Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before the BOARD OF MEDICINE (Board) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(4), Florida Statutes, on August 5, 2011, in Jacksonville, Florida, for the purpose of considering a Settlement Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) entered into between the parties in this cause. Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement, the documents submitted in support thereof, the arguments of the parties, and being otherwise full advised in the premises, the Board rejected the Settlement Agreement and offered a Counter Settlement Agreement which was accepted on the record by the parties. The Counter Settlement Agreement incorporates the original Settlement Agreement with the following amendments: 1. The costs set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Stipulated Disposition shall be set at $6,697.92. 2. The requirement for community service set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Stipulated Disposition shall be deleted. 3. The requirement for the continuing medical education (CME) in Paragraph 8 of the Stipulated Disposition shall be deleted. 4. Respondent’s license is permanently restricted as follows: Respondent is prohibited from engaging in telemedicine to treat citizens of the United States. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Settlement Agreement as submitted be and is hereby approved and adopted in toto and incorporated by reference with the amendments set forth above. Accordingly, the parties shall adhere to and abide by all the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement as amended. This Final Order shall take effect upon being filed with the Clerk of the Department of Health. DONE AND ORDERED this | yh day of _( gus’ F BOARD OF MEDICINE 2011. Executive Director For GEORGE MAS, M.D., Chair CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been provided by U.S. Mail to FRANK C. PIERRE, M.D., 10175 Collins Avenue, Suite 808, Bal Harbour, Florida 33154; to Anthony C. Vitale, Esquire, Law Center at Brickell Bay, 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1, Miami, Florida 33129; to Allen R. Grossman, Esquire, Grossman, Furlow & Bayo, LLC, 2022-2 Raymond Diehl Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32308; and by interoffice delivery to Veronica Donnelly, Department of Health, 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin #C-65, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3253 this | aay of wot 2011. Mabie I abatio, Deputy Agency Clerk
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent violated the law as charged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency with the statutory authority and duty to license and regulate insurance agents in Florida. Respondent holds license D033674 as a life and health insurance agent. At the time of the events which are the subject of this case, Respondent also held a license to sell securities. At the time of the events which are the subject of this case, Respondent was employed by First Liberty Group and sold life insurance, annuities, and viatical settlement purchase agreements ("viaticals"). A viatical is a written agreement which provides for an investor's purchase of an interest in the proceeds of a life insurance policy of an anonymous insured person, the "viator." The agreement provides for the amount of money that the investor will receive upon the death of the viator. One general principle underlying a viatical is that it provides a means for a terminally ill person who needs money to sell or assign the proceeds of a life insurance policy that would be paid upon his or her death. Another general principle is that the viator, due to the terminal illness, has been diagnosed to have a short life expectancy. Although the identity of the viator is not revealed to the investor, the investor is provided information about the viator's gender, age, illness, and life expectancy. Facts Common to All Counts A company that "viaticates" life insurance policies and arranges for diagnoses of life expectancies by medical doctors is called a "viatical settlement provider." For all the viaticals sold by Respondent, the viatical settlement provider was Mutual Benefits Corporation. Mutual Benefits Corporation was charged with and ultimately determined to have committed fraud with respect to its practices as a viatical settlement provider. The nature of the fraud was not made a part of the record in this case. Mutual Benefits Corporation was placed in a receivership to manage the remaining assets, liabilities, and contracts of the company. Respondent's employer, First Liberty Group, advertised that it offered a certificate of deposit (CD) at a very competitive annual interest rate. Potential customers who came in to inquire about or to purchase a CD were also informed about annuities and viaticals. Petitioner referred to this as a "bait and switch" technique. However, although the CD interest rate might have been the bait, there was no switch. Customers who wanted CDs were able to and did purchase CDs from First Liberty Group through Respondent at the advertised interest rate. Some customers also purchased annuities and viaticals. In the advertising materials provided to the investors by Respondent and in the Viatical Settlement Purchase Agreements signed by the investors, the amount the investors would receive upon the death of the insured is described as "fixed." For example, the return on an investment in a viaticated insurance policy for a viator with a three-year life expectancy was represented to be 42 percent. The 42 percent return was fixed in the sense that on an investment of $20,000, for example, the investor would receive 42 percent of $20,000, or $8,400, when the viator died. If the viator died six months after the purchase of the viatical, the investor would receive $8,400. If the viator died three years later, the investor would receive $8,400. If the viator died ten years later, the investor would receive $8,400. The viatical sales literature that Respondent gave to customers disclosed that the life expectancy of the viator, as determined by a doctor, was not guaranteed. Therefore, the amount of the return on the viatical investment was not fixed in the sense of an annual interest rate. In the examples given above, the annualized rate of return to the investor if the insured died six months later would be 84 percent (42 divided by .5 years). The annualized rate of return if the viator died three years later would be 14 percent (42 divided by 3 years). The annualized rate of return if the viator died ten years later would be 4.2 percent (42 divided by 10 years). Petitioner charged Respondent with not explaining to the investors that "the real rate of return on the investment was tied to the viator's date of death." However, Petitioner failed to prove this charge. Respondent did not tell the investors that the 42 percent