Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Ralph A. Call, held real estate broker's license number 0012490 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. Respondent was active broker for a real estate firm located at 1648 Periwinkle Way, Sanibel Island, Florida. At an undisclosed time Respondent purchased Apartment 503, Sandlefoot Condominiums, located on Sanibel Island and later sold it to Eric and Enid Winson. As part of the purchase price, Call agreed to take back two unsecured notes totaling $43,211.73. In February, 1979, the Winsons listed the condominium through Respondent's office. It was agreed that Respondent would obtain all or partial satisfaction of the notes from the proceeds of the sale. On or about March 9, 1979, the Winsons entered into a contract to sell Wolf and Marie Fudikar the condominium for a price of $107,000. Under the terms of the contract, the buyers gave Respondent a $10,690 cash deposit to be held in escrow pending the completion of the sale. The contract also required the sellers to deliver a marketable title to the property. A closing date was set for on or before June 21, 1979. The buyers were represented by Henry Norton, an attorney in Miami, Florida, who was given power of attorney since the Fudikars resided in West Germany. By mutual agreement of the parties, they verbally agreed to change the closing date to Friday, July 20, 1979. It was understood that the buyers would wire the money from Switzerland to Norton in Miami, who would then wire the money to a representative of Gulf Abstract Company in Fort Myers, in whose offices the closing was to be held. When no money was received, a representative of Gulf Abstract telephoned Norton that afternoon end was advised that Norton had not received the money from his clients and could not close. Respondent construed the failure of the buyers to close on that date as a possible breach of the contract. A written standard title insurance binder was issued by Gulf Abstract for the July 20 closing. Although this commitment did not insure marketability, a representative of the firm could not recall any material exclusions or exceptions set out in the policy. The following Monday or Tuesday after the scheduled July 20 closing, a local lending institution filed a lis pendens on the property and instituted a suit against the sellers for defaulting on another debt. Because of this cloud on the title, and other problems which arose, the buyers then reneged on their agreement since no marketable title could be furnished by the sellers. After the sale fell through, both the buyers and sellers made claims for the deposit, each alleging that the other had breached the contract. Upon the advice of counsel, Respondent refused to return the deposit to the buyers since he could also be held liable to the sellers. Respondent finally contacted the Board's District Office in Fort Myers at a later undisclosed time seeking advice on what to do. He was told to call Tallahassee to get an opinion. He then made several telephone calls and wrote letters to various Department representatives or attorneys on December 4, 1980, January 17, 1981, February 19, 1981 and February 28, 1981 requesting that a disbursement order be issued. On March 17, 1981, the Board of Real Estate issued an escrow disbursement order and held, inter alia, that under the terms of the contract closing was to occur no later than June 21, 1979, that no written modification of the terms regarding closing was made, that the sellers were unable to deliver clear title by June 21, and that because of this no contract for sale existed between the parties, and the buyers were not obligated to perform it accordingly ordered Call to disburse the deposit to the buyers. The order also noted that the Order ". . .(did) not provide (Call) with any immunity to any civil liability." On March 31, 1981, Call wrote the Board the following letter: Please be advised that I wish to appeal your decision because it was not based upon actual facts. Please forward to me any form you may have available for this purpose. I am willing and prepared to appear in person for cross examination if necessary, to get the true facts before your board. Please advise. Yours very truly, /s/ Ralph A. Call Counsel for the Board responded by letter on April 17, 1981, stating that "since the contract for sale was between the Fudickars (sic) and the Winsons, (Call was) not entitled to appeal the Escrow Disbursement Order. . ." and further that the "true facts" had already been presented. Upon the advice of his attorney, Call did not comply with the order for fear of liability to the sellers if the deposit was given to the buyers. On March 16, 1982, one day prior to the final hearing, Call obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $10,690 made payable to Norton who represented the buyers. During the entire controversy the deposit remained in Call's escrow account. There is no allegation that Call misused the funds or otherwise improperly dealt with the money while the dispute ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ralph A. Call, be found guilty as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and be given a public reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The policy being challenged provides that: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. This provision is routinely and customarily embodied in the notices issued by Respondent to parties before it in matters arising under Florida Statutes 447.307 and 447.503. The Respondent acknowledges that it did not adopt and promulgate the policy pursuant to Florida Statutes 120.54 or any other relevant provision of Chapter 