. Respondent was present at the meeting. The negotiations culminated in a signed, conditional reinsurance agreement. Respondent signed the agreement on behalf of First Miami. Under his signature he placed the following handwritten notation, which he initialed: "Subject to approval of the Florida Department of Insurance." The agreement never received the approval of the Department. In early August of 1991, First Miami entered into a series of reinsurance agreements with Warwick Re Insurance and Reinsurance Company, LTD (hereinafter referred to as "Warwick Re"). The agreements were drafted by Rubin, First Miami's retained attorney. In drafting the agreements, he utilized the Munauto reinsurance documents, making revisions where appropriate. Warwick Re was incorporated on August 7, 1991, in Anguilla. The subscribers, each with 250 shares, were General Trust Mortgage Corporation and Procesys, Inc. Respondent signed the necessary documents on behalf of General Trust Mortgage Corporation. Lopez signed on behalf of Procesys, Inc. Prior thereto, on July 31, 1991, in anticipation of its incorporation, Warwick Re had applied for registration as an insurer in Anguilla. Respondent was listed as a director of Warwick Re on the registration form and he signed the form in various places in his capacity as a director. The following day, August 1, 1991, the Boards of Directors of General Trust Mortgage Corporation and Procesys, Inc. each resolved to make a capital investment in Warwick Re in the amount of $100,000.00. Each resolution was signed by Respondent in his capacity as a director. According to a financial statement prepared by Mario Toca, a certified public accountant, as of September 30, 1991, Warwick Re had $20,988,714.00 worth of assets. On August 8, 1991, Bob King of U.S. Capital sent a memorandum to Respondent requesting a decision regarding the offer U.S. Capital had made to First Miami regarding reinsurance. That same day, Respondent sent King a letter in which he stated the following: In reference to the reinsurance treaty between U.S. Capital and First Miami Insurance Company, I would like to advise you that we are negotiating with the Helm Bank the possibility of them pur- chasing the Premium Finance Contracts from us, in consideration of our banking relationship. This means that we would establish a Trust for the outstanding reserves of your portion of the Quota Share. The Trust will invest in A plus Securities only. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. On August 22, 1991, King sent Doherty a letter informing her of the following: As a result of First Miami's inability to conclude our proposed transaction, please be advised that we withdraw any and all offers as presented or amended. Unfortunately, we find ourselves unable to proceed with an organ- ization which cannot make a determination as to its objectives and method of transacting business. Respondent was furnished a copy of the letter by King. After receiving King's letter, Doherty faxed a copy of the letter to Lamont Wynn of the Department at Wynn's request. Whereas the Department was swiftly advised of the breakdown in negotiations between U.S. Capital and First Miami, it was not until January 27 1992, that the Department first learned of the reinsurance agreements between First Miami and Warwick Re. On that date, representatives of the Department, including Lisette Lozano, went to the offices of First Miami to review First Miami's books and records. While on the premises, Lozano spoke with Respondent, who, throughout the period he was the Executive Vice President of First Miami, served as First Miami's primary spokesperson in its dealings with the Department. Before speaking with Lozano, Respondent had received instructions from Saldise and First Miami's attorneys that he was to discuss with Department representatives only those matters relating directly to First Miami. Not deviating from these instructions, Respondent told Lozano that Warwick Re was "now the reinsurer of First Miami." Respondent volunteered that Warwick Re was an Anguilla company that owned more than 90 percent of South Florida Premium Finance Company. Lozano, who was not at all familiar with Warwick Re, asked Respondent the names of the officers and directors of the company. Following the instructions he had been given, Respondent told Lozano that he was not able to answer any questions concerning Warwick Re unrelated to its reinsurance agreements with First Miami. That same day, January 27, 1992, South Florida Premium Finance Company and General Trust Mortgage Corporation issued checks in the amounts of $200,000.00 and $703,549.16, respectively, payable to Warwick Re. Both checks were signed by Respondent. The next day the checks were deposited in Warwick Re's newly opened account at Sun Bank. The Department ultimately determined that the reinsurance agreements between First Miami and Warwick Re were not "appropriate reinsurance transactions," although it had no proof that Warwick Re was insolvent. Infusion of Additional Capital into First Miami In or about late 1991, Saldise and Lopez made Respondent aware of their plans to formally contribute additional assets to First Miami in order to strengthen the company's financial condition and thus lessen the possibility that the Department would question the company's solvency. Among these assets were ownership interests in the following corporations: Warwick Properties, Inc.; Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc.; Community Broadcasters, Inc.; and Procesys, Inc. Respondent questioned Lopez as to whether the assets which were to be contributed to First Miami would be considered admitted assets under the Florida Insurance Code. Lopez told Respondent that he had researched the matter and come to the legal conclusion that they would be admissible, at least for a three year period. Furthermore, he showed Respondent a draft of a legal memorandum he was preparing which addressed the subject. Respondent subsequently reviewed a second legal memorandum, prepared by another attorney, Marc Cooper, which discussed the admissibility of these assets. Respondent was further advised that although no written contracts effectuating the contemplated transfer of assets had yet been executed, oral agreements to do so did exist. Saldise felt uncomfortable infusing these additional assets into First Miami without written agreements making it clear that it was her intention that the transfer of these assets would be effective only if the Department deemed them to be admitted assets. Rubin, First Miami's retained attorney, drafted these written agreements and related board resolutions. Although it was originally contemplated that these written agreements would be prepared and signed before the end of 1991, they were not ready for execution until March of the following year. 17/ Saldise instructed Respondent to sign the agreements on behalf of each of the parties. Respondent felt ill at ease doing so and asked Saldise whether it was appropriate for him to sign on behalf of more than one party. Saldise assured him that it was inasmuch as he was an officer of each of the parties on behalf of whom he would be signing. Respondent also sought Rubin's legal advice on the matter. Rubin told Respondent that there was no reason, from a legal standpoint, why he could not follow Saldise's instructions regarding execution of the written agreements. Respondent also asked Rubin if the agreements actually accomplished what Saldise and Lopez had intended: to give legal title of these assets to First Miami. Rubin responded in the affirmative to this inquiry, although he further advised Respondent, as he had Saldise, who nonetheless decided to proceed with the transfer of assets, that if a conservatorship or liquidation proceeding were initiated by the Department all of First Miami's assets would be frozen and unavailable to Saldise personally. 18/ Another matter about which Respondent was concerned was the effective date of the agreements, which the agreements indicated was December 31, 1991. He therefore raised the subject with Rubin. Rubin advised Respondent that there was "no problem" with the December 31, 1991, effective date since the written agreements, although they would be signed after that date, merely memorialized what had already been orally agreed upon by the parties prior to December 31, 1991. Relying on the advice he had been given, Respondent, in late March of 1992, executed the written agreements as he had been instructed, thereby formally effectuating the contribution of assets to First Miami, but only after one of the agreements, which had originally reflected a December 31, 1991, date of execution, had been modified, at his insistence, to accurately reflect the date he actually signed the agreement. Payment of Attorney's Fees First Miami authorized payment of past and future attorney's fees incurred by Saldise and Lopez in defending themselves in a federal court proceeding involving General Bank. In this federal court proceeding, which was initiated after the "spin off" of First Miami, the federal government was attempting to freeze the personal assets of Saldise and Lopez. These personal assets included many, if not all, of the assets that Saldise and Lopez planned to contribute, and that later actually were contributed, to First Miami. If these assets planned for contribution were frozen, they would be unavailable to First Miami. Accordingly, First Miami felt that it was appropriate to expend funds, in the form of payment of Saldise's and Lopez's attorney's fees, in an effort to prevent this from happening. Notice to the Department of the Capital Infusion First Miami notified the Department of the capital contributions made to the company by including in the 1991 Annual Statement it submitted to the Department the following footnote, footnote 18, which was drafted by Rubin and reviewed by Respondent: PURSUANT to contracts entered between Liborio Financial Group 19/ and First Miami Insurance Company, Liborio has agreed to contribute its ownership of four subsidiary corporations, including assets owned by these subsidiaries, to First Miami subject to the satisfaction by First Miami of the condition precedent with respect to two of the subsidiaries that the State of Florida Department of Insurance finds that all assets held by First Miami qualify as admitted assets, and that First Miami is in compliance with capital and surplus requirements. This footnote was included in the 1991 Annual Statement at the specific direction of Saldise and Lopez. Respondent had disagreed with Saldise's and Lopez's method of disclosure and had suggested that instead they meet with Department representatives prior to the filing of the 1991 Annual Statement to disclose the information contained in footnote 18. Saldise and Lopez, however, vetoed Respondent's suggestion. The Contributed Assets Warwick Properties, Inc. Warwick Properties, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "WP") was incorporated on July 31, 1991. Respondent was one of the incorporators. From the date of its incorporation until its administrative dissolution on October 9, 1992, Respondent was an officer, director or both of the corporation. According to a financial statement prepared by CPA Toca, as of December 31, 1991, WP had total assets of $4,500,660.00 and total liabilities, excluding stockholders' equity of $1,176,638.00. Among its assets was an apartment complex known as the Marianna apartments. In October of 1989, these apartments were appraised by Philip Spool, ASA, who estimated their market value at $2,100,000.00. The apartments were valued at $2,300,000.00 in an appraisal conducted in June of the following year by Appraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc. The written appraisal report was issued on July 9, 1990. This appraisal was referred to in Note 6 of Toca's financial statement, which read as follows: As stated in Note 1, property is recorded at historical cost in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. However, the estimated current value of land and building based on an independent appraisal performed on July 9, 1990 amounted to $2,300,000. Another asset held by WP was a third mortgage on Saldise's personal residence. In an appraisal conducted in August of 1988, by Appraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc. the residence was valued at $3,275,000.00 using a "cost approach" and $3,250,000.00 using a "sales comparison approach." Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc. Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc., owned works of art and antiques. These items had been appraised and assigned valuations. Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc., also owned 52.5 percent of Community Broadcasters, Inc. The other shareholders were Maria Elena Prio and Carrie Meek. Community Broadcasters, Inc., held a Federal Communications Commission license to operate a radio station in the Miami area and had obtained certain programing rights as a result of having entered into an agreement with Business Radio Network, Inc. Respondent was at no time an officer or director of either Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc., or Community Broadcasters, Inc. According to a financial statement prepared by CPA Toca, as of March 23, 1992, Investors Arts and Antiques, Inc., had total assets of $2,487,700.00, with donated capital amounting to $2,487,200.00. These donations of capital had been made by Saldise and Lopez. Procesys, Inc. According to a financial statement prepared by CPA Toca, as of December 31, 1991, Procesys, Inc., had total assets and liabilities of $75,065.00. In a note to his statement, Toca made the following comment: In accordance to the Statements of Accounting Standards (SFAS Nos. 2 and 86), the costs incurred internally in creating computer software are charged to expense until the completion of a working model. Thereafter, all costs are capitalized and amortized based on current and future revenues. Accordingly, subject to future revenues, the "Company's" management, estimates that the products developed have a market value of $3,000,000. Procesys, Inc. owned the ATRACK computer software system, which was designed for use by companies providing automobile insurance. First Miami used the ATRACK system pursuant to a licensing agreement it entered into with Procesys, Inc., which agreement the Department had approved. Although it was used extensively by First Miami to deal with day-to- day operational matters, the system did not have an accounting function and therefore was not used by First Miami for that purpose. Lopez helped to develop the ATRACK system when he was involved in another insurance company, International Bankers Insurance Company, prior to his involvement in First Miami. Respondent refined and modified the system to meet the particular needs of First Miami. In February of 1992, pursuant to Lopez's request, Respondent asked Alberto Alphonso, the owner of Microcare Service Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Microcare"), the vendor which provided First Miami with computer-related goods and services, to appraise the value of the ATRACK system. 20/ Alphonso was a friend of Respondent's whom Respondent had known since his community college days. Alphonso's corporation, Microcare, had previously been owned by Respondent under the name Computer Technology Systems, Inc. Upon the transfer of his ownership interest to Alphonso, Respondent resigned his position as an officer/director of the corporation and has not held any similar position since his resignation. He did do some "moonlighting" work through Microcare, and his wife, Dania Campos, continued to work as a secretary for the corporation for a short period of time after the transfer. Otherwise, however, neither he nor his wife have had any involvement in the affairs of Microcare, nor have they received any dividends or corporate disbursements from the corporation. Alphonso agreed to do the appraisal. On or about February 17, 1992, he submitted his written report to Lopez. Alphonso stated in the report that in his "opinion, based upon potential revenues of this product, that obtaining exclusive marketing and copy rights would have a fair market value of $3,087,500." In early April of 1992, Respondent approached the owner of Nationwide Computer Systems, Inc., Mike Burns, an MIT graduate with an extensive computer background, requesting that he provide another opinion concerning the fair market value of the ATRACK system. Respondent explained to Burns that he was "in a rush to get the appraisal." Respondent did not specifically state why he needed the appraisal, but Burns was left with the impression that it was "just required to fill some requirement to have three appraisals." Respondent advised Burns of the appraisal Alphonso had done and showed Burns Alphonso's report. In doing so, Respondent commented that he was "comfortable with the appraisal." Burns was at first reluctant to undertake the task because he thought that someone else might be better qualified to do so. He felt more confident about his qualifications after learning of Alphonso's appraisal because he considered himself at least as qualified as Alphonso, with whom he was familiar, to do such an appraisal. He therefore ultimately agreed to accept the assignment. On or about April 13, 1992, Burns submitted his written report to Respondent. In the concluding paragraph of his report, Burns stated the following: It is my opinion that the ATRACK software uses the most modern tools and operating platform and the skills of programmers and designers are above- average, and that its modular design will give it an advantage in opening new markets. For this reason I have evaluated the software at $2.90 million in its current form. I am assuming that programmers associated with the software will bring their expertise and experience with the software. If a new programming staff is required, there will be substantial up-front learning curve costs. My estimate is based upon the information I could gather in a limited time-frame. The staff of First Miami Insurance was open to all my requests and no attempt was made to keep me from any data I required. Some supporting material is included. Valuation of First Miami's Home Office In January of 1989, First Miami's home office property was appraised by Appraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc., and given a market value of $1,600,000.00. Thereafter, the property was extensively renovated. Following the completion of these extensive renovations, a second appraisal of the property was done by Fred Carach. In his report, Carach opined that, as of October 29, 1989, the property had a market value of $2,700,000.00 In the IFO proceeding, the Department did not raise as an issue the value of the home office property. At no time did the Department voice any concerns regarding the appraisers that conducted these two appraisals for First Miami of its home office property. While they may not have shared their thoughts on the matter with First Miami representatives, Department officials did question whether First Miami was overstating the true value of its home office property. They therefore retained Charles Failla to provide them with an appraisal of the property. In his written report, Failla opined that, as of March 13, 1992, the date of the report, the property had a market value of $800,000.00. Valuation of South Florida Premium Finance Company Onyx Financial Group, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Onyx") is a company located in Miami, Florida, which South Florida Premium Finance Company retained to provide an appraisal of its market value in anticipation of making a public offering. (The public offering, however, was never made.) On or about December 11, 1991, Onyx provided such an appraisal. Onyx sent the appraisal to Respondent. First Miami used the appraisal to prepare financial statements that were later submitted to the Department. First Miami's Handling of Claims As noted above, at the time that Respondent was initially assigned to work for First Miami, the company was experiencing difficulty in timely paying claims and, as a result, was the subject of numerous consumer complaints made to the Department. In response to concerns expressed by the Department about these complaints, First Miami made improvements to its telephone and computer systems and hired additional claims adjustors as well as a new claims manager. It also, in large measure through the efforts of Respondent, developed and implemented a specific procedure to track and quickly respond to these complaints. Immediately after First Miami took these measures, there were fewer reported delays. As of May 13, 1991, the date the IFO was enjoined, the Department was satisfied with the remedial steps taken by First Miami and had "concluded that the consumer complaint problem [was] not related to any solvency problems." Statistics maintained by the Department's Division of Insurance Consumer Services, however, reveal that, for the entire calendar year of 1991 and for the first two months of 1992, the Department received a relatively large number of consumer complaints about First Miami, most of which related to alleged delays in paying claims. The numbers, by line of insurance, were as follows: 1991 Jan/Feb 1992 "P/P Auto No-Fault" 64 26 "Other P/P Auto Liab" 376 71 "P/P Auto Phys Damage" 317 86 The numbers for Allstate and State Farm Insurance Companies, which held much larger shares of the respective markets than did First Miami, in comparison, were as follows: Allstate 1991 Jan/Feb 1992 "P/P Auto No-Fault" 118 28 "Other P/P Auto Liab" 398 23 "P/P Auto Phys Damage" State Farm 154 19 1991 Jan/Feb 1992 "P/P Auto No-Fault" 133 23 "Other P/P Auto Liab" 267 42 "P/P Auto Phys Damage" 187 27 According to these statistics, however, First Miami did not have the highest "Complaint Index" (which is arrived at by dividing the insurer's 1991 complaint share by its 1990 market share) for all of the lines of insurance covered. As evidenced by the Department's statistics, "non-standard" insurers, like First Miami, tend to have a higher "Complaint Index" than other insurers. Following the hiring of its new claims manager, First Miami developed a written claims handling procedure, which provided, in part, as follows: Step 1. New claims are received via telephone, mailed or faxed to First Miami Insurance Company by the insured, claimant, attorneys or agent. Customer Service completes the automobile loss notice (ACCORD FORM), and verifies coverage. Step 2. Accord forms are given to the Data Entry Department to complete a new loss report form. Step 3. Claims manager or assistan[t] manager reviews accord form, assigns preliminary reserves and assigns claims to adjuster. The choice of adjuster to handle the claim will depend on the type and severity of the claim. The most qualified adjusters will handle the most serious claims. The initial reserves are as follows when the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. PD, COLL 800 to 1,100 COMP 500 to 800 PIP 2,000 Ded 400 PIP full 1,000 BI-UM 1,000 Step 4. Data Entry Clerk sets up new loss [reserve] based on preliminary reviews. The adjuster must review the accuracy of the reserve or the files which are processed on diary. Adjustment, both upward and downward, must be made on all coverage where appropriate. The police report is requested and appraisal assignment is made. The file is returned to the cabinet to await 15 day diary cycle. File will be reviewed Bi-monthly by adjuster and manager/supervisor. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM: The adjuster can settle claims up to $3,000. Anything over $3,000 requires the signature of the claims committee which meets once a week. After claim has been settled, the unit supervisor reviews claims file to verify coverage and liability. RELEASE OF PAYMENT: Proper release forms must be received before final payment/check is issued. Unit supervisor is allowed to release payments up to $2,000. If payment is from $2,000 to $3,000, it must be released by either the claims manager or his assistant. If over $3,000, payment must be released by Alex J. Campos, EVP. 21/ After payment is released, and outstanding reserves are closed out on the "Reserve History Sheet[,]" [t]his claims report is printed out on the "Daily Close Report" which indicates that the remaining reserves have been eliminated. . . . In addition, First Miami's adjusters were given written instructions they were expected to follow. Through these written instructions, the adjusters were advised of, among other things, the following: All of the adjuster's claims handling activities, should be directed towards achieving the major claims handling goals which are: Provide the best possible customer service. Comply with the insurance policy/contract and the law. Minimize our losses and expenses. In handling a claim, the adjuster not only deals with facts and figures, but also with people. Therefore, the adjuster is responsible for helping to build friendly and satisfactory relations with the insured-claimant and the public. The adjuster may be the only contact the insured-claimant has with the insurer, other than the sales agent. A person who receives prompt attention and fair treatment will want to continue his or her relationship with us. An insurer with a reputation for fast, fair claims service is likely to attract new policyholders. One of our primary goals is to comply with the insurance contract/policy[, a]s we have both a moral and legal obligation to assure the insured receives the protection purchased. This also includes complying with any applicable law. The adjuster is responsible for seeing that moral, legal, and contractual obligations are fulfilled. While we as an insurer are committed to fulfilling all our obligations, we are also committed to controlling and reducing our losses/expenses. This can be achieved by limiting our claims payments to only those legitimately established by contract and law. Thus, again, the adjuster is responsible for prompt and efficient processing of claims and claims data. As this last paragraph may suggest, First Miami, at the insistence of Saldise and Lopez, had a very "conservative" claims payment philosophy: to pay claims only after they had been thoroughly investigated and determined to be valid. Conducting such investigations necessarily delayed the processing of claims. 22/ The use of a claims committee to review claims was an essential component of First Miami's "conservative" approach to the payment of claims. First Miami's claims committee consisted of a core of three individuals: an attorney retained as a consultant by First Miami; the claims manager; and the assistant claims manager. The attorney on the claims committee was Carlos Lidsky. Lidsky has practiced personal injury and insurance law in the State of Florida for approximately the past 20 years. From time to time, Lidsky and his two colleagues on the claims committee would invite additional individuals, including Respondent, to sit on the committee for particular meetings and join in the discussions and deliberations. On those occasions that he sat on the claims committee and, as a member thereof, withheld approval of questionable claims, he reasonably believed that the committee's actions were in the best interest of First Miami's shareholders and policyholders. Assisting the claims committee in evaluating claims involving medical issues was a nurse and a physician that First Miami had hired for that purpose in an effort to combat fraudulent claims. The physician was a respected orthopedic specialist, who also was a minor shareholder of General Trust Mortgage Corporation, First Miami's parent corporation. Where the claims committee was presented with objective evidence of bodily injury, it invariably approved payment up to the policy limits. In those personal injury protection cases where there was no such evidence, however, the committee withheld its approval and contested the claim. In a significant number of personal injury protection cases, Lidsky advised First Miami to invoke the arbitration clause of the policy and First Miami followed his advice. This often led to a compromise and settlement of the claim. Where First Miami was presented with a subrogation claim and there was an indication that there may have been some comparative negligence, the matter was investigated before any payment was made. Lidsky had standing instructions to, on behalf of First Miami, negotiate in good faith all disputed subrogation claims, (including not only those filed against First Miami but those filed by First Miami as well) and enter into, what are referred to in the industry, as "bulk settlement" agreements. At one point in time during the latter stages of First Miami's existence, the aggregate amount of pending subrogation claims made against it by State Farm Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company and separate claims being handled by Bell Adjusting Company was $1,200,000.00. None of these claims were ever paid. 23/ First Miami, however, through Lidsky, who acted at the specific direction of Saldise and Lopez, did enter into "bulk settlement" negotiations with State Farm Insurance Company (whose pending subrogation claims against First Miami at the time amounted to approximately $492,000.00) in an effort to resolve these pending claims, as well as those unpaid subrogation claims First Miami had made against State Farm. 24/ These negotiations were not fruitful. They terminated without any agreement being reached. Lidsky believed that State Farm had not negotiated in good faith and so informed Respondent, who had not participated in the negotiations. Unable to reach a settlement with First Miami, State Farm resorted to litigation, suing the alleged tortfeasors. Other claims-related lawsuits were filed against First Miami policyholders. On occasion, First Miami was also sued. In some of these cases, the plaintiffs prevailed. Lidsky and First Miami's Claims Department were responsible for seeing to it that First Miami policyholders who were the subject of a lawsuit received the legal representation First Miami was obligated to provide. Respondent was not made aware of any case where First Miami refused to provide such representation. First Miami's Loss Reserves In his capacity as Executive Vice President of First Miami, Respondent did not himself establish the levels of the company's reserves. First Miami maintained two types of reserves: an individual case reserve regarding specific claims, and an IBNR ("Incurred But Not Reported") reserve. First Miami's Claims Department established claims reserves for individual cases. Two actuaries, one employed by First Miami, Jeff Cohn, and the other an independent contractor, James Stergiou, reviewed and certified the actuarial soundness of First Miami's IBNR reserve. Stergiou provided Respondent with written statements certifying the adequacy of First Miami's IBNR reserve for the years 1990 and 1991. In its communications with First Miami, the Department never raised any questions regarding Stergiou's qualifications to provide such certifications, and Respondent had no reason to believe that Stergiou was not so qualified. First Miami's Lawsuit Believing that the Department and Insurance Commissioner, in concert with the Latin-American Agents Association and the Specialty Agents Association, had acted in violation of civil rights and antitrust laws in its dealings with First Miami, Saldise and Lopez decided in December of 1991, or January of 1992, that First Miami should file a lawsuit against these parties to seek redress. Two attorneys, Sonny Meyers and Stephen Rubin, were retained to represent First Miami in connection with such contemplated legal action. Saldise requested Respondent, in preparation for a meeting with Meyers and Rubin, to review various matters pertinent to the lawsuit, including the chronology of events concerning the "no down payment" program about which the Latin-American Agents Association and the Specialty Agents Association had complained to the Department. The meeting was held on February 4, 1992. A court reporter was present at the meeting. Following the meeting, a transcript of the meeting was prepared. 25/ The lawsuit was ultimately filed in federal court in Miami. Disposition of Carrera Thereafter, as part of an attempt to amicably resolve its differences with the Department, First Miami decided to sell Carrera, the entity through which First Miami had offered the "no down payment" program that had generated so much controversy. Carrera was initially sold to Victor Madero, Diana Madero's husband, for between $900,000.00 and $1,000,000.00. At the time of the sale, Diana Madero had an insurance agency of her own and was not in any way connected with First Miami. The sale was negotiated by Lopez on behalf of First Miami. After Mr. Madero had made three or four payments, he decided that he did not want to remain in the insurance business. He made no further payments and First Miami "took back" Carrera from him. Thereafter, First Miami sold Carrera to Lewis Sands for approximately the same price Madero had paid. Payments were to be made over a 12 year period and interest was charged. Sands made payments of approximately $66,000.00 before defaulting. As a result of the default, First Miami again took possession of Carrera. It subsequently sold Carrera to Frank Davila for approximately the same price Madero and Sands had paid. Payments were to be made for a period of less than 12 years and interest was charged. Following the sale to Davila, which, like the sale to Sands, was negotiated by Respondent 26/ and another First Miami Vice President, Sergio Fonte, First Miami had no ownership interest or involvement in the operation of Carrera. Carrera was administratively dissolved on August 13, 1993. Financial Statements Raimundo Aleman, First Miami's Chief Financial Officer, reported to Respondent during the time Respondent was the company's Executive Vice President. As noted above, Aleman was responsible for formulating and placing the entries on the Quarterly and Annual Statements First Miami submitted to the Department. He was designated on the statements as First Miami's "contact person." As a general rule, before the statements were sent to the Department, Respondent reviewed Aleman's work product to determine if there were any obvious omissions or mistakes. With respect to the Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1992, however, Respondent only reviewed the footnotes. All of First Miami's Quarterly and Annual Statements contained a sworn attestation, signed by certain of its officers, certifying that the information contained therein was complete and accurate "according to the best of their information, knowledge and belief." Respondent signed this attestation as Treasurer on the 1989 Annual Statement, the Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1990, the Quarterly Statement as of June 30, 1990, and the Quarterly Statement as of September 30, 1990. He signed none of the other financial statements that First Miami submitted to the Department, with the exception of the Quarterly Statement as of September 30, 1991, which he executed on behalf of Saldise. These other financial statements that First Miami submitted to the Department, but which Respondent did not sign, were: the 1990 Annual Statement; the Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1991; the Quarterly Statement as of June 30, 1991; the 1991 Annual Statement; and the Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1992. Respondent