return, for example, was an annual rate of return. The viatical sales materials provided to customers by Respondent did not describe the return on the investment as an annual rate of return. The effect that the date of the viator's death would have on the rate of return on the viatical is obvious. The sooner the viator died, the better the return; the later the viator died, the worse the return. The investors did not need specialized knowledge to understand this simple concept. No investor in this case said they did not understand that their return would be affected by when the viator died. None of the investors said they thought the "fixed rate" figure, such as 42 percent for a three-year viatical, was a guaranteed annual return. Each investor signed a Viatical Settlement Purchase Agreement that included a statement that the returns "are fixed and not annualized returns." (Emphasis in the original). Another factor affecting the actual return on a viatical investment is the possibility provided for under the terms of the viatical contract that the investor might have to pay a portion of the premiums on the life insurance policy in the event the viator lived longer than his or her life expectancy. Any payment of an insurance premium by the investor would cause a reduction in the return on the viatical investment. In the example given above, if the investor was required to pay $2,000 in premiums, his return on the $20,000 would no longer be $8,400, but only $6,400. The annualized return on the investment would be correspondingly reduced. In a worse case scenario, the possibility exists that the requirement to make premium payments could completely eliminate any potential return to the investor and even jeopardize the principal. The viatical advertising materials that Respondent provided to customers did not describe the possibility or impact of having to make premium payments as discussed above. The advertising materials generally downplayed the risks associated with a viatical. For example, one sales document described the viatical as appropriate for a conservative investor and suggested that viaticals are investments that provide "peace of mind." It was reasonable for Respondent and the sales materials to describe the insurance companies that issued the insurance policies as reliable and secure. However, it was not reasonable, nor accurate, to describe the viaticals as conservative investments because of the possibility that the insured person would live many years beyond his or her life expectancy and the possibility that the investor would have to make premium payments. Viaticals have the potential to provide a much better investment return than other types of investments. However, in conformance with the general rule that the higher the potential return on an investment, the greater the risk, the relatively high potential return on a viatical comes with a relatively high risk.1/ Respondent disclosed to the investors that there was a possibility they might have to make future premium payments, and it was described in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Viatical Settlement Purchase Agreements signed by the investors under the heading "Payment of Future Premiums." The agreement states that the payment of insurance premiums beyond the life expectancy of the viator is at the discretion of Mutual Benefits Corporation. Respondent told the investors that Mutual Benefits Corporation had a reserve or escrow fund that was managed in a way that created a premium "pool" so that the early death of a viator provided a surplus of money that could be used to pay premiums on the insurance policies of viators who lived beyond their life expectancies. Respondent also told the investors that 85 percent of the viators died early, which created a large surplus in the escrow fund to pay future premiums. The viatical contracts, however, only stated that unused premiums "may" be retained in the reserve fund by Mutual Benefits Corporation. At some point after the investors involved in this case purchased viaticals from Respondent, Mutual Benefits Corporation was the subject of enforcement action for fraud and placed in receivership. There was evidently no longer a surplus or reserve fund to pay premiums on insurance policies associated with viators who lived beyond their life expectancy, and that burden fell on the investors. All the investors involved in this case told Respondent they were conservative investors with a low tolerance for risk. There is a commonality in their perceptions of viaticals derived from their discussions with Respondent, that viaticals were safe and conservative investments. However, viaticals are relatively risky investments due to their illiquidity and the fundamental conditions affecting the return and the security of the principal that are beyond the control of the investor. Respondent knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence on behalf of the customers who purchased viaticals, that viaticals are relatively high-risk investments. Respondent misrepresented the risk character of viaticals in his discussions with the investors involved in this case. He had a motive to downplay the true risk character of the viaticals, because he received a commission for every sale of a viatical. If Respondent had informed the investors of the true risk character of viaticals, the investors might not have purchased the viaticals. The definition of "security" in Section 517.021, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2006 to specifically identify "viatical settlement investment" as a type of security. Respondent does not dispute that a viatical is a security. There is no dispute that the viaticals sold by Respondent, which are the subject of this case, were not registered securities when Respondent sold them in 2003. Count I - Simons Charles Simons was 81 years old in 2003. He has eight years of education. He used to work as a truck driver in a quarry associated with a cement plant, but is now retired. He owns real estate and has an annual income over $100,000 and a net worth of $600,000 to $700,000. Mr. Simons saw the CD advertised by First Liberty Group and came in with his wife to invest $100,000 he had acquired from the recent sale of real estate. They met with Respondent in July 2003. Mr. and Mrs. Simons invested $50,000 in two or more CDs and an annuity. They also purchased two viaticals for $50,000. Mr. and Mrs. Simons purchased two three-year viaticals, meaning that medical doctors who had purportedly examined the medical records of the insured persons expected them to die of their terminal illnesses within three years. The Simons invested $25,000 in each of the viaticals. Although four years have passed since the Simons purchased the three-year viaticals, neither of the insured persons has died. Mr. Simons has had to make a premium payment of approximately $2,000 on one of the underlying policies.2/ Count II – Lenois Allan