The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glenn D. Whaley submitted a Form U-4, Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration, seeking registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. One of the states in which Petitioner sought registration was the State of Florida. The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is the Florida agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the Act), and its implementing rules. The Department denied Mr. Whaley's application for registration as an associated person in a letter dated August 27, 1990, based upon its determination that he had violated the Act, that he had filed an application for registration which contained a material false statement; and that his disciplinary history within the securities industry constituted prima facie evidence of his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Mr. Whaley has been employed in the securities industry since approximately 1984, and has been employed with several different securities dealers, including Rothschild Equity Management Group, Inc. (Rothschild), Fitzgerald Talman, Inc., and H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. The effective date for Mr. Whaley's registration as an associated person of Rothschild in the State of Florida was April 18, 1985. In October 1985, Department examiner Michael Blaker, conducted an examination of the books and records of Rothschild. The examination revealed violations of the provisions of the Act, including the sale of securities by unlicensed representatives. The commission reports and sales journals prepared by Rothschild revealed that Mr. Whaley, while unregistered with the Department, had effectuated approximately sixteen (16) sales of securities during the period of April 1 through 17, 1985. On May 15, 1989, the State of Missouri Commissioner of Securities issued a cease and desist order against Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. and Glenn D. Whaley. The order found that Mr. Whaley had offered for sale and sold securities on behalf of Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. in the State of Missouri without benefit of registration for himself or the securities. On or about November 8, 1989, the Department issued an Administrative Charges and Complaint against Mr. Whaley seeking revocation of his registration as an associated person of H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. based on his failed to timely notify the Department of the Missouri Cease and Desist Order, as required by Rule 3E-600.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Administrative Charges and Complaint were served on November 13, 1989. On or about December 12, 1989, the Department issued a Default Final Order revoking Mr. Whaley's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., based upon his failure to request a hearing regarding the Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Form U-4 requires the applicant to swear and affirm that the information on the application is true and complete to the best of his knowledge and that false or misleading answers will subject him to administrative penalties. The Form U-4 application contains no disclosure of the Department's December 1989, revocation of Petitioner's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., as required by Question 22E.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order denying the application of Mr. Whaley for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc., in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Legal Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Glenn D. Whaley 5400 Northwest Fifth Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes,1 by having a registration for a state license revoked and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is licensed as a real estate sales person under license number 0532841. Respondent's license is issued c/o Pan American Equities, Inc., 35725 Tanglewood Drive, Eustis, Florida, 32726. Respondent is also licensed as a mortgage broker. He earns his living as a real estate broker and as a mortgage broker. Prior to January 5, 1996, Respondent was licensed as an insurance agent by the Florida Department of Insurance (the "Department") pursuant to license number 589181909. Sometime prior to January 5, 1996, Respondent had terminated his involvement in the business of insurance and had become employed as a real estate salesman and as a mortgage broker. On December 11, 1995, the Department filed a 16 page administrative complaint against Respondent alleging violations in five separate counts. At the time, Respondent was employed full time as a real estate salesman and mortgage broker and was preoccupied with his wedding plans. On January 5, 1996, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his insurance license and signed a settlement stipulation for a consent order. On January 9, 1996, the Department entered a consent order. The settlement stipulation and consent order are analogous to a plea of convenience. Respondent did not admit to the allegations in the administrative complaint filed by the Department. In relevant part, the settlement stipulation stated: . . . The Department conducted an investigation of the Respondent in his capacity as an insurance agent. As a result thereof, the Department alleges that the Respondent made material misrepresentations in surplus lines business and engaged in illegal premium financing and sliding. (emphasis supplied) * * * . . . By execution of this Settlement Stipulation For Consent Order and by entry of the subsequent Consent Order in this case, the Department and the Respondent intend to and do resolve all issues which pertain to the matters raised in the Department's investigation. (emphasis supplied) Like the settlement stipulation, the consent order contains no admission of guilt by Respondent. The consent order states, in relevant part: . . . The Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order dated January 5, 1996, is hereby approved and fully recorded herein by reference. . . . The licenses and eligibility for licensure and appointment of the Respondent . . . as an insurance agent in this state are hereby surrendered to the Department . . . . . . . The surrender . . . shall have the same force and effect as a revocation pursuant to Section 626.641(4). Respondent surrendered his insurance license because he no longer needed it as a real estate agent and as a mortgage broker. Respondent was not represented by counsel and was not fully informed that the surrender of his insurance license would jeopardize his real estate license. When Respondent learned that the surrender of his insurance license threatened his real estate license, Respondent retained counsel. Counsel moved to vacate the Department's consent order. The Department denied Respondent's motion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(s) and reprimanding Respondent for doing so. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Forbes, Walsh & Kelly is a New York corporation licensed to deal in securities under the laws of New York. The company through its secretary, Mr. Robert E. Kelly, contacted the Division of Securities on March 2 and 21, 1979 concerning the procedure for registering to be a securities dealer in Florida. After receiving the appropriate application forms and a copy of the relevant Florida Statutes, Forbes, Walsh & Kelly filed its application on March 26, 1979, to be licensed in Florida as a securities dealer. On April 2, 1979, FWK was notified that its application as a dealer was being held in abeyance, pending receipt of the corporate by-laws, a branch office application, and other materials. Subsequently, on April 20, 1979, FWK applied for a branch office license with Respondent, Carl F. Bailey, Jr. to be the company's "principal" and branch manager in Florida. Between March 26, 1979 and June 26, 1979, while Mr. Carl F. Bailey was not licensed as a securities salesman and while FWK was not registered as a securities dealer, FWK through Bailey executed approximately 774 security sales transactions on behalf of their customers. On June 27, 1979, the Division told FWK that its registration as a security broker-dealer had been approved. At the same time notice was also given that the application for a branch office in Orlando was approved as was the transfer of Carl F. Bailey's registration as a salesman for FWK. Between March 26, 1979 and August 14, 1979, in the course of its business, FWK through Carl F. Bailey "introduced" approximately 263 security transactions on a fully disclosed basis to Robb, Peck, McCooey & company, Inc., which though registered as a securities dealer in New York was not at that time so registered in Florida. Aside from the instant order of suspension, neither Carl F. Bailey, Jr. nor FWK has ever been charged with previously violating the Florida Securities Act. FWK and Carl F. Bailey, Jr., have at least two very satisfied customers, Mr. A.J. Rusterholtz and Mr. Richard W. Baker. They testified in support of Respondents at the final hearing. No evidence was presented to show that either Carl F. Bailey or FWK ever made any inquiry with the Division about when they would be eligible to engage in securities transactions in Florida after submitting their applications for registration. FWK through its Orlando branch office serves approximately 500 securities customers, many of whom are in direct daily contact with the office.