120. On 12 July 1979 Petitioner filed a petition with Respondent in which Petitioner sought to represent certain employees employed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This petition was accepted by Respondent and on 30 July 1979 Respondent issued a Notice of Representation Hearing and a Prehearing Order. This Prehearing Order directed the parties to that proceeding to file with Respondent at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing, and serve upon each other, a prehearing statement, identifying: Those fact disputes to be presented for resolution. Any and all legal questions to be presented for resolution. The legal authority to be relied upon by each party in presenting its arguments. Those witnesses to be called at the hearing, except rebuttal witnesses. The approximate time necessary to present the party's case. Any outstanding motions or procedural questions to be resolved. This Pre-Hearing Order then provided: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. Petitioner did not file its prehearing statement within the prescribed 7-day period and on 21 August 1979 Petitioner was notified that the hearing scheduled to commence 23 August had been cancelled. On 22 August Petitioner was advised that a written order cancelling the 23 August hearing had been entered by the Commission. Thereafter Petitioner filed the petition here under consideration contending that the policy of Respondent to enter the cancellation-of-hearing notice in prehearing orders is a rule and invalid by reason of not being promulgated pursuant to Chapter 120. Respondent takes the position that the provision in the prehearing order is not a rule, but even if it could otherwise be considered to be a statement of general applicability, it is exempt from being so found by 447.207(6), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to administer Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, which is known as the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. On August 15, 1997 and September 9, 1997, Petitioner conducted an audit of the branch office of Merit Capital Associates, Inc., located in Boca Raton, Florida, and known as the H. K. Laurence Branch (the branch office). The branch office was an office of supervisory jurisdiction that required the presence of a branch manager. On April 28, 1997, Merit Capital executed a form entitled "Branch Registration Form" that registered the branch office with Petitioner and designated Respondent as the branch manager. Respondent accepted that designation on April 29, 1997. On April 30, 1997, the form was filed with Petitioner. In August and September 1997, Petitioner conducted an examination of the branch office. Michael Ward, whose job title is Senior Financial Investigator, was in charge of the examination. Annette Beresford, whose job title is Financial Specialist, assisted Mr. Ward. Both Mr. Ward and Ms. Beresford are full-time employees of Petitioner with appropriate training and experience. Respondent failed to properly register with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) to act as a branch manager. Respondent was required by NASD rules to register as a principal because he had supervisory responsibilities. His only registration was as a salesperson. NASD Conduct Rule 3010, a rule adopted by NASD, sets forth standards for the supervision of branch offices. Pursuant to Rule 3E-600.013, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent, as the designated branch manager, was required to comply with the minimum supervisory standards set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 3010. Respondent did not meet those minimum supervisory standards while serving as the manager of the branch office. The following establish Respondent’s failure to supervise. Respondent did not provide NASD manuals to the registered representatives (salespersons) at the branch, he did not maintain Merit Capital's supervisory manuals at the branch, and he did not require that salespersons comply with Merit Capital's written policies and procedures. Respondent failed to maintain NASD and Florida registrations of salespersons at his branch. During the period April 29 through July 9, 1997, representatives of Merit Capital under Respondent's supervision at the branch office sold to members of the public shares of stock in a company known as Certified Diabetic Services, Inc., and shares of stock in a company known as Arcoplate Corporation. Respondent had supervisory responsibility for these transactions involving the sale of these two stocks. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the stock of Certified Diabetic Services, Inc., and the stock of Arcoplate Corporation were not registered as required by Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and they were not exempt from registration. Respondent should not have permitted the salespersons under his supervisory jurisdiction to sell unregistered stock During the period March 11 through July 9, 1997, Respondent was personally responsible for three transactions involving the sale of stock in Certified Diabetic Services, Inc., at a time when the stock was not registered as required by Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and was not exempt from registration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to supervise the branch office and of selling unregistered securities. The final order should revoke Respondent’s registration under Section 517.12, Florida Statutes, and order him to cease and desist violations of Chapter 517, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The final order should also impose an Administrative Fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000 for the failure to supervise. The final order should also impose an Administrative Fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500 for the three transactions involving the sale of shares of unregistered stock. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2002.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, by and through his employees: (a) sold unregistered securities in the secondary market which were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price and which were not exempt from registration; (b) permitted an agent to service accounts prior to the agent's effective date of registration in the State and concealed such action; and (c) failed to maintain minimum net capital requirements for his corporation; and (d) failed to properly supervise the activities of his employees and agents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owned the stock of a holding company and was an officer in a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company. Respondent and another individual owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Holding Company ("Holding"). Holding owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Securities, Inc. ("Securities"). Respondent was the Secretary of Securities. Respondent had ultimate responsibility for disbursements and profits for Holding and Securities. Respondent monitored the checkbooks and daily expenses for Securities. Respondent's accountant provided financial information to Respondent concerning the daily operations of both companies. The information was provided on forms supplied by Respondent. Respondent kept a daily record of how much each company made or lost, how much was owed, and other accounting information. Respondent made sure that the bills were paid and that the credit of each company remained good. Respondent also controlled the hiring of key personnel. Brent A. Peterson was a manager and principal for Securities. 2/ Mr. Peterson set prices for the firm. Mr. Peterson engaged in transactions in which prices were set for securities to be sold to customers in excess of 10 percent above and below the prevailing market price. Out of 457 trades, approximately 38 were sold at prices that exceeded a 10 percent markup (the "marked up securities"). The marked up securities were sold at prices in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market rate. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., ("NASD") determined that the securities were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price based upon Securities' contemporaneous costs. When a dealer is simultaneously making a market in a security (a "market maker"), the NASD looks to the prevailing market price for the purpose of determining if a markup exceeds 10 percent. The prevailing market price is the price at which dealers trade with one another, i.e., the "current inter-dealer market." 3/ When a dealer is not simultaneously making a market in a security (a "non-market maker"), the contemporaneous costs of the dealer are used for the purpose of determining if the securities have been marked up in excess of 10 percent. The contemporaneous costs reflect the prices paid for a security by a dealer in actual transactions closely related in time to the dealer's retail sales of that security. Such a standard is normally a reliable indication of prevailing market price in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities. Even though securities may be sold at the same market price by one firm that is a market maker and one that is not a market maker, the latter may be deemed by the NASD to have marked up the security by more than 10 percent depending on the firm's contemporaneous costs. Many of the marked up securities were sold to customers at the same market price as that the customers would have paid other brokerage houses. 4/ Since Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities, the standard used by the NASD to determine the amount of markup was the contemporaneous costs paid by Securities. The securities involved in the 38 trades were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Respondent sold unregistered securities that were not exempt from registration. Unregistered securities may be sold if they are reasonably related to the current market price. The marked up securities were not reasonably related to the prevailing market price because they were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Robert M. Long sold securities to customers as an employee of Securities prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner as a registered representative on May 18, 1988. Mr. Long was employed by Securities, from April 19, 1988, through September 20, 1989. Mr. Peterson advised Mr. Long that Mr. Long was authorized to trade securities. Pursuant to Mr. Paterson's advice, Mr. Long sold securities in Tel-optics prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner on May 18, 1988. Respondent concealed the sale of securities by Mr. Long prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long's registered representative number was 34. Relevant order tickets showed Mr. Long as the person engaged in the sale of securities prior to May 18, 1988. Registered representative number 30 had been used on the order tickets at the time of the trades. After Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner, Mr. Long's number 34 was added to the order tickets and number 30 was crossed out. Securities operated with a net capital deficiency of approximately $30,000. The net capital deficiency resulted from the failure to accrue liabilities. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long and Jeff Clark, an examiner for the NASD. The invoices for bills for the unaccrued liabilities were not filed where bills and invoices were normally filed and were found by Mr. Long concealed in drawers and other remote locations in the office. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long on August 28, 1989, but not reported to Petitioner until September 19, 1989. Mr. Long did not notify Petitioner of the net capital deficiency at Securities until the deficiency could be verified by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent to cease and desist from all violations of Florida statutes and rules, and imposing a fine in the aggregate amount of $9,000. The fine should be imposed in the amount of $2,000 for selling securities in excess of a 10 percent markup and $3,500 for each of the other two acts that constituted violations of applicable statutes and rules. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner should be granted registration as an associated person of FISCL Securities in Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner was an applicant for registration as an associated person of FISCL Securities. The Respondent, Department, was the state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 517, FLORIDA STATUTES, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder which include the registration of associated persons as securities dealers inthis state. Under the rules of the Department, anyone who seeks to represent a securities dealer in Florida is required to file an application form, (Form U- 4), with the National Association of Securities Dealers, (NASD), which, upon review, is forwarded to the state in which the applicant resides and seeks registration. If the records of the NASD disclose any disciplinary action having been taken against the applicant, it is identified to the state in which registration is sought. In Florida the Department is the appropriate agency and Department officials review the application to see if it should be approved. In this regard, all disciplinary information, the records of the NASD, is forwarded to the pertinent state for review in accordance with the rules and statutes of that state and, based on the information provided, a decision is made as to whether the application should be approved fully, approved with conditions, or denied. In Florida, all documents relating to the applicant's disciplinary history are secured and reviewed by the Department's Division of Securities prior to a recommendation being made as to approval or denial of the application for registration. In the instant case, the information submitted by NASD, pertaining to the Petitioner herein, included evidence of a prior disciplinary record. Upon receipt of the notice, Ms. Cain, the Division's Assistant Director, sent out a discrepancy letter to the Petitioner and requested copies of the disciplinary record and his form U-4 from NASD. The information submitted to the Department by Ellen J. Badler, Assistant Director, Special Registration, with NASD, dated July 18, 1990, reflected three letters of admission, waiver and consent from First Heritage Corporation, a securities dealer in Southfield Michigan, and Louis Feldman, Petitioner, a registered options principal with and president of the firm. The documents show that on the basis of periodic review of the company records in October and November, 1981, the corporation failed to obtain or maintain option account agreements for 7 of its option customers; that in 5 cases it failed to obtain or maintain sufficient background and financial information on customers approved for trading; and that it failed to show the date prospectuses were furnished to options customers. All of the above were cited as violations of Article III, Section 33, Appendix E, NASD's Rules of Fair Practice. This inquiry also indicated that the corporation and Petitioner failed to inform its customers, in writing, of the method it used to allocate exercise notices to its customers' accounts, and failed to explain the way the system operated and its consequences, in violation of Section 63, of NASD's Uniform Practice Code. Mr. Feldman, along with the company, admitted those violations in a Letter of Admission, Waiver and Consent he executed in response to NASD's District 8 Business Conduct Committee, (Committee), and they were punished with a censure to the company and a joint fine of up to $500.00 for Mr. Feldman andthe company. No further disciplinary action was taken against the Petitioner or his company by NASD, the SEC, or the state of Michigan until, in 1989, NASD entered its Decision and Order of Acceptance of Respondents' Offer of Settlement regarding three Complaints filed by the Committee in 1988 for alleged violations of rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, (MSRB), and the Rules of Fair Practice. These complaints, filed against Petitioner, First Heritage, and as to one of the three, to a third party as well, related to: effecting the purchase and sale of municipal securities at prices in which the aggregate price at which the securities were purchased or sold were not reasonable and fair under the circumstances; placing several different advertisements which omitted material facts and were mis- leading; again, purchasing and selling municipal securities at prices which were not fair and reasonable. The Committee found that the Petitioner and the other parties involved were in violation of the rules as alleged, and fined Petitioner and First Heritage $10,000.00 jointly as to the two price allegations, and $5,000.00 as to the advertising allegation. Petitioner claims the violations were more ministerial