Lenois was 70 years old in 2003. He is a high school graduate, studied accounting and taxation, and worked for a lumber company where he supervised 300 employees. His wife, Marion, was an accountant. They are now retired. In August 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Lenois went to see Respondent after seeing the CD advertisement in the newspaper. While in Respondent's office, they noticed a poster advertisement on the office wall about viaticals and asked Respondent about them. Mr. Lenois' deposition testimony that Respondent called the viaticals "guaranteed" is not persuasive, given Respondent's testimony at the final hearing that he used these kinds of words to describe the industry rating of the insurance companies involved and the federal-insured reserve fund account, not the viatical itself. However, as previously found, Respondent misrepresented the viaticals to be relatively conservative investments to all the investors. Mr. and Mrs. Lenois invested $20,000 in an annuity. In a deposition of Mr. Lenois, he stated that he thought he had purchased a CD from Respondent, not an annuity, and was surprised that he had to pay a surrender penalty. Petitioner makes this same allegation in its Proposed Recommended Order, but Mr. Lenois' testimony is not persuasive because he signed a disclosure document that states "I understand that I have purchased an annuity . . . and not a Bank Certificate of Deposit," and the word "annuity" is written on the personal check used to purchase the annuity. Furthermore, the allegation was not included in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. and Mrs. Lenois purchased one three-year viatical for $10,000. Although four years have passed since they purchased the viatical, the viator is still alive. Mr. and Ms. Lenois have not yet had to make a premium payment associated with their viatical. Count II – Luenberger Floy Leuenberger is a retired school teacher. She has a master's degree in counseling and education. Her husband is a retired bank employee. The Leuenbergers have a net worth just over $500,000. The Leuenbergers saw the CD advertised by First Liberty Group and came in to invest $75,000. They met with Respondent in October 2003. They saw a poster on the wall of Respondent's office about viaticals and asked Respondent about them. The Leuenbergers invested $50,000 in CDs and purchased two viaticals for $12,500 each. One of the viaticals purchased by the Leuenbergers "paid out" because the viator died, and they received the return Respondent quoted to them. The other viatical they purchased from Respondent has not yet paid out. The Leuenbergers have had to make a premium payment of approximately $1,500 on the remaining viatical. Count III – Berge Oscar Berge is retired from the United States Air Force and from a subsequent job as a maintenance supervisor for a health care facility. Mr. Berge obtained a college degree in avionics instrument technology while in the Air Force. Mr. Berge saw the CD advertised by First Liberty Group. He and his wife met with Respondent in late 2002 and, in January 2003, invested in two annuities and five viaticals. Mr. and Mrs. Berge purchased two three-year viaticals for $30,000 each and three five-year viaticals for $30,000 each; a total investment of $150,000. Although four years have passed since the Berges purchased the three-year viaticals, the two viators have not died. The Berges have had to make two premium payments totaling approximately $5,000.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds that Respondent Bradley Kline violated Subsections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (16) and 626.621(9), Florida Statutes, and revokes his license as an insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 9th day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, James Robert Stiffler, knowingly made untrue statements of material facts to induce Frank Galasso to purchase two viatical settlement agreements. Essentially, the charges are that Respondent, in his solicitations and negotiations with Frank Galasso, stated that viatical settlement agreements were, "guaranteed," "no risk," "fully secured," "risk free," "non-speculative," and promised a "fixed rate of return;" and that Respondent provided viatical settlement agreement literature containing one or more the above the prohibited phrases, for the purpose of inducing Frank Galasso to purchase, and Frank Galasso did purchase, two viatical settlement agreements for money paid.
Findings Of Fact The background activities pertinent to the dates and occurrences between Respondent and Mr. Galasso are presented. Simultaneous activities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter FBI) investigating other companies, including principals of American Benefits Services, Inc. (hereinafter "ABS") involved in the sale of viatical agreement in Florida are summarized. FRANK GALASSO and RESPONDENT At an unspecified time in mid 1998, Frank Galasso, a retired licensed real estate and casualty insurance agent, had his first exposure to viatical purchases while watching "60 Minutes" on television. In October of 1998, Frank Galasso, in response to a newspaper advertisement, called Respondent's listed phone number and left a message expressing his interest in viatical and requested a return phone call. In a January 1999 return phone call to Mr. Galasso, Mr. Galasso advised Respondent that he was not quite ready and needed more time to consider the purchase. A subsequent follow-up phone call in April 1999, resulted in Respondent and Mr. Galasso discussing diversifying Mrs. Galasso's portfolio with the possibility of investing in a viatical settlement agreement purchase. In May of 1999, Respondent met with Mr. Galasso at Mr. Galasso's residence and explained the viatical purchase agreement "from start to finish." Respondent gave Mr. Galasso a package of literature and other information provided Respondent by ABS. After a two-and-one-half-hours of discussion Mr. Galasso purchased a $13,429.93 viatical agreement for Mrs. Galasso's Individual Retirement Account. A receipt of purchase and the agreement of purchase were given to Mr. Galasso. On June 11, 1999, Respondent met again with Mr. Galasso for discussion of and consummation of a second purchase of a viatical settlement agreement. Respondent assured Mr. Galasso that he would receive interest payments of 9.85 percent, per annum, paid monthly for 36 months and when the viator died, he, Mr. Galasso, would receive his principal investment of $25,000 back. Respondent further assured Mr. Galasso that after one year he could rescind the viatical purchase agreement, retain all interest paid, and get his principal back by sending a written request at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date of purchase. In June 1999, ABS informed Mr. Galasso that the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, filed an administrative complaint