DOB: September 1996 Securities Bulletin

Securities and Business Investments Division

Securities Bulletin

Vol. X No. 3 September 1996

Features

Enforcement Highlights:

Contributors:

Ralph A. Lambiase, Division Director
Cynthia Antanaitis, Assistant Director and Bulletin Editor
Eric J. Wilder, Assistant Director
Jeffrey P. Halperin, Senior Administrative Attorney
Louise Hanson, Subscription Coordinator

A WORD FROM THE BANKING COMMISSIONER

Congress recently enacted and President Clinton signed into law on October 11 the "National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996" (Public Law 104-290). This legislation represents the most significant change in our nation's securities regulatory structure in decades. Public Law 104-290 will redefine many of the responsibilities of state securities regulators and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, eliminating overlapping regulatory functions and improving market efficiency.

While the Department of Banking is still studying the impact this legislation will have on its regulation of securities in Connecticut, it is clear that the emphasis of the Securities and Business Investments Division in protecting local investors will shift. It is likely that the Division will focus its resources more extensively in the future in the areas of examination and enforcement.

States will become the sole regulators of smaller investment advisers (managing less than $25 million in client assets) and will retain the authority to license investment adviser agents. Public law 104-290 contains a national de minimis standard for investment adviser registration, providing that an adviser need not register in states where the adviser does not have a place of business and has had fewer than 6 clients within the preceding 12 months who are residents of the state. An exemption from state broker-dealer agent registration is also provided in the instance of de minimis transactions. Firms must accordingly exercise diligent supervision to prevent abuses of these exemptions and inappropriate activity.

I am pleased to note that the department's eighth annual Securities Forum will focus in an exceptionally timely fashion on the agency's response to Public Law 104-290, and on supervision issues, regulation of investment advisers, further developments in state and federal securities law, banks and the financial services marketplace of the future, and other important regulatory issues. Securities Forum '96 will be held on Monday, November 25, 1996 at the Four Points Hotel by ITT Sheraton in Waterbury, Connecticut.

This year's seminar will again feature an outstanding, day-long agenda. Lieutenant Governor M. Jodi Rell will welcome Forum attendees following a noon luncheon. After her remarks, Edward A. Kwalwasser, Group Executive Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange, will present an address. Mr. Kwalwasser is responsible for member firm regulation, market surveillance, enforcement and market structure, among other responsibilities, for the NYSE. Five panel discussions featuring an extraordinary faculty are also scheduled, each with ample time to discuss audience concerns and questions.

For your convenience, a detailed program agenda along with registration information has been included with this issue of the Securities Bulletin.

--John P. Burke
Banking Commissioner


DEPARTMENT OFFERS GUIDANCE ON
REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE INTERNET ADVERTISING

Text of August 30, 1996 Response

Re: Internet Usage by Representatives of Investment Management & Research, Inc. ("IMR") -
Regulatory Requirements Under Chapter 672a of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (the "Act")

This will acknowledge receipt of your August 13, 1996 correspondence supplementing your April 12, 1996 letter to which this department responded on July 8, 1996. The information contained in your correspondence, and in our earlier reply, is incorporated by reference herein.

In your August 13, 1996 correspondence, you affirm that IMR is registered as a broker-dealer in all states; that, in disseminating information over the Internet, representatives of IMR would be acting within the scope of their authority with the firm; that IMR authorizes the promotion of any securities products described on the Internet; and that the representatives will not be actually effecting securities trades over the Internet. You also explain that, where a representative is not registered in a user's state of residence, and access to the representative's Web page is denied for that reason, the user may write or send an e-mail to an IMR branch office requesting further information. If such information requests are received by a non-registered individual, that individual would either become registered in the user's state of residence or the inquiry would be referred to a registered agent. You also note that no compensation (e.g. referral fees, commission splits, etc.) would be paid to any individual not registered in the user's state of residence. Your correspondence also represents that IMR will retain responsibility for reviewing and approving the content of its representatives' Web sites; that the representatives' affiliation with IMR will be prominently disclosed on the site; and that the sites will be used to disseminate information on services and securities products offered.