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the registration of Forbes, Walsh, Kelly & Company, Inc., as a dealer and to operate a branch office and the registration of Carl F. Bailey, Jr., as an associated salesman, with Forbes, Walsh, Kelly & Company, Inc. be suspended for a period of 65 business days from the effective date of the Department's final order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Snyderburn, Esquire Director, Division of Securities Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1402 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick T. Christiansen, Esquire AKERMAN SENTERFITT & EIDSON 17th Floor, CNA Building Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Diane Aquino, is a 33 year old female who currently resides at 1271 North West 23rd Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. By application filed on February 10, 1981, Petitioner sought licensure as a real estate salesman by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. (Respondent's Exhibit l) Question 7(a) on the application asked whether any judgment or decree of a court has been entered against the applicant in which the applicant was charged with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Question 15(a) asked whether the applicant has ever had any registration to practice a profession revoked, annulled or suspended upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Question 15(b) asked whether applicant has ever surrendered her registration to practice any regulated profession or occupation. Aquino answered each of those questions affirmatively and included a written statement describing actions taken against her by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SFC) based upon fraudulent activities which occurred in 1976. The application was denied by Respondent by letter dated April 28, 1981, on the ground she had failed to demonstrate that she was "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and ... (has) a good reputation for fair dealing." The denial precipitated the instant hearing. Between September, 1975, and April, 1976, Petitioner was employed by Colonial Securities, Inc. located in Jersey City, New Jersey, in the capacity of a registered sales assistant. Colonial was a broker-dealer registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In 1977 Colonial, Petitioner and two other Colonial employees were the subject of an administrative proceeding instituted by the SEC charging that they had "willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act in that they, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and of the mails to offer, sell and deliver after sale shares of the common stock of Tucker (Drilling Company, Inc.) when no registration statement was filed or in effect as to such securities pursuant to the Securities Act." (Respondent's Exhibit l). Because of the time and expense involved in contesting these charges, and upon advice of her counsel, Aquino consented to the entry of an order by the SEC that made findings that she had willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. The consent order also imposed the following sanctions: that Aquino be barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment company, except in a secretarial capacity; and that, after a period of two years she be permitted to apply to become reassociated in non-supervisory and non-proprietary capacity. Aquino is now reapplying for registration with the SEC. In addition to the sanctions imposed by the SEC, Petitioner has been enjoined by a federal court in New York from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. Since the entry of the consent order, Petitioner has owned and operated a laundry and dry cleaner business in Pompano Beach, Florida, and been employed as a sales assistant at a stock brokerage firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Since 1980 she has been the president and 50 percent stockholder of Financial Communications, Inc., a small private investment company located in Pompano Beach, Florida. In her present business, Petitioner deals with private investors who entrust her with sums of money for different securities and stock investments. One such investor described her as being honest and trustworthy, and stated he is completely satisfied with the business relationship that they enjoy. Another investor attested to Aquino's excellent reputation for honesty and truthfulness. A former employer indicated he is willing to sponsor her reapplication for licensing with the SEC as a registered securities representative. He is also willing to hire her if that application is approved. Other than the difficulties incurred in 1977, Petitioner has had no other problems that would reflect adversely upon her reputation and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Diane Aquino, for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1981, 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 29th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Rishken, Esquire Suite 203, Dadeland Towers North 9700 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Linda A. Lawson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Diane Aquino 1271 NorthEast 23rd Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure in Florida as a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity Agent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Linda C. Ballou, applied for a license as a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity license by application completed on October 30, 2003. The Department denied her license by letter dated March 18, 2004. There is no explanation of why there was a delay in issuing the March 18, 2004 denial letter. There was no apparent request for additional information to complete the application after October 30, 2004, or information requested to resolve qualification issues. The Department denied the Petitioner's application on the basis that the Petitioner was not trustworthy or competent based upon her having been enjoined from violating the Federal Securities and Exchange Law and being barred from associating with any broker or dealer for three years after which she could reapply for association. The Department introduced and properly authenticated Respondent's Exhibits 3, 5, 6, and 7, together with a copy of the Petitioner's statement, Respondent's Exhibit 4, regarding the action of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Petitioner testified regarding the events that were the subject of the SEC action. The Petitioner was counseling persons, particularly seniors, on purchasing life and annuity contracts primarily for long term care. She was an agent for CNA and New York Life, both of which were insurance companies. She was required to possess a "6-63 license" by her employer that authorized her to sell mutual funds and other instruments, which would be classed as securities. She carried errors and omissions (O & E) coverage with New York Life and paid the premium for O & E coverage for one year. While so employed, she was introduced by the president of CNA to his father, who told her about bonds payable in full in nine (9) months. He explained to her that these bonds were not securities, which are instruments payable in year or longer. There were several of these bonds available; however, the only one that she sold was one issued by Sebastian International Enterprises (SIE), a Florida-based television production company. These bonds paid very high rates of interest, and appeared to be a good investment. The Petitioner called the local bank and found that SIE was a viable company engaging in the business of producing films for television. She visited the company and saw them making television shows. The company had contracts to make additional television shows, and the company remained at all times pertaining to this case a viable company. After checking into the company, she invested in the company's bonds; she sold the bonds to members of her family; and members of