alleging violations by ABS of the state's "Securities Act" and that a stipulation and consent to Final Order Agreement was entered, effective August 10, 1999. In July of 1999, Mr. Galasso, reading the Herald Tribune, became aware that ABS and Financial Federated were under investigation by the FBI. In August of 1999, Mr. Galasso made several written attempts to exercise his option to rescind his viatical purchase agreements without success. FBI AGENT, ANTHONY YANKETIS, and VIATICAL SALES ENTITIES Unknown to Respondent and Mr. Galasso, in May/June of 1998, Anthony Yanketis, FBI special agent of the economic crimes division, initiated an investigation regarding a viatical settlement as a result of information received from an investor in a viatical purchase agreement situation. In January 1999, the FBI confirmed that Ray Levy was the owner of ABS, a viatical settlement brokerage company that raised funds for the purchase of viatical settlements, that generated approximately six million ($6M) of investors funds each month. In June 1999, Jeffery Paine, Esquire, escrow agent for ABS, admitted that he merely rubber-stamped written representations from Financial Federated that insurance policies had been purchased and actual medical overviews conducted and released money held in escrow. In August 1999, FBI investigations revealed that approximately 90 percent of money obtained from investors were used for the purchase of personal benefits and the purchase of real estate; and that lulling letters were sent to insurance agents, attorneys, and viatical investors. FEDERAL GRAND JURY and VIATICAL SALES ENTITIES In September 2000, the Federal Grand Jury, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, returned a True Bill Indictment. The indictment introductory allegation states: At all times relevant and material to this indictment: Viatical settlements are the purchase of life insurance policies or their benefits at a discounted rate from a terminally ill person. The beneficial interest in the insurance policies purchase is sold or reassigned to an investor. A viatical investor receives the full benefits when the ill person dies. Count 9. From at least as early February, 1996, Viatical Asset Management, Asset Base Management, and later ABS operated as viatical settlement brokerage companies engaged in the business of locating investors who would purchase interests in viatical settlements. ABS obtained investors' funds through a network of independent insurance agents and financial consultants. Count 10. In connection with its viatical settlement brokerage business ABS used one or more participation disclosure documents that described the viatical settlement program it was offering for sale to investors. OBJECT OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD The object of the scheme and artifice to defraud was that defendants, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, would unlawfully enrich themselves by knowingly and willfully making false and fraudulent representations and promises, and . . . concealing material facts from prospective investors, inducing them to send personal checks, bank checks, wire transfers or money orders to Financial Federated, Viatical Asset Management, Asset Base Management, American Benefits Services, Inc, and the escrow agent. . . MANNER & MEANS OF EXECUTING THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD "Under false and fraudulent pretenses defendants, FREDRICK C. BRANDAU, and MARY ANNE BILLINGHURST, together with other persons . . . participated in recruiting insurance agents to solicit investors in viaticated insurance policies . . ." (a) . . . investor funds obtained by American Benefits Services . . . would be used to purchase viaticated insurance benefits; (b). . . investors was guaranteed a 42% rate of return within 36 months on his or her investment if the insured party died. (a) While over $115 million in investors funds were transferred to Financial Federated for the primary purpose of purchasing insurance policies, less then $6 million was actually used to purchase policies . . . the vast majority of such monies was used to fun commissions for ABS and Financial Federated employees, and to purchase real and personal property around the United States that had nothing to do with viatical business. (f) the defendants knew that the irrevocable assignment of trust benefits was not a "guaranteed receivable from the insurance company." The defendants knew that 90% of the investors funds had been used to buy real and personal property, and not insurance policies. Accordingly, the defendants knew that the vast majority of the assigned "trust benefits" were worthless, and not a "guaranteed receivable" since most investors had no underlying insurance policy securing their investment. OVERT ACTS (t) In or about June 1998 . . . FREDRICK C. BRANDAU, and MARY ANN BILLINGHURST attended a meeting with numerous insurance agents for the purpose of promoting the activities of FINANCIAL FEDERATED. (Respondent's Exhibit "C") James Robert Stiffler, at all times pertinent and material hereto, was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, therefore authorized by Section 626.992(4), Florida Statutes, to perform the functions of a viatical settlement agent. At all times pertinent and material hereto, James Robert Stiffler, d/b/a/ "James Financial Inc.," worked for ABS through U.S. Investors Group and Seniors Financial Resources. At all times pertinent and material hereto, Rafael Levy, a/k/a Ray Levy, was the principal of ABS. Fred Brandau, convicted on 42 counts of fraud in United States District Court and awaiting sentencing, was the head of Financial Federated. ABS sales agents would procure investors to provide money to Financial Federated. Financial Federated provided the viaticals to ABS, which were in turn sold by Respondent to Frank Galasso. Respondent, in May of 1999, solicited and sold a viatical settlement agreement to Frank Galasso for Mrs. Galasso's IRA. During solicitation and sale Respondent represented and made untrue statements of material fact to Frank Galasso that the viatical were "secure," "had no risk," and "was safe." Respondent, in October 1998, gave to Frank Galasso literature provided by ABS containing statements and assertions, which were untrue, deceptive, and misleading. On June 11, 1999, Respondent solicited and sold a viatical settlement purchase agreement to Frank Galasso for $25,000. During the solicitation and sale Respondent represented and made the following untrue statements of material fact: (a) that Frank Galasso would receive his principal back when the viator died; (b) that if the viator did not die within 36 months, Frank Galasso would be able to get his principal back; (c) that before expiration of one year from the purchase date, Frank Galasso would be able to rescind the purchase agreement, retain monthly interest paid, and get full refund of his principal; (d) that the