was listed as a Vice President and Director on these statements, all of which were signed by Aleman in his capacity as Treasurer. Respondent was not aware, nor did he have any compelling reason to believe, that any of the financial statements that First Miami submitted to the Department during the time he was its Executive Vice President contained misleading or inaccurate information concerning First Miami's financial condition or any other matter of significance to the Department. There was no intent on Respondent's part to deceive the Department. In discharging his duties as First Miami's Executive Vice President, including those duties related to the preparation and filing of the financial statements the company submitted to the Department, Respondent reasonably relied upon the advice and opinions of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, actuaries and other professionals concerning matters which, by all appearances, were within the scope of these professionals' expertise. For instance, he reasonably relied upon the professional opinions that had been rendered regarding the admissibility and valuation First Miami's assets and the adequacy of the company's loss reserves. His views concerning the financial condition and solvency of First Miami, understandably, were shaped by these opinions. The On-site Review and Respondent's Deposition After First Miami filed its 1991 Annual Statement on or about March 15, 1992, the Department conducted an on-site review at First Miami's offices. Respondent served as First Miami's primary spokesperson during the review, answering questions posed by the Department's representatives concerning, among other things, the 1991 Annual Statement that First Miami had filed. In doing so, Respondent expressed the view that the transactions reflected in footnote 18 were "bona fide . . . with economic substance behind them" and that First Miami was not insolvent, which is what he reasonably believed. Subsequently, various First Miami officials were subpoenaed and deposed by the Department. Respondent was among those deposed. First Miami had designated Respondent as its representative for purposes of responding to a subpoena with which it had been served by the Department. Although Aleman was more knowledgeable than Respondent about the financial affairs of First Miami and the contents of its 1991 Annual Statement, he was not so designated because of his difficulty in orally communicating in the English language. Aleman, though, did retrieve documents for Respondent's use at the deposition. Prior to the deposition, Respondent consulted with Lopez and First Miami's attorneys with respect to the company's position concerning the admissibility of assets. During his deposition, in responding to questions, Respondent relied upon the documents he had been given by Aleman, as well as the notes he had taken during his pre-deposition meeting with Lopez and the other attorneys. Conservatorship and Liquidation of First Miami On or about May 14, 1992, First Miami filed its Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1992, with the Department. Certain assets which appeared on the 1991 Annual Statement were not included in this Quarterly Statement. Saldise had directed Aleman to delete these assets in response to the concerns the Department had expressed regarding their inclusion in the 1991 Annual Statement. After the filing of this Quarterly Statement, the Department instituted conservatorship and liquidation proceedings in Leon County Circuit Court and, in conjunction therewith, sent personnel to First Miami's offices. During the conservatorship, which commenced on May 29, 1992, Respondent, who had been cooperative in his prior dealings with the Department, remained on the payroll of the company. He prepared computer programs to assist in the calculation of commission payments. In addition, he provided to Department personnel on the premises valuable information concerning the operations of First Miami, including its computer system. An unopposed order liquidating First Miami and appointing the Department Receiver was entered on June 5, 1992. Among the findings set forth in the order was that First Miami was "insolvent as defined in section 631.011(11), Florida Statutes (1991)." Among the directives set forth in the order was the following: All affiliated companies including, but not limited to General Trust Mortgage Corporation, Liborio Financial Group, Inc., First Miami Holding Corporation, South Florida Premium Finance Company, Procesys, Inc., Investors Arts & Antiques, Warwick Properties Inc., Carrera Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Camino Insurance Underwriters, Inc., and Warwick Re are hereby directed to make their books and records available to the Receiver . . . . The order further provided that "[a]ll officers, directors, agents and employees and all other persons representing [First Miami] or currently employed by [First Miami] in connection with the conduct of its business are discharged forthwith." The Department determined that, at the time of liquidation, First Miami had admitted assets totalling $4,203,356.00, which fell into the following categories: Mortgage loans on real estate: First liens $1,465,889.00 Real estate: Properties occupied by $800,000.00 27/ the company Cash on hand and on deposit: Cash on deposit $1,247,553.00 Short term investments $594,672.00 28/ Electronic data processing equipment $95,242.00 On its last financial statement, the Quarterly Statement as of March 31, 1992, First Miami had listed a total of $27,340,837.00 of admitted assets. The difference between the Department's June 5, 1992, total and First Miami's March 23, 1992, total was, in large measure, the product of the Department's disagreement with First Miami and with the professionals upon which First Miami relied 29/ as to the admissibility and valuation of certain of First Miami's assets. Post-Liquidation Activities Following the entry of the order of liquidation, Respondent was retained for a period of two or three weeks to continue to assist the Department/Receiver, as well as the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, which had taken over the responsibility of processing and paying claims made against First Miami. No other First Miami officer or director was similarly retained. 30/ Saldise and Lopez left Miami for Madrid, Spain, a day or two after the entry of the liquidation order. First Miami had almost 600 claims-related cases in litigation at the time of liquidation. Lidsky's office handed the files in these cases over to the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association at the Department's request. As of January 31, 1994, for both loss claims and expenses, the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association had paid $12,397,234.35 on behalf of First Miami. As of March 7, 1994, it had reserved $1,638,369.14 to pay additional loss claims on First Miami's behalf. Respondent's Present Employment Situation Respondent is currently the President (but not a director) of Perry & Company, a premium finance company authorized by the Department to do business in the State of Florida. Perry & Company's Chairman of the Board is Richard Perry. Perry has known Respondent for approximately four or five years. He first became acquainted with Respondent when Respondent was employed by First Miami. At the time, Perry & Company was one of the companies that financed premium payments on insurance policies issued by First Miami. Perry was very much impressed with the operational efficiency of First Miami. On behalf of Perry & Company, he extended Respondent an offer of employment, at a higher salary than Respondent was receiving from First Miami. Respondent declined this initial offer of employment. Perry renewed the offer after he learned that First Miami had been liquidated and placed in receivership. Before he did so, though, he asked Harry Landrum, a Tallahassee consultant and lobbyist, to check with his sources at the Department to find out if, given Respondent's previous association with First Miami, Perry & Company's relationship with the Department would suffer if the company hired Respondent. Landrum reported back to Perry that his sources had only kind words to say about Respondent. Having received this favorable report about Respondent, Perry felt comfortable renewing his offer of employment to Respondent. This time Respondent accepted Perry's offer. Respondent began his employment with Perry & Company in July of !992, when he assumed the position of Executive Vice President. His primary responsibility as Executive Vice President was in the area of data processing. In December of 1992, Respondent became Perry & Company's President, the position he holds today. As President of Perry & Company, Respondent is responsible for virtually all of the company's day-to-day operations. To date, he has successfully discharged these duties. During his affiliation with Perry & Company, Respondent has not engaged in any conduct that has jeopardized the financial soundness of the company. He has not caused, nor is it likely, based upon his past performance with Perry & Company and as Executive Vice President of First Miami, that he will cause, Perry & Company or those with whom the company does business to suffer any unwarranted loss or damage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Cheryl A. Cooper, was licensed as a real estate broker having been issued license number 0409775 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent presently resides at 3828 Gatewood Drive, Sarasota, Florida. Also, Cooper has been issued permit number ZH33902 authorizing her to operate Professional School of Business, Inc. (school), a real estate licensing school in Sarasota. Respondent and her husband, Ron, began operating the school in 1985. Each owned 50% of the business. Although both Ron and Cheryl have real estate licenses, only Cheryl had the necessary broker's license to obtain a permit for the school. The school's principal office was in Sarasota while smaller branch offices were located in Fort Myers and Port Charlotte. According to Ron, he promoted the business, gave examinations, answered the telephone, did the bookkeeping, and performed other assorted tasks. This description of duties was not contradicted, and it is found that Ron performed these duties as an agent for his principal. On the other hand, Ron described Cheryl's role as merely giving out handouts and occasionally teaching a few classes. The school also employed part-time instructors for the purpose of teaching most of the courses. When the school was established, a bank account was opened at the Sarasota branch of the NCNB National Bank of Florida. Both Ron and Cheryl were signatories on the account. Around May 27, 1988 Ron moved out of the marital home. The couple is now involved in an acrimonious dissolution proceeding. As of the date of final hearing, the court had not yet adjudicated the property rights of each party, including the assets of the school. On June 21, 1988 Cheryl withdrew $3500 from the school's bank account. She pointed out that Ron had not provided any support for her and the two children since he had moved out a month earlier, and she needed the funds to live on. After learning the following day of the withdrawal of funds by his estranged wife, Ron, without authority from Cheryl, closed the school's bank account and moved the remaining funds to a new account on which he was the sole signatory. He did not disclose this action to his wife, and she did not learn what had happened until later. After June 21, all moneys given to the school by customers were deposited into the school's new bank account over which Cheryl had no control. Around the same time, Ron changed the locks on the school's offices so that Cheryl could not gain access. All school records were located in the Sarasota