Please be advised that, based exclusively on the information and representations contained in your correspondence, this department will take no enforcement action at the present time if IMR permits its representatives to establish Web sites as described. In addition, be advised that any breakdown in IMR's World Wide Web procedures may lead to enforcement action in this state.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

John P. Burke
Banking Commissioner
August 30, 1996

Earlier Reply

This will acknowledge receipt of your April 12, 1996 letter ... In your correspondence, you request comments on a proposal by IMR, a broker-dealer, to permit its representatives to disseminate information on the Internet. You add that such usage would be deemed advertising under Article III, Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice, and thus subject to IMR's review and approval with respect to content.

In commenting on your proposal, we assume that IMR is registered as a broker-dealer in all states; that, in disseminating information on the Internet, the representatives will be acting within the scope of their employment with IMR; and that IMR authorizes the promotion of any securities products described. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, please advise us accordingly. Moreover, we note that, since your correspondence does not indicate that the IMR representatives would be actually effecting trades over the Internet, our response is confined to situations where information alone is being disseminated.

In your letter, you prescribe a "gateway" mechanism whereby access to an IMR representative's Web site would be limited to users residing in states where the representative is registered. This would be accomplished through the user entering his or her state of residence. If the designated state is one where the representative is registered, access to the entire site would be allowed, with a display listing those states where the representative would be allowed, with a display listing those states where the representative is registered and a warning that no securities-related services could be offered to individuals accessing information from a non-listed state. Following a grant of access, a similar screening process would be applied to any securities products to be recommended. If the representative is not registered in the designated state, further access to the site would be denied, with an instruction to write or e-mail for further information. The recommendation accompanying a denial of access should be clarified. It is not clear, for example, whether the user is being asked to write to (or e-mail) the representative or IMR itself. Where securities registration also becomes an issue, the denial of access would include a caveat that such product information may not be distributed to the user.

Generally, the above scenario may warrant no-action relief by our department if 1) IMR retains responsibility for reviewing and approving the content of its representatives' Web sites; 2) the representatives' affiliation with IMR is prominently disclosed on the site; 3) the site is used for disseminating information on services and on securities products offered; and 4) the disclaimer accompanying a denial of access for unregistered representatives is clarified as mentioned above.

Upon receipt of clarification on the above and your representations regarding the four points outlined our office may be in a position to grant no-action relief.

John P. Burke
Banking Commissioner
July 8, 1996


ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS

Dayton Family Productions, Inc. (CRD # 40499)

On September 13, 1996, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Right to Hearing (Docket number CD-96-2889-S) under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act against Dayton Family Productions, Inc., a corporation with offices at 2235 East Flamingo Road, Suite 305, Las Vegas, Nevada and 5505 South 900 East, Suite 220, Salt Lake City, Utah. The Order to Cease and Desist alleged that, from at least October 1995 to January 1996, the corporation offered investment general partnership interests in "Family Movie Partners" to Connecticut residents at a time when such interests were not registered under Section 36b-16 of the Act. Investor funds would purportedly finance the production of a film venture entitled "Last Resort." The Order to Cease and Desist also alleged that Dayton Family Productions, Inc. violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4 of the Act by omitting to disclose material information on the offering. The respondent was afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the allegations in the Order to Cease and Desist.

CONSENT ORDERS

Menocal & Co. (CRD # 31152)

On July 1, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. CO-96- 2968-S) with respect to Menocal & Co. ("Menocal") of 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. The Consent Order, which followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, alleged that from approximately June, 1994, the firm transacted business as a broker-dealer absent registration under Section 36b-6(a) of the Act and employed unregistered agents in alleged violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act. Menocal neither admitted nor denied the Commissioner's allegations.

The Consent Order directed Menocal to cease and desist from violative conduct, and required that it implement revised supervisory and compliance procedures designed to ensure enhanced monitoring of state broker-dealer and agent licensing requirements. In addition, the Consent Order required that Menocal pay $3,920 to the agency; $1,800 of that amount represented the disgorgement of commissions earned during the period of alleged unregistered activity, $620 reflected past due registration fees and $1,500 constituted an administrative fine. The Consent Order also required that the firm submit quarterly reports to the department for two years describing any securities-related complaints, actions or proceedings involving Connecticut residents.

Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. (CRD # 10641) and Arthur F. Grant (CRD # 227458)

On July 10, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. 96-2624-CO) with respect to Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. ("Cadaret") and its president Arthur F. Grant. Cadaret had been the subject of a December 19, 1995 Notice of Intent to Suspend Registration as a broker-dealer and a Notice of Intent to Fine which was later amended on December 21, 1995. Similarly, on December 19, 1995, the department had issued a Notice of Intent to Suspend Registration as an Agent with respect to Arthur F. Grant; Grant's Notice of Intent to Suspend was also amended on December 21, 1995. The notices focused on allegations that the firm transacted business from unregistered Connecticut branch offices and failed to establish and implement appropriate supervisory procedures.

Pursuant to the Consent Order, the firm agreed to retain an independent consultant to review its supervisory and compliance procedures as they related to the firm's Connecticut offices, and to report back to the agency on those measures taken to implement the consultant's recommendations. In addition, the Consent Order prohibited the firm from registering any additional Connecticut locations as branch offices for 120 days. The Consent Order also required that the firm pay the department $40,000; $25,000 of this amount constituted a fine and the remaining $15,000 constituted reimbursement to the agency for costs in investigating the matter and initiating the administrative hearing process. Finally, the Consent Order required that the firm file quarterly written reports with the agency for two years concerning any complaints, actions or proceedings relating to Connecticut residents.

Gilford Securities, Inc. (CRD # 8076)

On July 10, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. 96-2695-CO) with respect to Gilford Securities, Inc., a registered broker-dealer. The Consent Order, which followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, alleged that from at least October 1992 through August 1993, the firm 1) employed unregistered agents in violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act; 2) offered and sold unregistered non-exempt securities in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act; 3) failed reasonably to supervise its agents; 4) failed to apply its written supervisory procedures so as to prevent and/or detect violations of state law; and 5) used excessive mark-ups in connection with the sales of securities of one issuer.

In furtherance of its desire to resolve the matter informally with the department, Gilford Securities, Inc. 1) indicated that it would offer rescission to certain Connecticut customers who had purchased unregistered non-exempt securities; 2) contributed $5,000 to the department's Investor Education Fund; and 3) had certain members of its senior management complete the Regulatory Element of the NASD's Continuing Education Program.

The Consent Order required that, for 2 years, the firm designate a Series 24 principal to act as Compliance Officer for the firm's Greenwich, Connecticut branch office. In addition, the Consent Order mandated that the firm retain an independent consultant to conduct a review of its compliance procedures relating to the firm's Connecticut operations, including procedures governing firm trading, execution, underwriting, and order room supervision; and that a report concerning implementation of the consultant's recommendations be filed with the agency. The Consent Order also precluded the firm for two years from making any Connecticut sales of new issues for which the firm acted as sole underwriter and was a market maker unless 1) the firm distributed at least 30% of the issue to one or more unaffiliated selling groups; or 2) the security or transaction was exempt from securities registration under the Act. The Consent Order also contained a provision requiring the firm to set up procedures to reasonably ensure that all trading activities for Connecticut customers be executed from the firm's main office; this obligation would extend for two years. In addition, the Consent Order assessed the firm $50,000; $20,000 of this amount constituted a fine, and the balance of $30,000 represented reimbursement for agency investigative costs. Finally, the Consent Order required that the firm file quarterly written reports with the agency for two years describing any complaints, actions or proceedings relating to Connecticut residents.

The Scarborough Group, Inc. (CRD # 40642)

On August 8, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. CO-96- 2985-S) with respect to The Scarborough Group, Inc. of 116 Defense Highway, Suite 201, Annapolis, Maryland. The Consent Order, which followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, alleged that from approximately 1992 through 1995, the firm transacted business as an investment adviser absent registration under Section 36b-6(c) of the Act. The firm neither admitted nor denied the Commissioner's allegations.

The Consent Order 1) directed the firm to implement revised supervisory procedures designed to improve regulatory compliance, and 2) required that the firm pay $4,060 to the agency, $3,000 of which constituted an administrative penalty and $1,060 of which represented past due registration fees for the period of unregistered activity.