the public. She never had any problems with the payment of premiums by the company. After selling SIE bonds for approximately a year, she saw a news story about one of the other companies, which had been presented to her by the father of the president of CNA, being investigated for being a "Ponzi" scheme. She checked with her attorney about the sale of SIE bonds, and, thereafter, contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on his advise. The FBI referred the matter to the SEC, which opened an investigation of SIE. The Petitioner cooperated fully with this investigation. Ultimately, the financial records of SIE were seized, and the SEC determined that the sale of the nine-month bonds was a "Ponzi" scheme. Although no action was ever taken against SIE or the Petitioner's broker, the Petitioner and two others holding SEC licenses were disciplined. Although as a result of the aforementioned, the Petitioner surrendered her California license to sell insurance, she has been reinstated, and was able to seek an SEC securities broker's license after the three years ran. The administrative proceeding SEC brought against the Petitioner alleged that the Petitioner violated the Federal Securities and Exchange Act. The SEC order and complaint is based upon admissions by the Petitioner and recites that the Petitioner consents to the entry of the anticipated injunction without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. The complaint filed against the Petitioner in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida is Respondent's Exhibit 5. This complaint states that the funds from the sale of the subject bonds were to fund the operations of SIE. The Petitioner testified that the proceeds were used to fund the daily operation of the company. This complaint also makes various allegations of misconduct and fraud against the Petitioner; however, no evidence was received at hearing in support of any of the SEC allegations, and the consent agreement signed by the Petitioner specifically states that she does not admit or deny the allegations contained in the complaint. By signing the agreement, the Petitioner avoided litigation on the issue and, although she voluntarily agreed to repay all commissions she earned from the sale of these notes (approximately $156,000), the agreement recites that she would not have to repay the money in light of her bankruptcy unless her statement were determined to be false. 77 United States Code 77c provides in pertinent part regarding items that are exempted as securities as follows: (3) Any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which arises out of a current transaction or the proceeds of which have been or are to be used for current transactions, and which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue the Petitioner a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity Agent license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda C. Ballou 1001 Bridgeway No. 314 Sausalito, California 94965 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, has been in the securities business for over 21 years. Except for two complaints--one in 1986 and a second 1988--he has not been the subject of complaint or investigation by the National Association of Securties Dealers (NASD) or any state. He earned a reputation as a successful securities dealer and, as his career progressed, as manager of securities dealership branch offices. As branch manager, one of Grolemund's primary responsibilities was to insure that his office functioned in compliance with applicable state and federal law, and the rules of the NASD. Due to the reputation Grolemund had earned, the Chairman of the Board of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., personally recruited Grolemund as a branch manager. After a training period, Grolemund assumed duties at the company's New Orleans office in August, 1982. He did not become a registered options principal for the New Orleans office until December, 1982. For several years before Grolemund's arrival, the company's New Orleans office had been a "problem office." A disproportionate share of securities violations occurred in that office, and management had difficulty controlling the associated persons in the office to achieve compliance. Several branch managers who preceded Grolemund had been disciplined by the NASD for inadequate supervision of the office. Grolemund knew some of the problems--he was hired to try to correct them--but he did not know the extent of the problems he would face when he took over. On August 25, 1986, the District 5 Business Conduct Committee filed a complaint against Howard Hampton, E.F Hutton & Company, Inc., Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Grolemund and others. The gist of the complaint is that Hampton committed various violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, SEC rules and NASD rules while an associated person with E.F. Hutton and with Prudential-Bache. Hampton was with E.F. Hutton from February, 1981, through August, 1982, and was with Prudential-Bache in the New Orleans office from August, 1982, through February, 1984. The violations involve Hampton's dealings with clients he brought with him from E.F. Hutton to Prudential-Bache. Most of the violations involve the exercise of discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. Some of the alleged incidents occurred while Hampton was at E.F. Hutton. Some occurred while Hampton was at Prudential-Bache but before Grolemund arrived at the New Orleans office. Some occurred after Grolemund arrived but before he became an options principal for the office. In some cases, the information in the file on which Grolemund had to rely was incorrect. Grolemund fired Hampton in December, 1983. (At the time Hampton was fired, no complaints had yet been leveled against Hampton. In fact, all of the clients who ultimately complained against Hampton went with Hampton when he was fired from Prudential-Bache.) Grolemund also fired some other "unsavory" account executives in the New Orleans office. Grolemund was charged, along with other Prudential-Bache options principals, with failure and neglect to establish, maintain, and/or enforce written procedures which would enable Prudential-Bache to exercise reasonable and proper supervision of Hampton and with failure and neglect to supervise Hampton reasonably and properly. Grolemund was represented in the proceedings before the district committee by in-house counsel for Prudential-Bache. Otherwise, Grolemund did not have independent advice of counsel. Prudential-Bache was involved in other proceedings before the SEC which made it in its best interest to resolve the matters arising out of the New Orleans office. For several months, Prudential- Bache tried to convince Grolemund to settle. In addition, Grolemund was concerned whether the District 5 Business Conduct Committee would fairly consider the complaint against him. As part of his successful management of Prudential-Bache's New Orleans office, he competed directly against other securities dealers in the area, some of which were represented on, or had friends who were on, the Committee. When Grolemund came to New Orleans, there were 16 account executives in the office. Under his term of management, after he fired four to five account executives, including Hampton, the New Orleans office grew from 16 to 36 account executives. In addition, Grolemund opened satellite offices in Shreveport and Lafayette, Louisiana. These offices grew in size to 11 and 9 account executives, respectively. Many of the account executives Grolemund added were recruited away from competitors, and he was concerned that there might be hard feelings against him among the members on the Committee. After spending considerable time weighing all factors, Grolemund agreed on or about November 3, 1987, to settle the Hampton matter on terms that included acceptance of a finding that he was guilty of the allegations against him and acceptance of a censure, a 21-day suspension, a requirement that he re- qualify as a registered options principal, and a $7,500 fine. The settlement was reduced to writing in final form on April 25, 1988. As a result of the 21-day suspension, another options principal at Prudential-Bache was required to sign all options agreements during the suspension. Otherwise, Grolemund's job was the same as before the suspension, and Grolemund continued to receive his full normal compensation from Prudential- Bache. Prudential-Bache paid the fine for Grolemund. Re-qualification was a matter of passing a written examination, which did not present a problem for Grolemund. In agreeing to settle, Grolemund misunderstood that the district committee's action would not be the basis of any other