office. After the new bank account was opened and the locks on the doors changed, Ron continued to promote the school and to accept new customers. He did so since he intended to continue the school's operations after the impending divorce. The administrative complaint charges that during this same time period, Cheryl solicited a number of customers for the school and accepted deposits from these customers. However, the evidence shows clearly that all solicitation was performed by Ron and, with one exception, was done after he changed the door locks and opened the new bank account on June 21. Further, all funds were deposited into the bank account over which he had exclusive control. Therefore, even though Cheryl was the permit holder, she did not have access to the business, its records or the firm's bank account. Thus, she did not know who, if anyone, had been solicited to take courses, the disposition of their deposits, or the course schedule. As to the single instance cited in the complaint where a customer was solicited prior to June 21, this involved a broker in Fort Myers who wished to send an employee to the school's branch office in Fort Myers. The broker dealt directly with the husband or an instructor, and not Cheryl, and sent a check through the mail to the school for the coursework. Whether the check was received and deposited before the old bank account was closed is not of record since the check was not offered in evidence, and the partial bank records received in evidence do not disclose this fact. In any event, after he was advised by letter from Ron that the course had been cancelled, the broker was told by Ron to seek a refund from his wife and to file a complaint against Cheryl with the Division. The broker eventually received a refund from Cheryl on January 9, 1989. On June 27, 1988 respondent contacted the Division and explained her predicament. She advised the Division that her husband had a signature stamp that was being used without her authorization, and that she was unable to get access to her business records. She added that she hoped to gain access after a court hearing then scheduled on July 8, 1988. As it turned out, the hearing was postponed. On July 12, 1988 Cheryl sent a written memorandum to all school instructors advising them not to teach any class that was scheduled to end after August 1, 1988. That date was chosen since it was the date of the final examination of the then pending evening class that had the longest time until completion. It is noted that after Ron saw a copy of this letter, he accepted a deposit from one new customer (Janice Hamann) on July 19 but no others. The school eventually shut down permanently in August or September. As noted in finding of fact 9, Cheryl attempted to get legal access to the Sarasota office by an order of the circuit court. For whatever reason, however, she was unable to get a prompt hearing. When no hearing had been held by early August 1988, upon advice of her attorney, she paid a locksmith to open the Sarasota office one evening and, after gaining access, she removed what she believed to be one-half of the office equipment and furniture. Also, she found some of the school's records and learned that, since the change of bank accounts, Ron had continued to promote the school's business, had accepted deposits from customers and then cancelled classes. In addition, she found letters written to her at the school address demanding refunds of customer deposits previously sent to her husband. Cheryl immediately responded by letter advising those customers of the problems caused by the marital split and that their money would be refunded. The complaint identifies six individuals who paid moneys to the school but were allegedly not given a timely refund. In addition, the complaint cites one individual who was guaranteed a free repeat course if she failed the examination, and who, after failing the examination, was unable to do so since the school had by then closed down. As noted above, with the exception of the broker in Fort Myers who sent a check to the school sometime in mid or late June 1988, all customers were solicited after Ron had opened a new bank account and changed the door locks to the office. Therefore, and in light of the uncertainty surrounding when the broker's deposit was received, it is found the moneys withdrawn by Cheryl on June 21 did not pertain to any customer deposits which are the subject of this complaint. Of the six customers who were solicited by Ron, one, Mary Bellemare, paid her deposit by Visa credit card and obtained a credit on her bank card statement before any money was actually paid by Visa to the school. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the school to make a refund to Bellemare since no funds had been exchanged. The remaining five customers received refunds from Cheryl in January 1989. One of these, who was owed $20, never made demand for a refund from Cheryl, but was paid after respondent learned of her situation through the allegations in the administrative complaint. Finally, the customer who desired to receive a free repeat course likewise did not notify respondent of her predicament. Respondent has fully cooperated with the Division during the pendency of this proceeding. Indeed, as explained above, she contacted the Division before the complaint was filed seeking advice on how to properly handle this confusing situation. In addition, at least three memoranda have been sent by Cheryl to the Division. She attributed the delay in refunding the customers' money to a lack of financial resources caused by the still unresolved marital split.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of breach of trust in a business transaction and that she be given a reprimand. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0139 Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact l. 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. 4. Covered in findings of fact 5 and 6. 5. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 11. 6. Covered in finding of fact 10. 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. 8-12. Covered in finding of fact 12. 13. Covered in finding of fact 6. 14. COPIES Covered in FURNISHED: finding of fact 12. Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ms. Cheryl A. Cooper 3828 Gatewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34232 Darlene Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 1991, the Department of Banking and Finance (Department) received an application to acquire control of Grovegate Bank of Miami by Interbank Holding Corporation, a Florida corporation, whose principals are, for purposes of these proceedings, Jorge Ortega Trujillo, Jaime Ortega Trujillo, Fabian Ortega Trujillo, Gustavo Ortega Trujillo, Leonidas Ortega Trujillo, and Luis Alberto Ortega Trujillo, each of whom is a citizen of Ecuador. By notice published February 1, 1991, and correction published February 8, 1991, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, the Department complied with the provisions of Section 120.60)(5)(a), Florida Statutes, by giving notice of the filing of the subject application and according any person the right to request a hearing by filing a petition with the Department within 21 days of publication of the notice. No request for such a hearing was filed with the Department; however, since the subject application involved the acquisition of control of a bank by foreign nationals, the Department did, on March 12, 1991, forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a public hearing as mandated by Section 120.60(5)(d), Florida Statutes. On April 4, 1991, the applicant duly published notice in The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general circulation in Dade County, Florida (the community in which the applicant purposes to engage in business), that a public hearing would be held on the subject application on April 18, 1991. The hearing was held as scheduled, but no member of the public appeared or otherwise indicated any desire to present evidence or to otherwise comment on the pending application. The Public Hearing Each of the principals in `the proposed acquisition, Jorge Ortega Trujillo, Jaime Ortega Trujillo, Fabian Ortega Trujillo, Gustavo Ortega Trujillo, Leonidas Ortega Trujillo, and Luis Alberto Ortega Trujillo, appeared at the public hearing. The principals are brothers and members of the Ortega Trujillo family of Guayaquil, Ecuador, and each is an attorney. Through their family holding company, the brothers and their mother, with each holding an equal interest, own Banco Continental, S.A., one of the largest banks in Ecuador. Banco Continental was founded by the family in 1975, and initially licensed as a savings and loan bank. Approximately two years later, desiring to expand the activities of the bank, the family was successful in securing licensure of Banco Continental as a commercial bank. Initial start-up capital for Banco Continental was derived from family resources, and its current capitalization is a product of retained earnings through years of successful operations. Currently, Banco Continental is ones of the two largest banks in Ecuador when measured in terms of capital or net worth, and sixth in size when measured in terms of assets. Its current assets total approximately 100 million dollars, and its current capital approximately 11 million dollars. The bank maintains its main office in Guayaquil, with 39 branches in nine other cities, and serves the commercial and private needs of the community. Overall, through the family's successful operation of the bank, it has come to enjoy an excellent reputation as a sound and well-managed institution, both locally and within the international banking community. Leonidas Ortega Trujillo (Leonidas) is presently the chief executive officer of Banco Continental and previously served, until attaining such position last year, as its general manager. Leonidas enjoys an excellent reputation as an ethical and knowledgeable banker, and has, through the operation of his own bank, as well as his past service as president of the Ecuadorian Association of Banks and the Federation of Latin American Banks, been active in national and regional banking affairs. Luis Alberto Ortega Trujillo (Luis) is presently the manager/director of Banco Continental's overseas operations, and will assume a position as one of the directors of Grovegate Bank of Miami if the subject application is approved. Luis has demonstrated, through his education and experience, that he is a responsible businessman, who can be reasonably expected to provide a positive influence on Grovegate Bank's operations. But for the addition of Luis as a director of Grovegate Bank, no immediate changes in the management of that bank are contemplated. In addition to their legal, business, and banking activities, the Ortega Trujillo family has, for generations, been active in their community. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that their father founded the Catholic University of Guayaquil, that Gustavo Ortega Trujillo is currently a director of the University of Guayaquil Law School, that Luis is currently the vice- president of the Red Cross of Guayaquil, and that through their family foundation the Ortega Trujillo family supports five public libraries, four public schools, and one night technological school for the less privileged residents of Guayaquil. In all, the proof demonstrates that all of the applicants enjoy a reputation, among those who know of them, as being impeccably honest, and to possess the requisite experience and financial responsibility to control and manage the affairs of Grovegate Bank in a legal and proper manner. The proof further demonstrates that the interests of other stockholders, as well as the interests of the depositors and creditors of the bank and the interests of the public generally will not be jeopardized by the proposed change in ownership, controlling interest, or management. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of May 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire Chief Banking Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Rene V. Murai, Esquire 900 Ingraham Building 25 S.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William C. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioners, Herman R. Staudt and L. Justin Jackman, are the owners of 1,900 and 5,600 shares of capital stock, respectively, in Intervenor-Respondent, Bank of Central Florida (Bank). This represents 9.1 percent of the outstanding shares of the Bank. The Bank is a state chartered commercial bank which began business in 1975. Its principal offices are located at 1401 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners were founders and original members of the board of directors of the Bank when it began operating in 1975. On September 9, 1981, the President of the Bank issued a notice of special meeting of shareholders to be held on September 21, 1981, for the purpose of "considering and determining by vote whether an agreement to merge said Bank with and into Second Bank of Central Florida...shall be approved, ratified and confirmed." Under the terms of the merger agreement, each shareholder was entitled to receive substitute shares of stock in the successor bank, or if that was unacceptable, he would receive $25 per share for each share of stock held by him, or he could dissent from the merger. The agreement was ultimately approved by a majority of the shareholders and applications were then filed with Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Banking (Department), seeking formal state approval. The applications were approved by the Department on October 7, 1981, and the merger was actually consummated effective January 4, 1982. The Bank continues to operate under the corporate title "Bank of Central Florida". Petitioners initially objected to the plan of merger and requested that the Department conduct a hearing on the merger applications. The request was denied. Petitioners then availed themselves of their rights under Subsection 658.44(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that whenever a bank and its dissenting shareholders cannot agree on a value to be assigned the stock held by the dissenting shareholders, the Comptroller shall select an appraiser to make an "appraisal of such dissenting shares" which shall be final and binding on all parties. On September 7, 1982, the Comptroller selected Blackstock & Company, Inc., a Jacksonville, Florida registered broker-dealer and registered investment adviser, to appraise the value of the dissenting shares. In its letter selecting Blackstock, the director of the Division of Banking gave the following relevant instructions to Blackstock: Your appraisal should include the Bank of Central Florida's earnings history and the history of its stock sale prices. Characteristics of the Bank of Central Florida to be considered in your appraisal are, the stock is not widely traded, and the interest of the shareholders for whom this appraisal has been commissioned constitute a minority interest in Bank of Central Florida. Your appraisal shall include a determination expressed in dollars and cents per share of the-fair compensation to be paid for all outstanding minority shares. That final dollar and cent figure shall be based upon information readily available through public records and records of the bank, but shall not be based upon any con fidential records of the Department of Banking and Finance. According to the letter of engagement, Blackstock was to receive a maximum $2,000 fee for its services to be paid by the Bank. On September 9, 1982, Petitioners filed a complaint in circuit court for Leon County seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Department's actions. On November 2, 1982, the circuit court entered its order holding that, if any party was dissatisfied with the independent appraisal, it was entitled to a de novo hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On November 11, 1982, Blackstock submitted a report of appraisal to the Comptroller in which it expressed the opinion that the dissenters' stock should be valued at $27.63 per share. After certain communications with the Department, a revised report was prepared by Blackstock and forwarded to the Comptroller on December 30, 1982. On January 5, 1983, the Comptroller issued its notice of intent to adopt the report. That notice prompted the instant proceeding. The Bank's stock has not been traded publicly at any time. All stock exchanges prior to December 31, 1981, were between existing shareholders. Most involved the Bank's present majority shareholder and chairman of the board. The Bank is a closely held family corporation and its stock is not readily marketable. This was openly acknowledged in the plan of merger itself. The Bank paid no dividends from its inception through December 31, 1981. The Bank is considered to be well managed. It has produced excellent financial results, and is considered to be a "high-performing" bank. As of December 31, 1981, its return on equity and return on assets were 19.4 percent and 1.73 percent, respectively, which were higher than any publicly traded bank in the State of Florida. The Blackstock Report William C. Norton, vice-president of Blackstock and a registered securities dealer, assumed the initial responsibility for preparing the report on behalf of Blackstock. Without advising the Department, Norton contacted Terry A. Rodgers, a former co-worker in Orlando and a chartered financial analyst, and requested that Rodgers prepare the report. They agreed to split the $2,000 fee. Neither Norton or Rodgers had previously prepared an appraisal of dissenting shareholders' stock. Norton instructed Rodgers to "gather the financial information", prepare an "analysis" of that data, and then forward his results to Blackstock. Norton also "suggested the types of comparisons (he) felt would be appropriate in looking at it", the financial information Norton believed to be relevant, and "some of the valuation techniques (he) felt would be appropriate." However, it was not disclosed which of the four techniques used by Rodgers was recommended by Norton. Rodgers forwarded his report to Norton on October 18, 1982. After receiving Rodger's report, Norton reviewed the data, proofed the financial information, and rechecked Rodgers' calculations. The two also communicated by telephone on several occasions and once met briefly in Orlando. In all, Norton estimated he spent approximately six or seven days reviewing the data. He also requested that his partner review the data. Norton ultimately accepted the report almost verbatim, signed it, and sent it to the Department on November 11, 1982. After consultation with the Department, Norton made very slight revisions to the report and resubmitted it on December 30, 1982. Rodgers did not appear or testify at the final hearing in this cause. The report has been received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1 and Intervenor's Exhibit 5. Data apparently relied upon by Rodgers, and in turn reviewed by Norton, included (a) all sales of stock of the Bank from its inception through December 31, 1981, (b) all purchases of bank stock by Donald Rogers (its current president) from 1975 through 1979, (c) the Bank's statement of condition as of December 31, 1981, (d) the Bank's Call Reports for the years 1977 through 1981, (e) the notice of special meeting of shareholders given on September 9, 1981, and (f) comparative data from the First Bankers' Corporation of Florida, Jefferson Bancorporation, Atlantic Bancorporation, and Great American Banks, Inc. The latter four banks are publicly traded Florida banks and were considered by Norton to be representative for comparative purposes because, like the Bank, two did not pay dividends one was controlled by a single family, and the remaining bank had undefined operating "characteristics" similar to that of Bank of Central Florida. However, because of the Bank's extremely small size in relation to the four, and the limited marketability of its shares, none were comparable in terms of size, market type or performance. Further, Norton conceded that a part of the 1901 earnings of one of the four (Jefferson) would normally be factored out for comparative purposes because they included extraordinary income. This in turn caused the composite price-earnings ratio to be substantially understated. By a subjective process, four valuation techniques were incorporated into the Blackstock report and were based upon data derived from a five year study period (1977-1981). These included (a) historical stock sale transactions, (b) industry price-earning ratio comparison, (c) industry price to book value ratio comparison, and (d) capitalization of expected future earnings. The four approaches produced the following valuations: $26.49, $30.38, $25.21 and 28.42. The sums were then divided by four to reach the recommended value of the stock, or $27.63 per share. Norton (and presumably Rodgers) did not attempt to assign a relative weight to each technique because such a process would require the use of subjective judgment, the four valuations arrived at were within a relatively narrow range ($25.21 to $30.38), and no single approach yielded a result substantially out of line with the others. Had the weighted average approach been used, Norton would have assigned a greater or lesser value or weight to the results of the various appraisal valuation techniques employed according to relevance. Despite his rejection of this methodology, Norton conceded that the weighted average method is the most applicable and best suited approach for valuing capital stock not having an active and continuous market, and that it is used by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency in determining the value of dissenters' shares in federal bank merger cases. In this regard, he agreed that had the Bank been federally chartered, he would have used the same approach in valuing its stock. As noted earlier, Norton's industry price-earning ratio comparison was distorted because of the inclusion of a bank with extraordinary income due to the sale of a subsidiary and property. Had this non-recurring income been factored out, the value of the stock under this methodology would have exceeded $50 rather than the $30.38 reflected in the report. The historical sales approach, to which Norton gave equal weight, was also subject to criticism. This approach, which analyzed stock sales between 1977 and 1981, had the inherent weakness of failing to reflect the Bank as a going concern. The Goff Report A second valuation study was performed on behalf of Intervenor by Ronald W. Goff, a research analyst for Allen C. Ewing & Company, an investment banking firm in Tampa, Florida. That report has been received in evidence as Intervenor's Exhibit 9. Although Goff reviewed the Blackstock report and certain other financial information, he relied primarily upon previous stock exchanges as a basis for determining fair market value. In this regard, he used a major stock transaction between a former vice-chairman of the board (J.F. Cooper) and its present chairman of the board (J.E. Muroski) as the primary basis for arriving at his recommended valuation. The sale involved 12,525 shares, was negotiated in the fall of 1980 and consummated on January 6, 1981, and resulted in increasing Muroski's total stock outstanding in the Bank from 45.3 percent to 59.7 percent. The agreed upon price was $27.86 per share, and after "massaging" that number, Goff arrived at a recommended valuation of $27.34 per share. The circumstances underlying the sale included a falling out between Cooper and Muroski in the spring of 1980 and a request by