and technical than substantive and that no customer ever complained about or was in any way injured by those actions. As to the advertisements, he claims they were not misleading. Examination of the advertisements does not necessarily support that claim, however, He also claims that the policies complained of were the same as those followed for the 13 years the company was in business and prior audits by NASD had never resulted in any noted discrepancies. The Department does not consider as pertinent the fact that injury to a consumer was not involved. By the same token, given, as here, the completed disciplinary action which has become final, it will not look behind that action and re-litigate, at a hearing such as this, the truth of the allegations. Petitioner also claims that in each case he was advised by counsel that it would be useless to fight the allegations of misconduct since it appeared the collective mind of the agency was made up to take action. Further, weighing the minimal fines sought against the extensive cost to Petitioner in attorney fees and lost commissions while litigating the allegations, he elected to take that route less expensive to him in the short run and accept punishment. This decision did not, it would appear, redound to his benefit. Petitioner also claims, and it is so found, that at no time has any disciplinary action ever been taken against him for actions in the securities business by the states of Michigan or Florida. On the basis of those actions, by letter of October 11, 1990, the Department notified the Petitioner that his application for registration was denied. The two page letterclearly indicated the Petitioner's professional history and the fact that he was the subject of "at least two regulatory actions filed by the NASD." The letter then listed the specific allegations of misconduct charged against the Petitioner in each of the two actions and noted the agency action taken in each case. The Department's letter also cited the pertinent statute which authorizes it to deny an application for registration and the bases therefor, and noted the reasons for its action. Petitioner was also notified of his right to and the procedure for contesting the Department's action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered denyingPetitioner, Louis Feldman's application for registration as an associated person of FISCL Securities in Florida. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory G. Schultz, Esquire Schultz & Associates, P.A. 26750 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 310-A Clearwater, Florida 34621 Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Lawrence P. Weiner, was a registered Florida real estate salesman employed by Continental Marketing Services, Inc. Continental Marketing Services, Inc. solicited real property listings from property owners in the State of Florida by means of postal cards inquiring of those property owners whether they would like to sell their Florida real property. Interested owners were requested to fill out a card with their address and telephone number, and to forward that card to Continental Marketing Services, Inc. which would then contact the property openers by telephone, Respondent, as a real estate salesman in the employ of Continental Marketing Services, Inc., would then contact responding property owners from a list furnished him by his employer. Respondent would obtain information by telephone from property owners such as initial purchase price, size and location of the property. Both Respondent and his employer represented to property owners that, should they list their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., the property would be advertised in foreign countries where investors existed who were interested in purchasing Florida real estate. In order to list their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., property owners were required to pay an "advance fee" for these listings, usually $350, which amount they were told would be used to defray the cost of initial preparation of a directory listing those properties in Florida which were for sale. After obtaining initial background information, Respondent would submit the information to his employer, which, though unclear from the record, would analyze these facts and return to Respondent for transmission to the property owner a suggested sales price. This suggested sales price was usually several times the initial purchase price for the property. For example, one witness at the hearing testified that a lot purchased on April 27, 1967 for $2,640 was ultimately listed with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. at Respondent's suggestion, at a sales price of $7,600. Testimony at the hearing indicated that comparable lots in the same area are presently selling for $4,700. Another witness testified that two lots purchased in 1965 for $2,390, were discussed in 1977 with Respondent who suggested that they be listed at a suggested sales price of $16,600. Finally, still another witness testified that he listed property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. as a result of his contacts with the Respondent at a purchase price of $5,000 per acre in 1976 for property that he had purchased for $500 an acre in 1964. Those property owners testifying at the hearing who listed their property for sale with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., indicated that they had no further contact with either Respondent or Continental Marketing Services, Inc. after having paid their $350 listing fee. None of these property owners received any offers to purchase their property as a result of its listing