proceedings against him. He also misunderstood that the offer of settlement would resolve all pending matters involving the New Orleans office, including the so-called Keel matters. Contrary to Grolemund's understanding, the NASD filed another complaint against Prudential-Bache and Grolemund on May 9, 1988. This complaint, which had been under investigation during the time the Hampton case was proceeding, involved an account executive named Patrick Keel. Like Hampton, Keel was alleged to have exercised discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. He also was alleged to have recommended unsuitable stock and option investments to two clients and to have falsely reported to Prudential-Bache that some of his clients enjoyed profits from the investments he had recommended and made for them, when in fact they had incurred losses. As with the Hampton matter, Grolemund was accused of having failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures that would have enabled him to exercise proper supervision of Keel and of having failed to properly supervise Keel. The Keel matter went to hearing before the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on August 24-25, 1989. As to what it called Cause One, the Committee found that Keel engaged in unauthorized and unsuitable options transactions in the account of one customer and that Grolemund had failed to supervise Keel properly in connection with the options transactions. Under Cause Two, the Committee found that Keel made unauthorized and unsuitable stock and options transactions in the account of another customer and that Grolemund had ample early warning that Keel was not handling his options accounts properly. The Committee noted that in October, 1984, the customer had lodged complaints regarding Keel's options trading and that Grolemund had daily conversations with a superior concerning problems with Keel's options accounts. The Committee found that, even if Grolemund did not have the benefit of the early warnings of irregularity, his response to the concerns raised by the customer in her December 10, 1984, telephone conversation was inadequate. The Committee found that, given the customer's refusal to sign the activity letter that Grolemund sent her, it was incumbent upon Grolemund to determine whether the customer understood options, whether options transactions were consistent with her financial situation, and whether she had approved the options transactions before their execution. The Committee found that Grolemund did not compile and review the customer's account documentation, which would have revealed that options trading was inconsistent with her objectives and needs and that the customer was only approved for Level II trading although Keel had executed two Level III transactions. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice by failing to supervise Keel properly. Under Cause Three, the Committee found that Keel recommended to a customer (the same customer involved in Cause Two) that she commit 25-30% of her net worth to a Hawaiian real estate private placement tax shelter that was not consistent with the customer's needs and objectives. However, the Committee noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Grolemund had reviewed the recommendation in light of the customer's personal financial strategy form. Although it was not Grolemund's job at Prudential-Bache to review suitability determinations with respect to private placements, the Committee expressed the view that Grolemund was in the best position to supervise the recommendations of salesmen and that he could not delegate this responsibility to other departments. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice under Cause Three. As to Causes Four through Eleven, the Committee dismissed all but two for insufficient evidence. As for the two that were not dismissed, the Committee found that Keel exercised discretion in the accounts of customers without prior written approval and that Grolemund failed to exercise proper supervision over Keel. The Committee reasoned that, by the time at issue, Grolemund had adequate warning of Keel's exercise of discretion without authority and that Grolemund allowed Keel not only to continue options trading but also allowed Keel to continue using special telephone and "bunching" privileges that, in the Committee's view, "greatly facilitated Keel's exercise of discretion." The Committee dismissed Cause Twelve to the extent that it alleged that Grolemund failed to supervise Keel reasonably with respect to the submittal of inaccurate active account information reports by him. The Committee, in its June 21, 1990, decision, censured Grolemund, barred him from associating with any NASD member in any principal capacity and fined him $4,000. Under the bar, Grolemund would not have been permitted to apply for reinstatement for at least ten years. Based on this decision, and the earlier disposition of the 1986 complaint in the Hampton matter, the Department offered to conditionally grant Grolemund's application, prohibiting Grolemund from acting as a principal, supervisor or manager. When Grolemund refused to accept the conditions, the Department denied the application. Grolemund appealed the Committee decision in the Keel matter to the Board of Governors of the NASD. The appeal was heard on October 11-12, 1990. On appeal, the Board reversed the finding that Keel executed out-of-level options transactions. The Board also noted that the record demonstrates a high degree of direct interaction between Grolemund, Keel, Keel's clients, and Prudential-Bache's operations manager and that the firm's records distribution system may have prevented Grolemund from exercising greater supervision over Keel. Because branch managers did not receive copies of customer information relating to limited partnerships, such as the Maui/Waikiki deal, Grolemund had no opportunity to assess the suitability of Keel's customer for the offering, or to compare the documents that Keel had completed in connection with that deal with other account information regarding the customer. The Board also noted that Grolemund engaged in more-than-adequate follow-up with clients following the receipt of complaints and that the customer may have been less than candid regarding her lack of understanding of the investments that Keel recommended for her account. Nonetheless, the Board believed that Grolemund fell short of the standard of reasonable supervision in that it should have been clear to Grolemund that Keel had not been properly trained and lacked a basic understanding of the practices of the securities industry. The well-documented problems that Keel's options trading caused with respect to customers' margins, and Keel's documented confusion of cash and margin accounts, certainly should have put Grolemund on notice that Keel lacked sufficient training to engage in such risky trading strategies as writing options. The Board also thought Grolemund should have inquired why there was no options agreement on file for one customer until after options trading in her account had ceased. The Board concurred with the Committee that Grolemund fell below the standard of reasonable supervision, and thereby violated Article III, Section 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice. The Board of Governors affirmed the censure and $4,000 fine against Grolemund. However, in light of the various mitigating factors regarding Grolemund's overall conduct, the Board ruled that barring him as a principal was an excessively harsh penalty. Instead, the Board suspended him from acting in any principal capacity for seven days and required him to requalify by examination in all principal capacities. In July, 1985, long before either the Hampton or the Keel complaint was filed, Prudential-Bache promoted Grolemund to the new Tampa office. When Grolemund took over as branch manager, the Tampa office was only nine months old. Grolemund successfully managed the Tampa office until May, 1990, when he applied for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc. During Grolemund's time as branch manager, the Tampa office grew to 35 account executives. The evidence proved that no violations occurred in the Tampa office during the almost five years that Grolemund was the branch manager there. Since the Hampton and Keel matters, the securities industry has changed remarkably, in part as a result of the October, 1987, stock market crash. Before the crash, options trading generally was viewed as a conservative investment--a way to participate in the market with limited resources and to provide an additional source of income from a conservative investment. The risks of options trading now are widely recognized, and management