J.B. Oxford & Company (CRD # 14343)

On September 11, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. 96-2494-CO) with respect to J.B. Oxford & Company of 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300, Beverly Hills, California. The Consent Order, which followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, alleged that from at least July 1994 through September 1995, the firm, which is a registered broker-dealer, employed unregistered agents in violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act. The Consent Order directed the firm to 1) cease and desist from regulatory violations; 2) implement revised supervisory procedures designed to improve regulatory compliance; 3) file quarterly reports with the Division for two years providing information on complaints involving Connecticut customers; and 4) pay the agency thirty five thousand dollars, $20,000 of which constituted an administrative fine and $15,000 of which represented reimbursement for Division investigative costs.

CoreStates Securities Corp. d/b/a Directrade (CRD # 17344)

On September 13, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered a Consent Order (No. CO-96-3025-S) with respect to CoreStates Securities Corp. of 1345 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Consent Order, which followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, alleged that from approximately 1990, the firm transacted business as a broker-dealer absent registration under Section 36b-6(a) of the Act and employed unregistered agents in alleged violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act. The firm neither admitted nor denied the Commissioner's allegations.

The Consent Order directed the firm to cease and desist from violative conduct, and required that it implement revised supervisory and compliance procedures designed to ensure enhanced monitoring of state broker-dealer and agent licensing requirements. In addition, the Consent Order required that the firm pay $13,385 to the agency; $6,885 of that amount represented the partial disgorgement of commissions earned during the period of alleged unregistered activity, $5,500 reflected past due registration fees and $1,000 constituted an administrative fine.

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENTS

Citicorp Securities, Inc. (CRD # 7474)

On August 6, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-96-3002-S) with Citicorp Securities, Inc., a securities broker-dealer located at 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York. The Stipulation and Agreement followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. That investigation uncovered indications that from approximately January 1996, the firm allegedly transacted business as a broker-dealer absent registration under Section 36b-6(a) of the Act.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement, the firm agreed to implement revised procedures designed to ensure regulatory compliance; to refrain from engaging in violative conduct; and, for two years, to report to the department on a quarterly basis concerning any securities-related complaints, actions or proceedings involving Connecticut residents. In addition, the firm agreed to pay $1,000 to the department; $500 of that amount reflected reimbursement of uncollected registration fees during the period of unregistered activity, and $500 constituted reimbursement for agency investigative costs.

Connecticut Association Securities, Inc. (CRD # 35371)

On April 1, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-96-2897-S) with respect to Connecticut Association Securities, Inc. ("CTAS") of 450 Church Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The Stipulation and Agreement followed a Securities and Business Investments Division review which alleged that from approximately January 1994, the firm transacted securities business from one or more Connecticut locations without registering those locations as branch offices pursuant to Section 36b-6(d) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement, CTAS agreed to retain an independent consultant experienced in securities law to review the firm's supervisory procedures and prepare a written report. The Stipulation and Agreement also required that CTAS file an implementation schedule with the department regarding the consultant's recommendations and, if applicable, explain why any recommended procedures were not followed. Also included was a provision mandating that Robert Francis Brawders (CRD number 1091922) and Lawrence Thomas McHugh (CRD number 1086477), principals of the firm, complete the Regulatory Element of the NASD's Continuing Education Program within ninety days.

CTAS also agreed that 1) the firm's supervisory procedures guard against agents effecting securities transactions in products concerning which they had not passed the appropriate NASD examination; 2) firm managers pass a principal's exam within 90 days of appointment; and 3) pending a manager's passage of the principal's examination, CTAS designate an interim backup manager to perform supervisory functions. The Stipulation and Agreement also contemplated that Roger Helal (CRD number 1080346) not supervise other agents absent the department's written consent, and that the CTAS Compliance Director be responsible for Helal's supervision. CTAS was also required to provide the department with periodic reports concerning securities-related complaints, actions or proceedings involving it or any of its employees, agents or representatives. Finally, the Stipulation and Agreement required that CTAS pay $1,000 to the department, $500 of which constituted a fine, and $500 of which represented reimbursement for investigative costs.