Muroski that Cooper resign his position with the Bank in May of that year. Shortly afterwards, they began negotiations for Muroski to buy the stock, The deal was agreed upon in 1980 but was not consummated until January, 1981 for tax purposes. Although Goff did not consider the exchange to be an insider transaction, nonetheless it is found that it was because (a) no dividends had been paid from the inception of the Bank through 1981, and Cooper was accordingly receiving no return on his stock, (b) Cooper had terminated all involvement in the Bank's operations, (c) the exchange took place between current and former principal officers of the Bank, and (d) Muroski was an insider by definition of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Therefore, the transaction was not a reasonable basis to determine the fair market value of the stock. Goff himself acknowledged that it was an unusual valuation practice in preparing an appraisal of bank stock to determine market value on the basis of one or a very few transactions. The Perkins Report Marc I. Perkins, an investment banker with Raymond, James and Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida, prepared a valuation report for Petitioners. That report has been received in evidence as Petitioners' Exhibit Perkins had previously been engaged on a number of occasions to value bank stock where a dispute over its value had arisen in a proposed merger. Perkins utilized the weighted average methodology which generally employs, where applicable, five categories of analyses, and then requires that the appraiser assign a weight to each category. This method is identical to that used by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency in valuing dissenting shareholders' stock and is endorsed in an authoritative text entitled "Security Analysis" by Graham and Dodd. The five approaches include (a) book value, (b) adjusted book value, (c) imputed market value, (d) market value, and (e) investment value. However, in the case at bar imputed market value was inapplicable since that method is used only where a subsidiary is merged into a larger holding company. By the same token, the market value criterion was excluded by Perkins since no stock exchanges occurred during the last eleven months of 1981 and those occurring prior to that date were more akin to insider exchanges. Accordingly, Perkins used the three remaining approaches, to wit, book value, adjusted book value and investment value from which he derived valuations of $35.51, $35.44 and $50.30, respectively. After assigning the appropriate relative weights to each sum, he arrived at a recommended valuation of $46.59 per share. Unlike the authors of the Blackstock report, Perkins found no publicly traded Florida banking companies to be comparable to the Bank, and because of this, used as broad a peer group as possible for comparative purposes in order to take in the maximum number of investor decisions. The comparative data was extracted from the Jerry Williams, Inc. report which is a compilation of financial data for twenty-one publicly traded banking institutions in Florida. The use of a broader base is more appropriate than the Blackstock peer group since it is virtually impossible to find other banking companies of the same size, market type and performance as the Bank of Central Florida. Perkins assigned the greatest weight (75 percent) to the results of the investment value approach since that approach is appropriate where market value does not exist or where the market is thin. Moreover, it provides an easy to understand and reasonable estimate of the value to investors of a share in the future earnings of the Bank. Then, too, that approach includes an analysis of price earnings ratios for the average publicly traded Florida bank, and takes into account a number of key factors that go into investors' perceptions about risk and estimated returns. The approach also considers historical earnings per share as a guide to earnings prospects. Perkins assigned only 25 percent weight to the results of the adjusted book value approach since it had less relevance than investment value. He gave no weight to book value since that approach is dependent on historical cost and fails to reflect the investors' perceptions of the value of the bank as a going concern. Perkins' study produces a more reliable and accurate result than the other suggested methodologies because of its well-accepted approaches, the use of relative weights, a broader and more representative peer group and its rejection of irrelevant and improper data. Miscellaneous From December 31, 1981 through July, 1983 the value of money left on deposit in commercial banks in 30-day certificates of deposit and reinvested was 18 percent. The Bank's average prime rate was 16 during 1982 and the average interest rate charged customers by the Bank was 12 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners L. Justin Jackman and Herman R. Staudt be paid $46.59 per share for each share of stock held in the Bank of Central Florida, said amount representing the fair market value of such stock as of December 31, 1981. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioners' request to receive interest from December 31, 1981 through July, 1983, post order interest, and costs incurred in this proceeding be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is located at 4600 West Cypress Street, Tampa, Florida, and was established on May 31, 1974. Excluding its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice-President, the applicant has 25 officers with a combined total of 352 years of banking experience. The average age of the officers is 41, with an average of 15 years of banking experience. Six of the management team are past bank presidents. The applicant presently has two existing branch banking facilities. One is located 0.9 miles Southeast from the main office and one is located 8.6 miles Northwest of the main office. A third facility, acquired by merger, located 19.4 miles Southeast of the main facility, has been approved and was expected to open in April, 1979. As a result of the merger between Metropolitan and the American Guarantee Bank, the applicant now has 160 employees, The applicant has paid regular cash dividends to its stockholders since opening. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had total assets of over $187,000,000.00. Its loans to loanable funds ratio has been maintained at about 80 percent. That ratio was 76.7 percent as of February 14, 1979. The protestant stipulated at the hearing that the applicant had no problem meeting its liquidity needs. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an adjusted capital to assets ratio of 8.2 percent. Its net profit to asset ratio was .836 percent as of December 31, 1978. The establishment of the proposed branch is expected to have no significant effect upon future earnings of the applicant. It is anticipated that the slight loss after the first year of operation will not exceed two cents per share and that the branch will contribute significantly to earnings of the applicant after the first year. The applicant presently has approximately $1.4 million in deposits and $2.8 million invested in loans from residents and business people in the primary service area of the proposed branch bank. The name of the proposed facility is to be Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Carrollwood Branch Office. It is to be located on the southwest corner of Dale Mabry Highway and Ehrlich Road, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County, approximately 8.8 air miles from the main office. The property is presently owned by the applicant. No officer or employee of the applicant has an interest in the land purchased. The total cost of the land, building, furniture and fixtures and other fees is expected to amount to approximately $409,500.00. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an amount in excess of $1,391,500.00 to invest in bank premises. The proposed facility will offer full services, including checking and savings services, certificates of deposits, installment and commercial loans, VISA cards, safe deposit boxes, a 24-hour teller machine and Saturday banking. Additionally, the applicant intends to extend its main office services of international banking and trust services to the proposed branch. The building is to contain some 4,300 square feet and the drive-in area will contain some 1,050 square feet. Forty-three parking spaces will be provided. There will be five interior teller windows and four drive-in teller stations. The facility will also have a community room available for local citizens. The lending authority of the proposed branch manager will be $25,000.00 on an unsecured basis and $50,000.00 on a secured basis. Larger loans can be made available through consultation and approval of the parent bank. Long-term mortgage loans and acquisition and development loans will be available through the proposed branch. The proposed facility will have a branch manager and six staff (non- officer) members. The designated proposed branch manager is A. H. Vermeulen who has 22 years of experience in the banking industry and is currently a vice- president of the applicant. Mr. Vermuelen suffered a heart attack several weeks before the administrative hearing in this cause. It is expected that he will be able to resume his duties with the applicant. However, if he is unable to do so, the applicant has designated Charles Overholt as the proposed branch manager. Mr. Overholt has had 12 years of banking experience, has been an assistant branch manager of the Flagship Bank in St. Petersburg and is currently the applicant's vice-president in charge of the bookkeeping department. The applicant projects that total deposits at the proposed branch bank will be $5,000,00.00 at the end of the first year of operation, and $11,000,000.00 and $17,000,000.00 respectively at the end of the second and third years of operation. At the end of the first year of operation, the applicant anticipates a net loss of $22,100.00. Net profits of $211,300.00 and $459,500.00 are estimated for the end of the second and third years of operation. The site for the proposed branch banking facility is located on a main north/south traffic artery (North Dale Mabry Highway) and fronts on a major east/west traffic artery (Ehrlich Road). In selecting this site and designating the primary service area, the factors of residential development, population growth, traffic activity and flow, and existing financial institutions and services in the area were considered. Within the applicant's primary service area, there are presently two existing banks. The protestant Carrollwood is located 2.8 miles south of the applicant's site and the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace branch is located 2.9 miles south of the proposed site. By an Order dated February 20, 1979, the Office of the Comptroller granted authority to the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay to open a branch bank to be located approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. Other applications for branch banks in the area are pending and there are several savings and loan institutions in the area. While the population of Tampa has declined in recent years, there have been considerable increases in population in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County, including the applicant's primary service area. The largest part (76.63 percent) of the increase in the unincorporated areas have resulted from net migration, as opposed to natural increase. There has been a good balance of growth in both the working or labor age group and the group aged 65 and above. The per capita personal income figures for Hillsborough County are below the State average and are increasing somewhat slower that the State average. The