investment was safe, and had no risk and until the viatical had been purchased he could receive his money back; and (e) that the $25,000.00 purchase price would go to an attorney, in trust, to be used to purchase a viatical. Respondent, on two separate occasions during the sales of viatical purchases agreements, presented literature provided by ABS to Mr. Galasso containing written assertions, to wit: (a) an investment with a "fixed 42 percent return"; (b) "Guaranteed"; (c) "no risk investment"; and (d) the principal is "safe." Respondent's defense that Frank Galasso was an experienced investor and therefore could not be persuaded into an investment he did not want is without merit. Respondent's defense that Frank Galasso's reliance upon ABS printed literature absolved him from liability is without merit. Respondent's defense that Frank Galasso purchased two viatical agreements based upon the representations made in the disclosure documents provided by ABS and presented by Respondent to Mr. Galasso is without merit. Respondent's defense that his inquiries and phone calls to the Department of Insurance resulted in no negative information concerning ABS is without merit. Respondent's defense that once the Department of Insurance became aware of problems with the business practices of ABS it had a duty to communicate that information to licensed agents, such as Respondent, is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the agency enter its final order finding Respondent, James Robert Stiffler, guilty of violations of Sections 626.611(1),(7) and (8); 626.99275(2)(b) and (c); 626.99277(6); 626.9541(1)(b); 626.99235(1), and 626.621.(2) and (6) Florida Statutes, and that Respondent, James Robert Stiffler's, license as an insurance agent in this State be suspended for a period of (91) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 8th day of November, 2000.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Agency Statements should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed insurance agent, and was the subject of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department that became DOAH Case No. 07-1218PL. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated Section 626.611(16), Florida Statutes, by selling unregistered viatical settlement contracts to four elderly individuals in 2003. Most pertinent to this case, the Administrative Complaint alleged: Viatical settlement contracts are investment contracts within the meaning of section 517.021(21)(q), Florida Statutes, and are therefore securities requiring registration pursuant to section 517.07, Florida Statutes. As to each of the transactions described below, the viatical settlement contracts sold by [Petitioner] . . . were unregistered securities.[3] The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Petitioner violated a number of other statutes (e.g., Sections 626.611(5), (7), and (9), and 626.621(9), Florida Statutes) based upon misrepresentations made by Petitioner in connection with the sales of the viatical settlement contracts. On October 9, 2007, Judge Canter issued a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-1218PL finding that Petitioner violated Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (16) and 626.621(9), Florida Statutes, and recommending that the Department revoke Petitioner’s license.4 The Recommended Order included the following findings and conclusions pertinent to the issue framed by the petition: [Petitioner] misrepresented the risk character of viaticals in his discussions with the investors involved in this case. He had a motive to downplay the true risk character of the viaticals, because if he received a commission for every sale of a viatical. If [Petitioner] had informed the investors of the true risk character of viaticals, the investors might not have purchased the viaticals. The definition of "security" in Section 517.021, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2006 to specifically identify "viatical settlement investment" as a type of security. [Petitioner] does not dispute that a viatical is a security. There is no dispute that the viaticals sold by [Petitioner], which are the subject of this case, were not registered securities when [Petitioner] sold them in 2003. * * * [Petitioner] objects to being charged with selling unregistered securities, because viaticals were not specifically defined as securities until 2006. [The Department] claims that, although viaticals were not specifically defined as securities in Section 517.021, Florida Statutes, in 2003, the prior definition, which included "investment contracts," was sufficient to include viaticals. [The Department] further asserts that viaticals have all the elements of a security as established by the case law. [The Department] is correct that a viatical met the definition of a security under the law that existed in 2003. However, the Administrative Law Judge does not agree with [the Department]'s argument that this interpretation of the law was clear and settled in 2003. The regulation of viaticals under the insurance code was a cause of confusion. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-231.080, the penalty for each violation of Subsections 626.611(5) and (7), Florida Statutes, is a six-month suspension; the penalty for each violation of Subsection 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, is a nine month suspension; and the penalty for each violation of Subsection 626.611(16), Florida Statutes, is a 12-month suspension. * * * 56. [U]nder Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-231.040(1)(a), the “penalty per count” cannot exceed the highest penalty for any violation under the count, which in this case is the 12-month suspension for sale of an unregistered security. Therefore, based on the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, the “total penalty” would be four years. * * * 58. A mitigating factor is the unsettled state of the law in 2003 regarding the legal status of viaticals as securities. However, even if the penalty for the sale of unlicensed securities were eliminated altogether and the penalty per count were reduced to a nine-month suspension, the total penalty would be suspension for 36 months. Subsection 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, does not permit Petitioner to suspend a license for more than two years. Therefore, the required penalty in this case is revocation of [Petitioner]’s license. Petitioner has filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, and the Department has not yet entered a Final Order.