Computer Business Services, Inc.

On August 21, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-96-722-B) with Computer Business Services, Inc. ("CBSI") of CBSI Plaza, Sheridan, Indiana. CBSI, which markets a program enabling purchasers to start a home business using computer technology, was the subject of an April 1, 1996 Order to Cease and Desist which alleged that the concern offered unregistered business opportunities in violation of Section 36b-67(1) of the Connecticut Business Opportunity Investment Act.

Without admitting or denying the department's allegations, the corporation agreed to refrain from engaging in further offers or sales of business opportunities absent compliance with the state's business opportunity law. In addition, CBSI agreed to file a business opportunity application with the Securities and Business Investments Division and to honor refund requests from Connecticut purchasers within one year of the date of purchase.

Berkshire Equity Sales, Inc. (CRD # 87)

On September 3, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-96-2974-S) with Berkshire Equity Sales, Inc., a securities broker-dealer located at 700 South Street, Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The Stipulation and Agreement followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. That investigation uncovered indications that from at least 1995, the firm allegedly transacted business from an unregistered branch office in contravention of Section 36b-6(d) of the Act.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement, the firm agreed to 1) complete an internal review of its supervisory and compliance procedures within 120 days; 2) review, revise and implement supervisory procedures designed to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements; 3) refrain from engaging in violative conduct; 4) unless otherwise waived by the Commissioner, designate a manager who has passed a principal's examination to oversee branch office operations; 5) for two years, provide quarterly reports to the Division concerning any complaints, actions or proceedings involving Connecticut residents; and 6) pay $1,000 to the department, $500 of which constituted an administrative penalty and $500 of which represented reimbursement for Division investigative costs.

First of America Securities, Inc. (CRD # 36568)

On September 25, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (No. ST-96-3016-S) with First of America Securities, Inc., a securities broker- dealer located at 157 South Kalamazoo Mall, Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Stipulation and Agreement followed a Securities and Business Investments Division investigation under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. That investigation uncovered indications that from approximately 1994 to 1996, the firm allegedly transacted business as a broker- dealer absent registration under Section 36b-6(a) of the Act and employed unregistered agents.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement, the firm agreed to implement revised procedures designed to ensure regulatory compliance; to refrain from engaging in violative conduct; and to pay $1,310 to the department. Of that amount, $810 represented reimbursement of uncollected registration fees during the period of unregistered activity, and $500 constituted an administrative penalty.

LICENSING ACTIONS

Paramount Investments International, Inc. (CRD # 30898) - Broker-dealer Registration Revoked

On September 18, 1996, the Banking Commissioner entered an order revoking the broker-dealer registration of Paramount Investments International, Inc. (Docket No. NR-96-3000-S). The corporation is located at 5348 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado. The Commissioner's action, which was preceded by an August 8, 1996 Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration, was based on an October 20, 1995 suspension of the firm by the National Association of Securities Dealers (the "NASD") and by the NASD's subsequent expulsion of the firm from membership for failing to pay a $15,000 fine levied against it by the NASD. The matter was uncontested by the firm.

A.R. Baron & Co., Inc. (CRD # 29285) - Notice of Intent to Revoke Broker-dealer Registration Issued

On September 25, 1996, the Banking Commissioner issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the broker-dealer registration of A.R. Baron & Co., Inc. (Docket No. NR-96-3008-S) of Citicorp Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, New York. The Notice of Intent to Revoke alleged that 1) the firm was subject to several National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. sanctions, to wit, a July 17, 1995 censure and $400,000 fine for excessive markups, a May 13, 1996 censure and $11,000 fine for failing to fully respond to NASD requests for information, and a July 27, 1996 censure and $20,000 fine for failing to observe net capital requirements, among other things; 2) the firm 's broker-dealer registration was revoked by the State of Alabama on December 19, 1995 for failing to disclose disciplinary events against several of the firm's officers; and 3) A.R. Baron & Co., Inc. was subject to an August 5, 1996 cease and desist ordered issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm was provided with an opportunity to contest the allegations in the Notice of Intent to Revoke.


