DOB: Condor Capital Corp., Settlement Agreement

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

IN THE MATTER OF:

CONDOR CAPITAL CORP.

    ("Condor")

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

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT        

WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Part II of Chapter 668, Sections 36a-535 to 36a-546, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes, “Finance Companies”;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Consumer Credit Division (“Division”) of the Department of Banking, conducted an investigation pursuant to Section 36a-17 of the Connecticut General Statutes into the activities of Condor to determine if it had violated, was violating or was about to violate the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes;

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2007, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Sections 36a-52(a), 36a-51 and 36a-50(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes, issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Revoke Sales Finance Company License, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) against Condor, which Notice is incorporated herein by reference;
 
WHEREAS, the Notice alleges that on July 6, 2005, Condor filed a Renewal Application for a Sales Finance License (“Renewal Application”) in which Condor answered “No” to the question of whether Condor had ever been a defendant in any litigation filed in connection with the consumer credit business, despite an outstanding case against Condor, and that such statement constituted a material misstatement or failure to give a true reply in an application, which constitutes grounds to revoke Condor’s license as a sales finance company pursuant to Sections 36a-543(a)(2) and 36a-543(a)(4) of the Connecticut General Statutes;
 
WHEREAS, the Notice alleges that Condor’s answer of “No” to the question of whether Condor had ever been a defendant in any litigation filed in connection with the consumer credit business, despite an outstanding case against Condor, constitutes the filing with the Commissioner of a statement which is, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, false and misleading in a material respect in violation of Section 36a-53a of the Connecticut General Statutes, which forms a basis to issue an order to cease and desist against Condor pursuant to Section 36a-52 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 36a-50(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes;
 
WHEREAS, the Notice alleges that during the period from July 28, 2006 to April 11, 2007, Condor deliberately failed to pay a civil judgment and that such conduct illustrates a lack of financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of Condor such as to warrant belief that Condor’s business will not be operated soundly and efficiently, in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of Sections 36a-535 to 36a-546, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes, which constitutes grounds to revoke Condor’s license as a sales finance company pursuant to Sections 36a-543(a)(4) and 52-400e of the Connecticut General Statutes;
 
WHEREAS, the Notice alleges that during the period from August 14, 2006 to the present, Condor failed to respond to a complaint filed with the Government Relations and Consumer Affairs Division (“Consumer Affairs Division”) of the Department of Banking on August 9, 2006, and letters dated August 14, 2006 and September 14, 2006, sent by the Consumer Affairs Division to Condor, which constitutes a failure to otherwise cooperate with the Commissioner in violation of Section 36a-17(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  The Notice also alleges that such violation forms a basis to issue an order to cease and desist against Condor pursuant to Section 36a-52 of the Connecticut General Statutes, to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 36a-50(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes;
 
WHEREAS, the Notice alleges that Condor’s failure to otherwise cooperate with the Commissioner in violation of Section 36a-17(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes is conduct that illustrates a lack of financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of Condor such as to warrant belief that Condor’s business will not be operated soundly and efficiently, in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of Sections 36a-535 to 36a-546, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes, which constitutes grounds to revoke Condor’s license as a sales finance company pursuant to Section 36a-543(a)(4) of the Connecticut General Statutes;
 
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007, Condor received the Notice;
 
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2007, Condor requested a hearing on the Notice, which is currently scheduled for July 23, 2007;
 
WHEREAS, Section 4-177(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes states, in pertinent part, that “[u]nless precluded by law, a contested case may be resolved by . . . agreed settlement”;
 
WHEREAS, Section 36a-1-55(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies states, in pertinent part, that “[p]ursuant to subsection (c) of section 4-177 of the Connecticut General Statutes, unless precluded by law, any contested case may be resolved by . . . agreed settlement”;
 
WHEREAS, Condor voluntarily agrees to enter into this Settlement Agreement without admitting or denying any allegations set forth herein, and solely for the purpose of obviating the need for formal administrative proceedings concerning the allegations contained herein;
 
WHEREAS, Condor, through its execution of this Settlement Agreement, voluntarily agrees to waive any rights to a hearing upon the allegations contained in the Notice, and waives the right to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Settlement Agreement;
 
WHEREAS, Condor specifically assures the Commissioner that the acts, conduct and violations alleged in the Notice shall not occur in the future;
 
AND WHEREAS, upon the entry of this Settlement Agreement, this matter will be resolved and the Commissioner will not take any future enforcement action against Condor based upon the allegations contained in the Notice.
 
NOW THEREFORE, the Commissioner and Condor enter into this Settlement Agreement as follows:

1. No later than the date this Settlement Agreement is executed by Condor, Condor shall remit to the Department of Banking, by cashier’s or certified check or money order made payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as a civil penalty;
2. Condor shall cease and desist from engaging in acts in violation of Sections 36a-17(d) and 36a-53a of the Connecticut General Statutes and conduct which constitutes the making of a material misstatement or failure to give a true reply in an application for a license;
3. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall adversely affect the ability of Condor to apply for or obtain a license or renewal of a license to engage in the business as a sales finance company from the Commissioner in the future; and
4. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Settlement Agreement, execution of this Settlement Agreement is without prejudice to the right of the Commissioner to take enforcement action against Condor for violating this Settlement Agreement if the Commissioner determines that Condor is not fully complying with any term or condition contained herein or if any representation made by Condor and reflected herein is subsequently discovered to be untrue.  For purposes of this paragraph, a violation of this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to be a violation of an order of the Commissioner.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement Agreement to be executed by each of them or their duly authorized representatives on the dates hereinafter subscribed.


Dated at Hartford, Connecticut
this 3rd day of July 2007.                   ________/s/_________
                                                     Howard F. Pitkin
                                                     Banking Commissioner



I, Michael P. Hawkins, state on behalf of Condor Capital Corp., that I have read the foregoing Settlement Agreement; that I know and fully understand its contents; that I am authorized to execute this Settlement Agreement on behalf of Condor Capital Corp.; that Condor Capital Corp., agrees freely and without threat or coercion of any kind to comply with the terms and conditions stated herein; and that Condor Capital Corp., voluntarily agrees to enter into this Settlement Agreement, expressly waiving any right to a hearing on the matters described herein.


                                             By:  ________/s/_________
                                                   Michael P. Hawkins
                                                   Executive Vice President
                                                   Condor Capital Corp.

State of:  New York

County of:  Nassau


On this the 27 day of June 2007, before me, Rosemary Nyman, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Michael P. Hawkins, who acknowledged himself to be the Executive Vice President of Condor Capital Corp., a corporation, and that he, as such Executive Vice President, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained, by signing the name of the corporation by himself as Executive Vice President.

In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand.

                                                   ________/s/_________
                                                   Notary Public
                                                   Date Commission Expires:  1/14/10


Administrative Orders and Settlements