Findings Of Fact 2. On April 16, 2008, the Department conducted an investigation and found Respondent conducting business at 1301 Seminole Blvd., Building C, Ste. 126, Largo, FL 33770. 3. At the time of the investigation Sal Cannatella was the general manager of the Respondent responsible for the operations at the foregoing business location. 4. Sixteen of Respondent’s employees at the above location made commercial telephone solicitations on behalf of Respondent. 5. At the time of the investigation Respondent was not registered with the Department. Respondent also was not licensed by the Office of Financial Regulation under Chapters 516 or 520, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor was Respondent a consumer finance lender supervised by any other governmental entity. 1 Filed May 29, 2009 1:42 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. 6. During the investigation Respondent produced a consumer finance license (#510102) and a retail installment seller license (#510522), both in the name of Interface Management, Inc. (“Interface”), and claimed to be an affiliate of Interface. Both licenses were issued by the Office of Financial Regulation. Respondent also produced a purported contract with an entity known as “Beginning Again, Inc.” 7. Respondent was a not a subsidiary of nor controlled Interface or Beginning Again. Conclusions of Law 8. The Department has authority to enforce Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes, the Florida Telemarketing Act (“Act”) and to enter this Settlement Agreement. §§120.57(4) and 501.612, Fla. Stat. (2007). 9. Respondent claimed it was exempt from the Act under §501.604(7), Florida Statutes, which states: 501.604 Exemptions.--The provisions of this part, except ss. 501.608 and 501.616(6) and (7), do not apply to: (7) Any supervised financial institution or parent, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof. As used in this section, "supervised financial institution” means any commercial bank, trust company, savings and loan association, mutual savings bank, credit union, industrial loan company, consumer finance lender, commercial finance lender, or insurer, provided that the institution is subject to supervision by an official or agency of this state, of any state, or of the United States. For the purposes of this exemption, "affiliate’ means a person who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a supervised financial institution. 10. Chapter 516, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: 516.02 Loans; lines of credit; rate of interest; license.-- (1) A person must not engage in the business of making consumer finance loans unless she or he is authorized to do so under this chapter or other statutes and unless the person first obtains a license from the office. $16.05 License.— (3) Only one place of business for the purpose of making loans under this chapter may be maintained under one license, but the office may issue additional licenses to a licensee upon compliance with all the provisions of this chapter governing issuance of a single license. 11. Chapter 520, Part II, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: §20.32 Licenses,-- (1) A person may not engage in or transact the business of a retail seller engaging in retail installment transactions as defined in this part or operate a branch of such business without a license, except that a license is not required for a retail seller whose retail installment transactions are limited to the honoring of credit cards issued by dealers in oil and petroleum products licensed to do business in this state. 12. | Whether Respondent claimed to be a “supervised financial institution” or an affiliate of Interface or Beginning Again, Respondent was required to have a separate license for its business location under Chapters 516 or 520, Part II, Florida Statutes. By failing to do so, Respondent was not exempt from the Act and was required to be licensed. §§501.604(7), 501.605(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Settlement Terms 13. To resolve these matters without further legal proceedings, the Department and Respondent expressly agree as follows: a. Respondent shall pay a total of Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2,500.00). Payment is due upon Respondent’s execution and return of this Settlement Agreement. b. Respondent shall not engage in commercial telephone solicitation without first being properly exempt or licensed under the Act. c. If Respondent is found engaging in commercial telephone solicitation without being properly licensed or exempt under the Act, Respondent admits such conduct constitutes an immediate threat to the safety and welfare of Florida consumers and consents to the immediate entry and service of an order by the Department requiring Respondent to cease and desist all activities in violation of the Act. Respondent waives all contested issues of material fact under §120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and consents to proceedings only under §120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In such proceedings, if Respondent is found in violation of the Act, Respondent consents to the entry of a final order imposing administrative fines of $10,000.00 per violation. 14. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law. 15. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees. 16. Venue for any action arising from this Settlement Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 17. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Department and Respondent, including anyone acting for, associated with, or employed by either of them, concerning only the matters specified above and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements, or understandings; there are no promises, representatioris, or agreements between the parties other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Settlement Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. 18. This is an agreement of settlement and compromise, recognizing the parties may have different or incorrect, information, understandings, or contentions as to facts and law, with each party compromising and settling all such information, understandings, and contentions as to fact and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be grounds for rescission of this Settlement Agreement. 19. Respondent expressly waives in this matter its rights to any hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Department, and all other proceedings, including appeals, to which Respondent may be entitled regarding any and all issues raised in this case. 20. This Settlement Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against any party. 21. To the extent any provision of this Settlement Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Settlement Agreement. 22. — This Settlement Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives, and trustees. 23. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Settlement Agreement. 24. Approval Authority: This Settlement Agreement shall be valid and binding on the Department only upon acceptance and approval of its terms as shown through the execution below by the Department’s authorized representative. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services LW Il Eric H. Miller, Senior Attorney 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 410-3775 (850) 410-3797 (facsimile) Date: [iw reeg National Consumer Services, Inc. SS _ La Print Name: SAL Te ANNATELLA Off Date: Yor © a
