DOB: Alpine Securities Corp-NOID-BD

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


IN THE MATTER OF:

ALPINE SECURITIES CORPORATION
CRD NO. 14952

    ("Respondent")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY
REGISTRATION AS BROKER-DEALER

AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO HEARING

DOCKET NO. ND-2006-7246-S


I.  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Chapter 672a of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (“Act”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (Sections 36b-31-2 to 36b-31-33, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies) (“Regulations”). 
2.
Pursuant to Section 36b-8 of the Act, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division (“Division”) of the Department of Banking, has conducted an investigation of Respondent.  Section 36b-8 of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
On receipt of the application for registration as a . . . broker-dealer, . . . the commissioner may make such investigation of the applicant and the applicant’s affairs as the commissioner deems necessary or advisable. 
3.
As a result of the investigation by the Division, the Commissioner brings this administrative action pursuant to Section 36b-15(a) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes to deny the broker dealer registration of Respondent in Connecticut.  Section 36b-15(a) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes provides, in pertinent part, that:
The commissioner may, by order, deny . . . any registration . . . if the commissioner finds that (1) the order is in the public interest, and (2) the applicant . . . or, in the case of a broker-dealer . . . any . . . officer . . . (F) is the subject of any of the following sanctions that are currently effective or were imposed within the past ten years:  . . . (iii) a . . . sanction issued by a national securities exchange or other self-regulatory organization registered under federal laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission . . . if the effect of the sanction has not been stayed or overturned by appeal or otherwise . . . .

Section 36b-15(e)(1) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes provides, in pertinent part, that:

Withdrawal . . . of an application for registration as a broker-dealer . . . becomes effective ninety days after receipt of an application to withdraw such registration or a notice of intent to withdraw such application for registration . . . .  If no proceeding is pending or instituted and withdrawal automatically becomes effective, the commissioner may nevertheless institute a denial . . . proceeding under subsection (a) of this section within one year after withdrawal became effective.


II.  RESPONDENT
 
4. Respondent is a corporation whose address last known to the Commissioner is 440 East 400 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.
 

III.  STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. On January 7, 2005, Respondent filed an application with the Commissioner for registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut (“Application”). 
6.
The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) is a self-regulatory organization registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 
7.
In June 2001, the NASD censured and fined Respondent $10,000, $5,000 of which was for supervisory deficiencies in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010 (Docket No. CMS010103).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned. 
8. In March 2002, the NASD censured and fined Respondent and Respondent’s principal and president, Virgil Mark Peterson (“Peterson”), $20,000, jointly and severally for violations of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010(b) for failing to establish adequate written supervisory procedures relating to the detection and prevention of the sale of unregistered securities (Docket No. C3A020017).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned.
9. In March 2002, the NASD censured and fined Respondent $5,000, and Peterson $5,000, for violations of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010 relating to the firm’s enforcement and implementation of written supervisory procedures concerning anti-harassment (Docket No. CMS020049).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned.
10. In August 2004, the NASD censured and fined Respondent $10,000 for supervisory deficiencies, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010, and for ACT reporting inaccuracies in violation of NASD Marketplace Rule 6130(d) (Docket No. C3A040036).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned.
11. In April 2005, the NASD censured and fined Respondent $20,000, $10,000 of which was for supervisory deficiencies in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010 (Docket No. CLG050041).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned. 
12. In September 2005, the NASD censured and fined Respondent and Petersen $22,500, jointly and severally, for failing to properly identify and verify customers pursuant to Respondent’s written anti money laundering procedures, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110, 3010 and 3011; for executing stock orders without receiving prior written authorization from the customers, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110, 2510(b) and 3110(c)(3); for inaccurately marking order tickets, in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 3110; for inadequate supervisory systems, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3010(a); and for, inter alia, failing to enforce Respondent’s written supervisory procedures relating to making and keeping current books and records, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3110(b) (Docket No. 20050001590-01).  The sanctions have not been stayed or overturned. 
13. On October 12, 2005, Respondent filed an application with the Commissioner to withdraw the Application (“Withdrawal”). 
14.

On January 10, 2006, the Withdrawal became effective.



IV.  STATUTORY BASIS FOR DENIAL OF REGISTRATION
AS BROKER-DEALER

Censures and Fines by NASD

15. Paragraphs 1 through 14, inclusive, are incorporated and made a part hereof as if more fully set forth herein.
16.
The censures and fines issued by the NASD against Respondent and its officer, as more fully set forth in paragraphs 6 through 12, inclusive, constitute sanctions issued by a self-regulatory organization registered with the SEC within the last ten years, the effects of which have not been stayed or overturned, which form a basis for denial of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Section 36b-15(a)(2)(F)(iii) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes.


V.  NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY REGISTRATION AS BROKER-DEALER
AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO HEARING

WHEREAS, the Commissioner has reason to believe that facts exist that constitute grounds for denying Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut under Section 36b-15(a)(2)(F)(iii) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner believes that the issuance of an order denying Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut would be in the public interest and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act;

AND WHEREAS, Section 36b-15(f) of the 2006 Supplement to the General Statutes provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o order may be entered under this section . . . without (1) appropriate prior notice to the applicant . . . , (2) opportunity for hearing, and (3) written findings of fact and conclusions of law”.

NOW THEREFORE, notice is hereby given to Respondent that its application for registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut shall be denied, subject to its right to request a hearing on the allegation set forth above.

A hearing will be granted to Respondent if a written request for a hearing is received by the Department of Banking, Legal Division, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-1800, within fourteen (14) days following its receipt of this Notice.  The enclosed Appearance and Request for Hearing Form must be completed and mailed to the above address.  If you will not be represented by an attorney at the hearing, please complete the Appearance and Request for Hearing Form as “pro se”.  Once a written request for a hearing is received, the Commissioner shall issue a notification of hearing and designation of hearing officer that acknowledges receipt of a request for a hearing, designates a presiding officer and sets the date of the hearing in accordance with Section 4-177 of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 36a-1-21 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.  If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on July 7, 2006, at 10 a.m., at the Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

The hearing will be held in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes.  At such hearing, Respondent will have the right to appear and present evidence, rebuttal evidence and argument on all issues of fact and law to be considered by the Commissioner.

If Respondent fails to request a hearing within the prescribed time period, the Commissioner shall issue an order denying registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut.


                                                     ________/s/_________
Issued at Hartford, Connecticut           John P. Burke
this 19th day of May 2006.                 Banking Commissioner





CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of May 2006, the foregoing Notice of Intent to Deny Registration as Broker-dealer and Notice of Right to Hearing was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Alpine Securities Corporation, 440 East 400 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, registered mail no. RB028032961US.


                                                     ________/s/_________
                                                     Jesse B. Silverman
                                                     Prosecuting Attorney

 


Administrative Orders and Settlements