with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., and, as of the date of the final hearing in this cause, the property remained unsold. The Respondent testified that his only responsibilities with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. involved contacting those persons on the lists furnished to him, and obtaining their agreement to listing their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. Suggested sale prices for particular pieces of property were furnished to Respondent by other employees of Continental Marketing Service, Inc. Respondent further testified that placing of advertisements for properties listed with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. was accomplished by other employees of the company. Respondent testified that he "understood" that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. had sold properties and that some of these sales were to foreign investors, although he did not know the identity of the foreign investors, or the number of parcels sold by the company. Respondent denied that he had represented to property owners that the sale of their property would be accomplished in sixty to ninety days. This contention is borne out by the testimony of two of the property owners testifying in this proceeding, one of whom testified that Respondent indicated that her property could "probably be sold within sixty to ninety days", and another property owner testified that Respondent made no representation to him concerning the length of time necessary to effect a sale of his property. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. failed to advertise property listed for sale as promised in the Listing Brokerage Agreement with those property owners testifying in this proceeding. There is no evidence in the record in this proceeding to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc., in fact, knew of no foreign investors interested in purchasing property in the United States. Further, there is no testimony in the record in this proceeding to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. had never sold property for other property owners in either the United states or the State of Florida. Finally, although property belonging to three of the witnesses testifying in this proceeding was listed at several times its initial purchase price, there is no indication in the record that Respondent played any part in setting the suggested listing prices.
Findings Of Fact Seaton made application to the Division under the provisions of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes, for registration as a salesman of securities. Subsequently, the Division issued its intent to refuse or deny license or registration along with administrative charges and complaint alleging that Seaton was unworthy to transact the business of a salesman. On February 22, 1977, the Securities Commissioner of the State of South Carolina issued his order to cease and desist directed to Seaton on the dual grounds that Seaton engaged in conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade in that he offered for sale limited partnerships constituting securities while failing to register them as required and that Seaton failed to register as a broker, dealer or agent in South Carolina. On June 7, 1977, the District Business Conduct Committee for District number 4 of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., issued its complaint against Seaton for violations of Article III, Sections 1, 18 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On March 3, 1993, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for registration as an associated person of Securities America, Inc. Previously, on May 1, 1989, the Petitioner had filed an application with the Department for registration as an associated person of Integrated Resources Equity Corporation. On July 25, 1989, the Department denied the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Integrated Resources Equity Corporation. Petitioner requested an informal hearing and on November 28, 1989, a hearing took place regarding the Department's intent to deny the Petitioner's application for registration with Integrated Resources Equity Corporation. On January 30, 1990, a Final Order was entered by the Department denying the Petitioner's registration of Integrated Resources Equity Corporation. The grounds for denial contained in the January 30, 1990 Final Order included the Petitioner's guilty plea to delivery of a controlled substance in the state of Wyoming in 1982, and the Petitioner's failure to disclose the guilty plea to the Department on the Petitioner's U-4 form (Uniform Application to Act as a Securities Dealer) on two occasions in 1987 and 1988. In addition, subsequent to the filing of his application, Petitioner was arrested on January 4, 1989 for the second degree felony of possession of cocaine to which he plead nolo contendere in the circuit court for Pinellas County, Florida on September 27, 1989. Petitioner did not amend his application and disclose this arrest and conviction. The Petitioner did not file an appeal regarding the January 30, 1990 Final Order issued by the Department. Additionally, on December 30, 1992, the Department again denied an application, submitted by Petitioner, for registration by issuing a Notice of Denial of Registration as an Associated Person under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. The December 30, 1992, Notice of Denial was based upon the Petitioner's failure to timely respond to the Department's request for additional information, which failure amounted to a violation of Rule 3E-301.