Securities Forum '96

Securities Forum '96 promises to be an exceptional opportunity for financial industry professionals to keep abreast of important regulatory developments, including the recent enactment of the "National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996" by Congress.

Connecticut's Lieutenant Governor M. Jodi Rell will welcome Forum attendees following a noon luncheon for all registrants. After her remarks, Edward A. Kwalwasser, Group Executive Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange, will deliver an address. Mr. Kwalwasser is responsible for member firm regulation, market surveillance and enforcement, among other responsibilities, for the NYSE. An outstanding agenda of panels with an extraordinary array of expert speakers completes the program. Several of the panels will focus extensively on the "National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996" and its impact in Connecticut and on the federal level.

Every panel will provide ample time for discussion of audience concerns and questions. Additionally, staff from the Securities Division and representatives from the NASDR Boston District Office will be available throughout the day to answer individual questions on a personalized basis.

Note: Securities Forum '96 will be accepted by the Certified Financial Planner Board for up to a maximum 4.5 continuing education (CE) hours. The seminar has also been approved by the Connecticut Bar Association for 5.5 CLE credit hours.


QUARTERLY STATISTICAL SUMMARY

July 1, 1996 through September 30, 1996

Registration

Securities

Business
Opportunities

YTD

Total Coordination (Initial & Renewal) 1,525 n/a 4,965
-- (Investment Co. Renewals: 860)      
-- (All Other Coordinations: 665)      
Qualification (Initial) 9 n/a 19
Qualification (Renewal) 2 n/a 3
Regulation D Filings 452 n/a 1,420
Other Exemption or Exclusion Notices 38 12 111 (SE)
35 (BO)
Business Opportunity (Initial) n/a 11 24
Business Opportunity (Renewal) n/a 4 28
 
 
Licensing & Branch Office Registration

Broker-Dealers

Investment Advisers

Issuers

YTD

Firm Initial Registrations Processed 90 38 n/a 328 (BD)
115 (IA)
Firms Registered as of 9/30/96 2,071 1,163 n/a n/a
Agent Initial Registrations Processed 7,790 659 39 24,629 (BD)
1,993 (IA)
98 (IS)
Agents Registered as of 9/30/96 79,887 10,708 313 n/a
Branch Offices Registered as of 9/30/96 1,172 373 n/a n/a
Examinations Conducted 28 10 n/a 121 (BD)
29 (IA)
n/a (IS)
 
 
Investigations

Securities

Business
Opportunities

YTD

Investigations Opened
39
0 135 (SE)
2 (BO)
Investigations Closed 49 4 132 (SE)
10 (BO)
Investigations in Progress
as of 9/30/96
87 1 n/a
Referrals from Attorney General 0 1 4 (SE)
3 (BO)
Referrals from Other Agencies 2 1 15 (SE)
2 (BO)
Subpoenas Issued 3 0 5 (SE)
0 (BO)
 
 
Administrative Enforcement
Actions

Number

Parties

YTD
(#/Parties)

Securities      
Consent Orders 6 7 15/17
Stipulation and Agreements 4 4 11/11
Cease and Desist Orders 1 0 3/6
Denial, Suspension & Revocation Orders 1 1 5/5
Conditional Licensing Orders 0 0 0/0
Other Notices and Orders 1 1 3/3
Referrals (Civil) 0 0 0/0
Referrals (Criminal) 1 1 1/1
Business Opportunities      
Consent Orders 0 0 0/0
Stipulation and Agreements 1 1 1/1
Cease and Desist Orders 0 0 5/8
Other Notices and Orders 0 0 0/0
Referrals (Civil) 0 0 0/0
Referrals (Criminal) 0 0 0/0
 
 
Monetary Sanctions

$ Assessed

YTD

Consent Orders and Stipulation and
Agreements (Securities)
$ 155,675 $ 323,814
 
 
Reimbursement to
the Investing Public

Voluntary Restitution Offers;
Other Monetary Relief

YTD

Securities $ 2,129,544 $ 9,328,483
Business Opportunities 0 0

 
________ ________
Totals $ 2,129,544 $ 9,328,483

Securities Division