generally has become sensitive and responsive to those risks. In addition, the data processing and informations systems now in general use in the industry have given management new and effective tools for supervising the activities of account executives. Some of these systems make it impossible for some of the Hampton and Keel violations to occur today. For example, the systems will not process options trades for which there is no record of prior written authorization in the file. For these reasons, it is not likely that activities such as those in which Hampton and Keel were involved in 1981 through 1984 would go undetected today by a manager of Grolemund's caliber or that, detected, they would go unchecked. Advest, Inc., the securities dealer that wants to associate Grolemund to manage its new Clearwater office, is a respectable securities dealer that places reasonably strong emphasis on compliance with the requirements of the various regulatory agencies under which it must operate. It specializes in relatively safe investments, certainly as compared with the activities of the New Orleans office of Prudential-Bache in the early 1980s. Options trading represents only 14 to 15 percent of Advest's total business nationwide. Less than six percent of the business of its new Clearwater office consists of options trading. Advest's compliance department generates a monthly computer report called a "commission versus equity" run which displays the account name and number, the account executive's number, gross commission generated for the month and year, the number of trades for the month and year to date, the amount of cash and securities in the account, and the value of the account in relationship to the trading on a percentage basis. Some variation of the report is provided to the branch managers, to the division managers, and to the branch group manager, with each higher level of management getting more and more information in the report. An options activity report is produced in the Advest compliance department on a daily basis listing all accounts that traded outside their levels, if any, and any accounts that have a trade executed where the appropriate forms are not on file within the allowed period. Advest compliance sends out active account letters to verify customer satisfaction. If the customer does not respond within ten days, a second letter is sent. If the customer does not respond to the second letter within ten days, the account is restricted from further activity. The Advest compliance department reviews all aspects of the branch offices on an annual audit. Compliance then issues a report to the branch manager, the division manager, and the branch group manager. The computer generated commission report would automatically detect a trade executed by a registered representative not assigned to the account for which the trade is completed and would place an asterisk around the account executive number. The manager would then be contacted by the compliance department and asked to explain the discrepancy. In addition to the ordinary compliance procedures in place at Advest, to address the concerns of the Department and other regulatory agencies, Advest proposes several measures to reduce even further the likelihood of violations in the new Clearwater office to which it will assign Grolemund as branch manager. First, it will limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year. Second, it will require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance; during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, two annual routine compliance monitoring visits will be made, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, the branch group manager personally will review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order granting Grolemund's application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., subject only to the following conditions: First, that Advest limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year; Second, that Advest require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, that Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance and that, during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, that Advest make two annual routine compliance monitoring visits to Grolemund's office, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, that the branch group manager personally review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5880 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part in that the Department did not consider the order of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the order of the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on the 1988 "Keel" complaint before giving notice of intent to deny the application. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in the sense that final action has not yet been taken. As it refers to Department notice of intended action, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the system was in operation since 1980. 21.-23. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. First clause, accepted; second clause, rejected consistent with the NASD orders. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 43.-46. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated in the form of the findings of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the 1988 "Keel" complaint. Accepted but unnecessary. 49.-50. Accepted and incorporated. 51.-52 Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. Rejected that the orders were entered in 1986 and 1988; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 5.-7. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. 8.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted that the Committee characterized its decision in those terms by way of explaining why it was just to differentiate between Prudential-Bache and its representatives, including Grolemund, and E.F. Hutton and its representatives. However, in fact, the various dispositions were agreed by the parties. It is unnecessary to include this finding. 15.-18. Accepted and incorporated. 19. Accepted but unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated. 22. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Esquire Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Legal Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact By Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties on August 30, 1990, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that: Petitioner, Edward T. Strehlau, is President and control person of Deerfield Securities, Inc. On or about February 3, 1989, Petitioners filed an application, (Form BD), for registration as a broker/dealer, which was signed by Mr. Strehlau. On or about March 15, 1989, Petitioners filed with the Division an amendment to that Form BD. On or about April 19, June 22, and July 20, 1989, Petitioners filed additional amendments to the Form BD initially signed and submitted on behalf of the Petitioners by Mr. Strehlau. All of the Forms BD and amendments filed by Petitioner, Strehlau, with the Division were represented by him as true and complete. On February 3, 1989, Petitioner, Strehlau, also filed the Articles of Incorporation of Deerfield Securities, Inc., with the Florida Secretary of State. These Articles listed Edward T. Strehlau, Patericia O'Dell, William Manger, and Patricia Strehlau as Directors. The Division of Securities requires the filing of the Articles of Incorporation along with the dorm BD. This requirement is outlined in Section 517.12, Florida Statutes. Neither William Manger nor Patricia Strehlau were listed as Directors of Deerfield Securities, Inc., on the Form BD or on any amendments thereto which were filed with the Division. Mr. Manger is the subject of a complaint relating to securities violations committed by Eiffel Securities, Inc., Mr. Manger, a Mr. Riddle, and a Mr. Ashbee, in the State of Tennessee. On or about February 23, 1989, Mr. Strehlau, as President of Deerfield, withdrew the application for registration of Deerfield Securities, Inc., as a broker dealer with the State of Tennessee, and further agreed not to reapply for registration as a broker/dealer in that State, and not to sell Deerfield Investments, Inc.'s investment units in Tennessee. Deerfield Securities, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deerfield Investments, Inc. Edward T. Strehlau is a control person and President of Deerfield Investments, Inc. The principal place of business of Deerfield Securities, Inc. is Sarasota, Florida. William Manger, at all times pertinent hereto, was President and a control person of the aforementioned Eiffel Securities, Inc., a Tennessee corporation. Petitioner, Edward T. Strehlau, was a control