DOB: News Bulletin 2002 - July 5, 2002

The Department of Banking News Bulletin 

Bulletin # 2002
Week Ending July 5, 2002

This bulletin constitutes the only official notification you will receive from this office concerning any of the following applications. Any observations you may have are solicited. Any comments should be in writing to John P. Burke, Commissioner of Banking, at the Connecticut Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103-1800 or via E-mail to Written comments will be considered only if they are received within ten days from the date of this bulletin.

State Bank Activity

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that each application for a branch, or for a limited branch at which loans will be made, be accompanied by a plan detailing how adequate services to meet the banking needs of all community residents will be provided. Plans are submitted when such applications are filed and are available for public inspection and comment at this Department for a period of 30 days. Questions concerning branch activity should be directed to the Bank Examination Division, (860) 240-8180.
Note: dates are listed in month/day/year format.

Date Bank Location Activity
7/03/02 People's Bank
188-210 Main Street (Route 10)
Farmington, CT 06032
7/03/02 People's Bank
*Stop & Shop
  4531 Main Street
  Bridgeport, CT 06606
* Limited Branch


The effective date of the relocation of the main office of Ridgefield Bank from 374 Main Street, Ridgefield, Connecticut, to 150 Danbury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut will be August 1, 2002.


On July 2, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-581 of the Connecticut General Statutes, SDM Check Cashing of CT II, LLC was granted approval to operate check cashing service general facilities at 2960 Fairfield Avenue, Bridgeport; 425 Kings Highway East, Fairfield; 298 Main Street, New Britain; 2524 Main Street, Stratford; 353 East Main Street, Waterbury; and 481 Wolcott Street, Waterbury, all in Connecticut.


On July 2, 2002, pursuant to Section 36a-600 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended by Public Act 01-56, UniTransfer New York, Inc. d/b/a UniTransfer applied for approval to engage in the business of money transmission.

Stamford Firm and its President Fined $75,000 for
Unregistered Broker-dealer and
Agent Activity, Supervisory Deficiencies

On July 1, 2002, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Southport Securities LLC of 1281 East Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut, and Dennis Gerard Boyd, president and control person of the firm. The Consent Order alleged that 1) from approximately 1994 forward, the firm had transacted business as a broker-dealer absent registration in violation of Section 36b-6(a) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act; 2) at various times between 1994 and 2001, the firm employed unregistered agents in contravention of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act; 3) in permitting its agents to transact business absent registration, the firm failed to exercise adequate supervisory controls over the activities of its agents in violation of Section 36b-31-6f of the Regulations under the Act; 4) that, as the individual designated by the firm to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, Boyd failed to discharge the supervisory responsibilities assigned to him by the firm; and 5) the firm's supervisory and compliance procedures were inadequate to prevent and detect violations of the Act and its regulations.

The Consent Order directed Boyd and Southport Securities LLC to cease and desist from violating state securities laws, and mandated that, for two years, Boyd refrain from acting in a supervisory capacity with respect to any broker-dealer or investment adviser transacting business in Connecticut. The Consent Order also fined Southport Securities LLC $25,000; fined Boyd $50,000; and required that both respondents jointly reimburse the department $5,000 for investigative costs.

New York Firm Fined $10,000

On July 1, 2002, the Commissioner entered a Consent Order with respect to Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. of 110 Wall Street, New York, New York. The Consent Order alleged that the firm had violated Section 36b-31-14f(b)(3) of the Regulations under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by failing to provide records to the Commissioner, and that the firm had engaged in dishonest or unethical practices in conjunction with its cold calling practices.

The Consent Order fined the firm $10,000 and required that it reimburse the department up to $2,500 for the costs of an examination to be conducted within 36 months. In addition, the Consent Order directed the firm to review and implement supervisory procedures designed to improve regulatory compliance, particularly as they affected the registration status and conduct of cold callers prospecting for clients.

Dated: Tuesday, July 9, 2002

John P. Burke