comparative figures report for June 30, 1977, through June 30, 1978, show that the protestant increased its total deposits by a little over 30 percent, the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace increased its total deposits by almost 25 percent, and the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay likewise increased deposits by a little over 21 percent. The average for increases in deposits for the County was 16.6 percent. Official state estimates of population for the primary service area are not available. The applicant estimates the 1978 population of the primary service area to be 20,800. A population of 25,000 is projected for 1980 and a population of 33,000 is projected for 1985. The population of this area has grown approximately 105 percent since the year 1970. The two existing banks in the area result in a population per bank of 10,400 persons. The Sun Bank's branch brings this down to 6,933 persons per banking facility. The national average population per banking office is 4,715 and the Florida average is 8,086. The figures above for the primary service area do not take into account savings and loan institutions in the area nor customers served by banks outside the primary service area. The primary service area is mainly a "bedroom," residential community at the present time, with little commercial or industrial development. There is no significant concentration of employment in the area. The makeup of the populace is primarily upper middle class. Most of the residential development has occurred West of North Dale Mabry Highway. There are between 8,600 and 10,500 new residential units planned in the subdivisions located within the primary service area and, as of the date of the subject application, some 1,900 had been completed. Developers and landowners feel that commercial development in the area will naturally follow the residents development. At least two land developers in the primary service area have had difficulty obtaining financing in the form of large acquisition and development loans and construction loans from existing banks within the primary service area. The applicant is in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws affecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Riley Davis William S. Lyman Taylor, Brion, Buker and Green Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 1796 Office of the Comptroller Tallahassee, Florida 32302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Perkins and Richard B. Collins Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Michaels, Sheffield, Perkins, The Capitol Collins and Vickers Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Post Office Box 10069 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The purpose of the public hearing was to review the application to consolidate New River Bank, Oakland Park, Florida, and 1st United Bank, Boca Raton, Florida, in accordance with Florida law.
Findings Of Fact 1st United Bancorp (Bancorp) is a Florida bank holding company which maintains its principal place of business at 980 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. 1st United is a Florida chartered bank and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bancorp and operates full service banking facilities at seven locations in Palm Beach and Martin Counties. New River is a Florida chartered bank which maintains its executive offices at 2901 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Oakland Park, Florida, and operates two banking facilities in Broward County, Florida. The Department is the duly designated state agency vested with the responsibility of processing and approving or disapproving a plan of any financial entity to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another financial entity pursuant to Section 655.414, Florida Statutes. On July 13, 1993, Bancorp and New River entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement which provides that Bancorp will cause 1st United to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the liabilities of New River, after which New River will be liquidated and dissolved. The agreement noted above was duly adopted by majority vote of the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River. In addition, the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp, 1st United and New River duly adopted by majority vote a Plan of Acquisition of Assets and Assumption of Liabilities which summarized pertinent portions of the agreement and which includes all of the terms and conditions required by Section 655.414 (1), Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1993, 1st United and New River submitted an application to the Department seeking the Department's approval for the purchase of New River's assets and assumption of its liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized by the plan. Submitted with the application were the requisite filing fee and all of the required documents including copies of the agreement, the plan and certified copies of the authorizing resolutions of the respective boards of directors. On September 17, 1993, the Department caused notice of the receipt of the application to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This published notice met the requirements of Rule 3C-9.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. On September 7, 1993, Warren Orlando, in his capacity as president of 1st United, filed a petition for public hearing and notice of intention to appear on behalf of 1st United. On October 27, 1993, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a public hearing pursuant to Section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-9.004, Florida Administrative Code. Notice that a public hearing would be held on the application on December 13, 1993, was duly published in conformity with Rule 3C-9.005, Florida Administrative Code, in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, and Stuart News, newspapers of general circulation in the communities in which 1st United and New River do business. The agreement provides that New River will receive a combination of cash and Bancorp common stock equal to the net asset value, as defined in the plan, of the assets and liabilities of New River being purchased or assumed. The agreement further provides that after the closing of the asset acquisition, New River shall cease operations and commence dissolution and liquidation proceedings. Substantially all of the Bancorp common stock and available cash received by New River from Bancorp will be distributed to New River shareholders, other than dissenting shareholders. New River stockholders will receive a pro rata portion of the Bancorp common stock and cash available for distribution. After the acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, 1st United will have adequate capital structure in relation to its activities and its deposit liabilities. The acquisition of the assets and assumption of liabilities as set forth in the agreement and as summarized in the plan, if consummated, are not contrary to the public interest. The respective boards of directors of Bancorp and New River requested the opinion of Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking with regard to the fairness to the respective shareholders of each corporation, from a financial point of view, of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking is regularly engaged in and is an expert authority in the valuation of bank and bank holding company securities in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. Thomas Mecredy is an expert in the valuation of bank and bank holding companies in connection with bank mergers and acquisitions. On December 8, 1993, Alex Sheshunoff & Co. Investment Banking through Thomas Mecredy issued its opinion to the respective Boards of Directors of Bancorp and New River that the terms and conditions of the agreement were fair and equitable to the shareholders of each corporation. Pursuant to the agreement, New River's Board of Directors duly adopted a plan of dissolution and complete liquidation for New River. The plan of dissolution provides that after the sale of assets and assumption of liabilities the Board of Directors will reserve a sufficient amount of Bancorp stock and cash for payment of liquidation expenses and payment of liabilities not assumed by 1st United, including contingent liabilities (general reserves). In addition to the general reserves, New River will create a special reserve (special reserve) in an amount which it considers sufficient to defend and satisfy certain potential claims which may be asserted against New River by shareholders of New River in conjunction with the organization and initial offering of common stock of New River. In determining the amounts necessary to establish the general reserves and special reserve, New River's board of directors consulted with the national law firm of Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn with respect to both reserves and the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen with respect to the special reserve for advice concerning the potential liability on the part of New River in connection with both known claims and potential claims and the amounts, if any, for which New River could be held liable. Shareholder E.D. Hittson noted that the book value of the New River stock is approximately $11.00 per share versus the $4.50 per share value of the 1st United stock. In response, bank officials noted that 1st United has dividend and strong growth potential not available to New River. Shareholder James Weck questioned provisions being made to satisfy outstanding lawsuit liabilities, the future location of the facility, and the effect on New River employees. In response, bank officials stated that the potential lawsuit liability is included in the reserve amounts, that no decision has been made as to the future location of the banking facility but that the needs of the service area will be met, and that it is their intention to draw talent from the New River staff. Shareholder Amine Semaan questioned whether New River would be represented on the Board of Directors at 1st United, whether minority areas would be a priority for the future location of the facility, and whether another buyer would have paid $10.50 per share. In response, bank officials maintained that New River will have one member on the Board of Directors at 1st United, that the needs of the service area will be met, and that no other, more attractive, buyer is available. On January 11, 1994, MaryAnn Cassel, a shareholder who reportedly attended the public hearing on December 13, 1993, filed a motion for leave to become a party. Such motion alleged that the movant, a minority shareholder, will be forced to accept Bancorp common stock in exchange for her New River shares or be forced to accept appraisal rights in lieu of her shares. Further, movant claimed that the plan is not fair to all parties because the shares of New River have been undervalued. Having deemed such motion untimely, and having determined such request does not allege circumstances unknown to movant prior to the December 13, 1993 public hearing, it is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 24th day of January, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Donald E. Thompson, II Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn One Boca Place, Suite 340 2155 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 37431 Michael W. Ford Phillip T. Ridolfo, Jr. Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole Phillips Point East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey D. Jones Department of Banking and Finance Division of Banking The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 David S. Zimble Zimble Formoso-Murias, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 730 Miami, Florida 33131