person of Eiffel Securities, Inc., during the period June 1, 1988 through September 21, 1988. Eiffel Securities, Inc. was a wholly owned subsidiary of Tennessee Investments Marketing Enterprises, (TIME), and Edward T. Strehlau was vice-president of TIME between June, 1988 and September, 1988. On February 3, 1989, Petitioner Strehlau paid $200.00 in filing fees for Deerfield Securities, Inc. with the Florida Division of Securities. On February 10, 1989, The Division of Securities notified Deerfield of several deficiencies in its application for registration as a securities dealer. These deficiencies included a requirement for: the officer or partner names of the parent firm; registration as a foreign corporation or a legal opinion indicating no need therefor;+ a clearing agreement from a dealer in Florida signed by both firms; Articles of Incorporation or partnership agreement; proof of securities effectiveness and compliance with SIPC (Securities Investors Protection Corporation). Thereafter, on February 27, March 16, April 20, June 22, and July 18, 1989, Mr. Strehlau sent letters to the Division of Securities in which he attempted to convince the Division of his compliance with the requirements set forth in the February 10, 1989 deficiencies letter. The Petitioner's efforts, however, were not supported by facts in some particulars. For example, the clearing agreement with OTRA, to be signed by both parties, was signed only by Petitioner Strehlau as President of Deerfield Securities, Inc., and attested by Patericia O'Dell of the firm. No signature from any responsible party of OTRA appears on the document. By letter dated December 2, 1988, Mr. Strehlau submitted this unilaterally executed clearing agreement. By letter dated February 22, 1989, the vice- president for finance of the SIPC attested that Deerfield Securities, Inc. was, as of that date, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), as a securities broker under Section 15(b), of the 1934 Securities Investor Protection Act, and by operation of that Act, the corporation would be a member of SIPC unless its business consisted exclusively of various activities which are not pertinent to this hearing. It would appear, therefore, that Deerfield Securities, Inc. was, at the time of application at least, a member of SIPC. It is also found, however, that the application for registration submitted by Mr. Strehlau on behalf of himself and Deerfield Securities, Inc. contained what appears to be a material misrepresentation of fact in that it did not list Mr. Manger and Mrs. Strehlau as Directors. Mr. Manger had a disciplinary history in the industry in Tennessee and his omission was material. Article VI of Deerfield Securities' Articles of Incorporation filed with the Florida's Secretary of State's office listed Mr. Manger as one of the original Directors of Deerfield Securities, Inc. as of February 3, 1989. However, when Mr. Strehlau submitted the application for registration for Deerfield, (Form BD), neither that form nor any of the subsequent amendments listed Manger as a Director or affiliated person even though the form required that all Directors be listed. Mr. Strehlau contends that Manger and Mrs. Strehlau were omitted because neither were to take an active part in the management of Deerfield's operations. The Division, however, considered the omission to be a false material statement since the Directors of an applicant are considered to be pertinent to its operation. In this, the Division is correct. The Division also took the position that the pending Tennessee disciplinary action against Mr. Manger was significant. It surmised that Manger, seeing he could not be licensed in Florida on his own, was attempting to achieve this end through Mr. Strehlau, and the Department was concerned there was still a relationship between Manger and Deerfield. There is no evidence, direct or otherwise, to support that suspicion. When an application form is sent to an applicant, upon the applicant's request, an instruction sheet is sent with it which outlines the basic requirements for filing. These instructions are not, however, all inclusive or controlling. The statutes and Rules of the Department, pertinent to criteria for application and registration, constitute the ultimate guidelines over who is approved for registration. When Division analysts review an application, they check it against a requirements check list to insure that all requirements are met. If required information is not included with the application, the Division must notify the applicant of the omitted information within 30 days. If the requested information is received within 60 days, the Division then has an additional 90 days in which to rule on the application. If the omitted information is not timely received, however, the Division can deny the application for incompleteness or approve it if appropriate. On the other hand, when all required information is received timely, if the Division does not act on the application within 90 days, the application is automatically approved and if a discrepancy is thereafter noted, corrective action must be through disciplinary action rather than denial. The Division's denial action here was based on two grounds. The first was the failure to list Mr. Manger as a Director on the original Form BD or any of the amendments thereto. The second was Mr. Manger's prior and pending disciplinary record. Even if the pending action were not considered, the Division would still have denied the Petitioner, Deerfield's, application based on the prior, completed disciplinary actions against Mr. Manger in Tennessee. Petitioner claims that the Division did not request a second time those items listed on the initial deficiency letter and which were not thereafter provided by him. It is the Division's policy that once the initial deficiency letter is sent, calling for additional information, if the applicant submits only a part of those items identified, it will not send out another notification reminding the applicant of the still- missing items. It is not required that such follow-up notification be sent. If, however, the applicant calls and inquires if its application is complete, the Division will advise the applicant which of the previously noted deficiencies have not yet been corrected. Here, no such inquiry by the Petitioner was made. In this case, the Division took the position that Petitioner's application was never complete since there was no clearing agreement signed by the required parties prior to approval. Further, Mr. Strehlau's application as a principal failed to include a proper copy of his personal disciplinary history regarding a dismissed charge of felonious pointing a fire arm in Oklahoma in 1981. Under Florida law, every securities dealership must have a registered principal and Mr. Strehlau was to fill that capacity for Deerfield. Since his application could not be deemed complete because of the failure to provide all the required information, neither could Deerfield's be deemed complete. The State of Florida will not approve the application of a broker/securities dealer without approval of the National Association of Securities Dealers, (NASD). It is normal practice for NASD and Florida approval to be at the same time. There is an attempt at coordination, but Florida cannot approve a dealer for registration without the approval of the SEC and NASD. As of March 8, 1989, the state had been advised that NASD was prepared to approve Deerfield Securities, Inc., though it had some reservations about the firm which were insufficient to support denial. Even had NASD granted approval, however, NASD registration and membership does not guarantee Florida registration. The standards for registration are different. No doubt Mr. Strehlau made many phone calls to the Division in an effort to get approval of these applications. Without question he submitted numerous amendments to the Form BD in an effort to provide that information that the Division asked for in a timely and proper manner. His claims that neither Mr. Manger nor Mrs. Strehlau were listed as Directors on any of the forms because they were not involved in the operation of the business, and that had it been intended for them to work in an operational capacity, they would have been listed are not persuasive, however. Notwithstanding his argument that if the Division had any questions about that, it should have inquired, clearly, that is not the Division's responsibility to do.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the application of Deerfield Securities, Inc. to be registered as a broker/dealer, and the application of Edward T. Strehlau to be registered as an associated person/principal of Deerfield Securities, Inc., in Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Strehlau, pro se 13122 Woodington Drive Houston, Texas 77038 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a principal with Monvest Securities, Inc., should be granted by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities (Department).