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. The denial was issued without prejudice to Respondent's right to reapply upon the submission of a new application and payment of the fee. The Petitioner did not file a petition for hearing in response to the Department's Notice of Denial of Registration dated December 30, 1992. In 1982, Petitioner was arrested for delivery of a controlled substance in the state of Wyoming. Petitioner plead guilty to this charge, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation by the court. That probation was terminated by court order. In 1989, Petitioner was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner plead nolo contendere to this charge, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation by the court. The record is unclear whether probation has been terminated by the court. At present, Petitioner is married. He and his wife have three children. In 1990, he and his family moved to Brevard County, Florida where he has been self-employed as a life and health insurance salesman for several companies. He has not been the subject of disciplinary action in this field. Petitioner denied he had ever sold cocaine; instead he insisted that his role was limited solely to that of being a delivery boy for other drug salespersons. He stated he has undertaken no specific drug rehabilitation program other than to discontinue involvement with controlled substances. In addition to his own testimony acknowledging and explaining his criminal record, he presented testimony regarding his character. Letters from character witnesses consisted of Petitioner's wife, mother, pastor and three other individuals. The pastor and other individuals wrote that they had known Petitioner only since 1991, or some point in time since the occurrence of his last criminal offense in 1989. Each of the individuals was impressed with Petitioner and believed him to be of good character, and indicated some knowledge, absent specific details, of his criminal background.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person, submitted on March 3, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-10. COPIES FURNISHED: Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Ronald Liakos 788 Americana Boulevard, N.E. Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Cease and Desist Order dated March 13, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Timothy Gibbons, was an associated person and employed by J.B. Hanauer as a sales representative in institutional sales. Each of the subject transactions at issue in this case constituted a purchase and sale of securities. In the summer of 1988, Mr. Gibbons subscribed the City of Daytona Beach, Florida, as a client. Mr. Mike Robertson, as Deputy Finance Director for the City, was charged with investing the City's funds. The subscription was consummated by a written agreement between the City and J.B. Hanauer establishing a non-discretionary account on behalf of the City. Both Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Robertson were designated in the agreement as authorized representatives of their respective employers for the purpose of conducting transactions between the City and J.B. Hanauer. Mr. Gibbons contacted Mr. Robertson on an almost daily basis with numbers for proposed deals at different market levels. In these conversations, Mr. Robertson would give Mr. Gibbons the authority to enter the market for the City when the market reached certain, agreed market levels. The direction to initiate a trade at a certain previously approved market level was the sole "discretion" granted to Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Robertson retained and required the non-discretionary authority to approve all transactions. Mr. Gibbons did not at any time have the authority to encumber the City's funds without the prior approval of Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson further limited Mr. Gibbons by placing a $1,000,000 cap on the amount of the City's funds he would risk per trade. Mr. Robertson told Mr. Gibbons about the $1,000,000 trading practice and each of the approved trades was limited to the $1,000,000 amount. Their first trade was executed on August 25, 1988. Then, on August 31, 1988, without the knowledge or consent of the City, Mr. Gibbons executed several trades in the name of the City. Most of the subject trades were in excess of $1,000,000. In fact, they encumbered increments of $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. When these trades were settled, the City's account owed J.B. Hanauer in excess of $29,000. On September 1, 1988, Mr. Gibbons left the employment of J.B. Hanauer, and subsequently, J.B. Hanauer absorbed the City's loss as a result of the subject trades. By trading without the authorization of his client, the City, the respondent misrepresented his authorization to purchase and sell securities for the City and demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a Final Order: Revoking any and all registrations of Timothy Gibbons under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Assessing against Timothy Gibbons an administrative fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th of September 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 7th day of September 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2214 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4. Addressed in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5, and subordinate to paragraph 5. Subordinate to paragraphs 4 and 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelshon, Esquire Office of Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Timothy Gibbons Number 5 Par Drive Maumelle, Arkansas 72118