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Proposed Rule 69O-204.101 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Office of Insurance Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "OIR"), is an agency of the State of Florida, created within the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission"). § 20.121(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2007).2 Pursuant to Subsection 21.121(3)(a), the OIR is responsible for all activities concerning insurers and other risk-bearing entities, including licensing, rates, policy forms, market conduct, claims, issuance of certificates of authority, solvency, viatical settlements, premium financing, and administrative supervision, as provided under the Florida Insurance Code or Chapter 636. The Florida Insurance Code includes Chapters 624 through 632. The Commissioner of Insurance Regulation is the agency head of the OIR. However, the Commission is the agency head for purposes of rulemaking. § 20.121(3)(c). The matter at issue in this proceeding is Respondent's Proposed Rule 69O-204.101 entitled, "Disclosures to Viator of Disbursement" (the "Proposed Rule"). The Commission advertised the text of the Proposed Rule on November 30, 2007, in Volume 33, Number 48, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, and, subsequently, filed a Notice of Change to the Proposed Rule on February 15, 2008, and, again, on February 22, 2008. A final public hearing regarding the Proposed Rule was conducted by the Commission on March 25, 2008, at which time the Commission approved the Proposed Rule for final adoption. According to the published notice, the purpose and effect of Proposed Rule 69O-204.101 is "to establish disclosures to viators of reconciliation of funds." The text of the Proposed Rule, as noticed for final adoption, reads as follows: 69O-204.101 Disclosures to Viator of Disbursement. Prior to or concurrently with a viator's execution of a viatical settlement contract, the viatical settlement provider shall provide to the viator, in duplicate, a disclosure statement in legible written form disclosing: The name of each viatical settlement broker who receives or is to receive compensation and the amount of each broker's compensation related to that transaction. For the purpose of this rule, compensation includes anything of value paid or given by or at the direction of a viatical settlement provider or person acquiring an interest in one or more life insurance policies to a viatical settlement broker in connection with the viatical settlement contract; and A complete reconciliation of the gross offer or bid by the viatical settlement provider to the net amount of proceeds or value to be received by the viator related to that transaction. For the purpose of this rule, gross offer or bid shall mean the total amount or value offered by the viatical settlement provider for the purchase of an interest in one or more life insurance policies, inclusive of commissions, compensation, or other proceeds or value being deducted from the gross offer or bid. The disclosure statement shall be signed and dated by the viator prior to or concurrently with the viator's execution of a viatical settlement contract with the duplicate copy of the disclosure statement to be retained by the viator. If a viatical settlement contract has been entered into and the contract is subsequently amended or if there is any change in the viatical settlement provider's gross offer or bid amount or change in the net amount of proceeds or value to be received by the viator or change in the information provided in the disclosure statement to the viator the viatical settlement provider shall provide, in duplicate, an amended disclosure statement to the viator, containing the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). The amended disclosure statement shall be signed and dated by the viator with the duplicate copy of the amended disclosure statement to be retained by the viator. The viatical settlement provider shall obtain the signed and dated amended disclosure statement. Prior to a viatical settlement provider's execution of a viatical settlement contract, the viatical settlement provider must have obtained the signed and dated disclosure statement and any amended disclosure statement required by this rule. In transactions where no broker is used the viatical settlement provider must have obtained the signed and dated disclosure statement from the viator. The documentation required in this rule shall be maintained by the viatical settlement provider pursuant to the provisions set forth in Subsection 626.9922(2), Florida Statutes, and shall be available to the office at any time for copying and inspection upon reasonable notice to the viatical settlement provider. The Proposed Rule cites Subsection 624.308(1) and Section 626.9925 as specific authority for the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule cites Sections 626.9923, 626.9924, and 626.9925 as the law implemented by the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule involves regulation of viatical settlement providers pursuant to Florida's Viatical Settlement Act, Part X, Chapter 626 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Act regulates both viatical settlements and life settlements. The Act does not define "viatical settlement" or "life settlement." However, both types of transactions involve the sale of the ownership interest in life insurance policies. A "viatical settlement" involves the sale of an ownership interest in a life insurance policy by a person who is expected to live for less than two years. A "life settlement" involves the sale of the ownership interest in a life insurance policy by a person who is expected to live longer than two years after the date of the sale. Viatical settlements and life settlements are regulated in essentially the same manner and each of the foregoing transactions are included in the definition of "viatical settlement contract" as defined in the Act. Therefore, references to "viatical settlements" under Florida law refer to both life settlements and viatical settlements. Subsection 626.9911(10) defines "viatical settlement contract" as follows: (10) "Viatical settlement contract" means a written agreement entered into between a viatical settlement provider, or its related provider trust, and a viator. The viatical settlement contract includes an agreement to transfer ownership or change the beneficiary designation of a life insurance policy at a later date, regardless of the date that compensation is paid to the viator. The agreement must establish the terms under which the viatical settlement provider will pay compensation or anything of value, which compensation