Findings Of Fact The petitioner was registered with the Department as an associated person pursuant to Chapter 517, as follows: DATE COMPANY 9/22/82 to 9/19/83 Blinder, Robinson & Co. 11/23/83 to 6/26/84 First Interwest Securities Co. 9/4/84 to 12/27/84 Wall Street West, Inc. 3/11/85 to 10/3/85 R. H. Stewart & Co., Inc. 9/25/85 to 12/3/85 Allied Capital Group, Inc. Petitioner has not been registered with the Department in any capacity since December 3, 1985. The Department uses the forms adopted and approved by the National Association of Securities Dealers (N.A.S.D.) and filed with the Central Registration Depository (C.R.D.). Customarily, the registration application, Form U-4, is filled out by the applicant and given to the Broker-Dealer with whom the applicant is to be licensed. The Broker-Dealer then completes the form with the information concerning that Broker-Dealer and sends the completed form to the C.R.D. After Form U-4 has been filed with the C.R.D., the information is transmitted to the Department. The Broker-Dealer is advised when the applicant has been approved, and the Broker-Dealer informs the applicant that he can begin selling securities. It generally takes between one and two weeks for an applicant to be approved. No license or other paper is transmitted to the applicant from the Department to inform the applicant of his registration. However, the applicant can telephone the Department and determine his status. When an individual leaves the employ of a Broker-Dealer, the Broker- Dealer is required to send a Form U-5 to the C.R.D. within 30 days of termination. The individual never receives a copy of this form from either the C.R.D. or the Department or knows when it has been sent or received. Again, the associated person relies on the Broker-Dealer to advise him of his status. There is a procedure whereby an individual registered with one Broker- Dealer can transfer to another Broker-Dealer. This procedure, known as T.A.T., allows the individual to sell securities for 30 days while his application for registration with the new Broker-Dealer is pending. However, this procedure applies only to individuals who transfer their affiliation. It does not apply to individuals who terminate their affiliation with one company and then apply for registration with another company. Petitioner's registration as an associated person with Allied Capital terminated on December 3, 1985, and petitioner was advised by Allied Capital of his termination around December 1, 1985. Petitioner was terminated by Allied Capital due to insufficient business. On or about December 16, 1985, petitioner traveled to New York and spoke with representatives of Monvest Securities, Inc. (Monvest), regarding his registration through that company to open a branch office in Apopka, Florida. The same day he filled out a portion of a Form U-4 and gave it to the company for them to complete and send on to the C.R.D. Monvest also agreed to prepare the necessary documents to register the branch office in Apopka. Generally, the Broker-Dealer submits the application for the branch office. The application was submitted by Monvest on January 8, 1986. According to the application, petitioner was to be employed with Monvest in their office at 116-C East 5th Street, Apopka, Florida. There is no branch office of Monvest registered with the Department at that address. Petitioner stated in the employment history section of the application that from September of 1984 through November of 1984 he was unemployed. However, from September 4, 1984, until December 27, 1984, petitioner was registered as an associated person with Wall Street West. Petitioner made this error because he merely copied the employment history section from the previous application submitted for registration with Allied Capital. However, there was not a satisfactory explanation given as to why Wall Street West was omitted from the employment history listed on the Allied Capital application. Petitioner also stated in his employment history that he worked for R. H. Stewart & Company as a branch manager from December 1984 until August 1984. Petitioner was actually registered with R. H. Stewart from March 11, 1985 until October 3, 1985. However, because of the way the registration and termination systems work, it is not surprising that an individual's employment dates might be somewhat different from the dates of his official registration. When petitioner filled out the application form and left it with Monvest, he though that the application would be routinely processed, as all his others had been, and that approval would be forthcoming. In the meantime, petitioner had been involved in another business venture known as Global 2000 along with two other individuals. The group retained a law firm in Miami versed in securities regulations which prepared a document called "Confidential Private Placement Memorandum, Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Company" and a "Supplement to Private Offering". Petitioner is a principal in Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Company (collectively known as the Global 2000 Group). The number of investors in the Global 2000 Group is limited to no more than thirty-five, and the total offering is less than $500,000.00. Petitioner testified that the offering was a "Regulation D" offering, and therefore formal registration was not required. At the time of the hearing, petitioner was unaware of any sale of Global 2000 Group stock. On January 1, 1986, the Global 2000 Group published a "Supplement to Private Offering Memorandum, Global 2000, Inc., and Global 2000 Securities Corporation." The supplement had been sent to the printers on or about December 1, 1986, but was dated January 1, 1986. The last page of this supplement contains a picture of Woerz and the following: Melvin W. Woerz President Global 2000 Securities Company (Age 55) Licensed General Securities Principal and Registered Representative with the Division of Securities, Department of Banking and Finance, State of Florida; Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.; NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers . . . In the bottom right corner of this page was the following: Global 2000 Securities Company 116-C East Fifth Street Apopka, Florida 32708 1-800-782-7710 This supplement was sent to all individuals who received the Private Placement Memorandum for Global 2000, Inc., and ten or fifteen other individuals. The Private Placement Memorandum and supplement were mailed shortly after January 1, 1986. At the time the supplement was mailed, petitioner was not registered with the Department nor was Global 2000 Securities Company. On or about January 22, 1986, petitioner mailed to forty or fifty individuals copies of a three page publication entitled "Our Recommendations." This publication advocates the purchase of various over the counter securities. The bottom of page three of this publication reads as follows: WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU!!! TAKE CARE MEL WOERZ AND ART BESCH SECURITIES BROKERS 116-C East Fifth Street Apopka, Florida 32703 PHONE: (305) 886-2288 COLLECT (800) 782-7710 IN FLORIDA (800) 423-0219 OUTSIDE FLORIDA There was no Broker-Dealer registered with the Department by the name of Mel Woerz and Art Besch. When "Our Recommendations" was mailed, petitioner was not sure whether his application for registration with Monvest had been approved in Florida. However, since Monvest had notified petitioner of his approval in six states, but not Florida, petitioner should have known that his application had not yet been approved in Florida. "Our Recommendations" was sent to prior clients of petitioner and Art Besch. Both Besch and petitioner stated that the intent of the communication was merely to keep in touch with their customers while awaiting approval. Petitioner has not sold any securities since leaving Allied Capital. On the application filed with the Department, petitioner agreed "to abide by, comply with, and adhere to all the provisions, conditions, and covenants of the statutes . . . and rules and regulationns of the states. "
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for registration pursuant to Section 517.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that petitioner has violated Sections 517.12(1) and 517.311(2), Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Section 517.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that petitioner's application contains a material false statement. It is also recommended that petitioner's application be denied because it designates as petitioner's place of employment a branch office that has not been registered. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 86-1785 Petitoner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1 & 2. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 7. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 4. Accepted in Paragraph 3. Accepted in Paragraph 5. 8 & 9. Accepted that petitioner's employment history did not correlate with his registration in Paragraph 10. Remainder rejected as unnecessary. 10-12. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted as stated in Paragraph 6. Accepted in Paragraph 1. Accepted, Paragraph 7. 16-18. Accepted in Paragraph 8. 19. Accepted in Paragraph 11. 20-22. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 12 and 13, last sentence and date of mailing rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Accepted generally in Paragraph 14. Accepted generally in Paragraph 17'. Accepted in Paragraph 15. Accepted in Paragraph 1. First sentence accepted in Paragraph 9, second sentence rejected for reason stated in Paragraph 9, last sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1-3. Accepted in Paragraph 8, except date changed to January 8th because that is when Monvest signed application. Accepted in Paragraph 1. Accepted generally in Paragraph 13. 6 & 7. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 8. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 14 and 16. 9. Accepted in Paragraph 15. 10. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 11. Accepted in Paragraphs 9 and 10. 12. Accepted in Paragraph 1. 13. Accepted in Paragraph 3. 14. Accepted in Paragraph 5. 15. Accepted generally in Paragraphs 1 and 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Kieffer, Esquire Post Office Box 2021 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On March 19, 1985 petitioner, Michael Scott Symons, became employed as a financial manager with the brokerage firm of Easter Guthmann & Kramer Securities, Inc. (EGK) at 7200 West Camino Real Street, Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida. In connection with his employment Symons filed an application for registration as an associated person of EGK with respondent, Department of Banking & Finance, Division of Securities (Division). The application was received by the Division on or about March 19, 1985 and was deemed to be complete on April 18, 1985. On that portion of the application entitled "Personal History" Symons gave 5700 Grillet Place, S.W., Fort Myers, Florida 33907 as his home address. He identified EGK's address as being 7200 West Camino Real, Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. Although Symons signed the application he stated that EGK had actually submitted the application on his behalf since it was a common practice for brokerage firms to do administrative work on behalf of their employees. This is consistent with an agency rule (3E-600.02(3), F.A.C.) which requires that a securities dealer file and countersign the application for registration on behalf of an associated person. On March 24, 1985, or shortly after he began employment with EGK, Symons moved into an apartment at 6091 Boca Colony Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33427. Approximately one month later, he began renting Post Office Box 3299 in Boca Raton. Symons did not inform the Division of these changes in address, or otherwise amend his application. On or about July 12, 1985 a Division bureau chief spoke by telephone with the chief financial officer of EGK and asked if EGK would voluntarily withdraw Symons' application. Later that same day, an EGK vice-president telephoned the bureau chief and advised him the firm would not withdraw the application. On July 16, 1985, the Division prepared and dated an Order Denying Application for Registration as an Associated Person. The next day a Division attorney sent a copy by certified mail to Symons' at 5700 Grillett Place, S.W., Fort Myers, Florida. Because Symons' wife had previously provided the post office with a change of address form the envelope containing the order was forwarded from Fort Myers to Post Office Box 3229 in Boca Raton. Certified mail notices were thereafter placed in the box on July 24 and July 31. However, the mail was never claimed. On August 8, 1985 the envelope was returned to the Division. It was received in Tallahassee on August 12, 1985. There is no evidence that Symons was aware the order had been mailed or that he deliberately failed to claim the letter. The agency attorney similarly assumed that Symons had not received a copy. Accordingly, it is found that at this point in time Symon had no knowledge that the July 16 order-was entered, and had been mailed to him in Fort Myers and Boca Raton. On August 19, 1985 the Division attorney again sent a copy of the July 16 order by certified mail to 7200 West Camino Real, Suite 200, Boca Raton. This was the address of EGK. According to the attorney, it was her intention to mail the order to Symons, and not his employer. The order contained the following pertinent language on page 5: Respondent is advised that Respondent may request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. A request for such hearing must comply with the provisions of Rule 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code, and must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of this order. Otherwise, Respondent will be deemed to have waived all rights to such hearing. The certified mail receipt for the envelope containing the order was apparently signed for by Charlie Shields, an EGK employee. 1/ It eventually reached the desk of EGK's chief financial officer, James Weber, in an unopened envelope on August 23, 1985. Weber opened the envelope and read the enclosed order. He noticed on page five of the order that there was a twenty-one day time frame in which an appeal of the agency denial could be made. Believing that the twenty-one day time frame began on July 16, Weber erroneously concluded that the time to request a hearing had already expired. This was probably because he had never before seen a denial order, and was not familiar with the procedures under Chapter 120, F.S. Weber then showed the order to Edward Guthmann, a principal and vice- president of EGK. Guthmann telephoned an out- of-state attorney seeking advice on how to proceed, and sent a copy of the order to the attorney on August 23. The attorney did not take any action, and returned the order to Guthmann on an undisclosed dated between late August and the middle of September. On September 17 Weber "came to the realization" that under any interpretation of the order the time frame in which to request a hearing had run. He then contacted petitioner's present counsel on September 17 to discuss obtaining legal representation for Symons. Symons has continued using that counsel since that time. A petition for hearing was eventually filed with respondent on October 1, 1985. This petition was denied by agency order entered on October 16, 1985 on the ground Symons had "constructive receipt and notice of the Denial Order at the time of its delivery by U.S. Certified Mail to Respondent's personal address on July 24 1985, and furthermore, deems Respondent to have received actual notice. . . on August 25, 1985, when the Denial Order was claimed and signed for at EGK's address as listed on the application." Neither Weber or Guthmann informed Symons prior to September 15 that they had received the Division order, or that the document even existed. They also did not advise him that they had contacted an out-of-state attorney in August in an effort to obtain advice. In this regard, petitioner had not authorized them to take any action with respect to the denial order, or to seek the advice of an attorney. Symons was unaware of the existence of the denial order prior to September 20, 1985 when he was shown a copy of the order by his employer. Had he been aware of the order prior to September 15, he would have filed a request for a hearing. Even though he did not specifically voice an objection to his employer opening his mail, Symons did not expressly authorize his employer to accept the order or any other notices from respondent. Indeed, Symons considered certified mail to be "a personal thing," and something that "an employer has (no) right to open."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing to contest respondent's denial of his application for registration as an associated person. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1986.
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.