or value is less than the expected death benefit of the insurance policy or certificate, in return for the viator's assignment, transfer, sale, devise, or bequest of the death benefit or ownership of all or a portion of the insurance policy or certificate of insurance to the viatical settlement provider. A viatical settlement contract also includes a contract for a loan or other financial transaction secured primarily by an individual or group life insurance policy, other than a loan by a life insurance company pursuant to the terms of the life insurance contract, or a loan secured by the cash value of a policy. In a viatical settlement transaction, the "viatical settlement provider" is the purchaser of the ownership interest in a life insurance policy, including the right to receive the policy proceeds upon the death of the insured. Also see § 626.9911(12).3 The "viator" is the owner of an insurance policy who sells the ownership interest in the policy. Also see § 626.9911(14).4 The term "viatical settlement broker" is defined in Subsection 626.9911(9), as follows: (9) "Viatical settlement broker" means a person who, on behalf of a viator and for a fee, commission, or other valuable consideration, offers or attempts to negotiate viatical settlement contracts between a viator resident in this state and one or more viatical settlement providers. Notwithstanding the manner in which the viatical settlement broker is compensated, a viatical settlement broker is deemed to represent only the viator and owes a fiduciary duty to the viator to act according to the viator's instructions and in the best interest of the viator. The term does not include an attorney, licensed Certified Public Accountant, or investment adviser lawfully registered under chapter 517, who is retained to represent the viator and whose compensation is paid directly by or at the direction and on behalf of the viator. Pursuant to Subsection 626.9911(9), the "viatical settlement broker" is an agent of the viator and, as such, owes a fiduciary duty to the viator to obtain the best price for the insurance policy. Thus, typically, the viatical settlement broker solicits bids from multiple viatical settlement providers on behalf of the viator. The Proposed Rule requires viatical settlement providers to furnish viators with a detailed accounting of all funds involved in viatical settlement transactions and to ensure that viators are aware of the accounting. The issues of disclosures required for viatical settlement contracts and transactions are addressed in two provisions of the Act, Sections 626.99181 and 626.9923. Section 626.99181, Florida Statutes, requires a viatical settlement broker to disclose its compensation and states, "[a] viatical settlement broker shall disclose to a prospective viator the amount and method of calculating the broker's compensation." That provision states the "compensation" includes "anything of value paid or given to a viatical settlement broker for the placement of a policy." Section 626.9923 addresses viatical settlement contracts and required disclosures to viators and states that: Viatical settlement contracts; required disclosures.--The viatical settlement broker, or the viatical settlement provider in transactions in which no broker is used, must inform the viator by the date of application for a viatical settlement contract: That there are possible alternatives to viatical settlement contracts for persons who have a catastrophic or life-threatening illness, including, but not limited to, accelerated benefits offered by the issuer of a life insurance policy. That proceeds of the viatical settlement could be taxable, and assistance should be sought from a personal tax advisor. That viatical settlement proceeds could be subject to the claims of creditors. That receipt of viatical settlement proceeds could adversely affect the recipient's eligibility for Medicaid or other government benefits or entitlements, and advice should be obtained from the appropriate agencies. That all viatical settlement contracts entered into in this state must contain an unconditional rescission provision which allows the viator to rescind the contract within 15 days after the viator receives the viatical settlement proceeds, conditioned on the return of such proceeds. The name, business address, and telephone number of the independent third- party escrow agent, and the fact that the viator may inspect or receive copies of the relevant escrow or trust agreements or documents. Petitioner is an established trade association in the life settlement industry and is comprised of over 175 member companies, some of which include Florida-licensed viatical settlement providers who would be subject to the Proposed Rule. Petitioner's members would be substantially affected by the Proposed Rule because it would require them to make disclosures to viators in addition to the disclosures required by the Act.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ through culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; by failing to account or deliver trust funds; and by failing to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute or to implement remedial action; 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 and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0037920. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Heath Realty, 4864 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. On May 18, 1993, Mr. Anthony Rodgers and Ms. Jill Rodgers (the "buyers") entered into a contract to purchase real property from Ms. Norma A. Cash (the "seller"). The buyers entrusted Respondent with a total earnest money deposit of $1,000. The transaction failed to close. On July 8, 1993, Respondent timely notified Petitioner in writing that there were conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit and a good faith doubt regarding the deposit. However, Respondent failed to institute one of the settlement procedures described in Section 475.25(1)(d)1. until legal proceedings between the buyer and seller were amicably settled approximately seven months later. Respondent failed to institute a prescribed settlement procedure in a timely manner even though Petitioner advised Respondent in letters dated July 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, of the action Respondent should take. On February 9, 1994, Respondent finally requested an escrow disbursement order in accordance with Section 475.25(10(d)1. The escrow deposit was paid to the seller pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., but guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032. It is further recommended that the Final Order place Respondent on probation for a period of one year and, during the period of probation, require Respondent to complete courses in broker management not to exceed eight credit hours. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 8th day of February 1995.
