DOB: Tarini, Robert - Consent Order

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 


IN THE MATTER OF:

ROBERT TARINI ("Tarini")


   

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

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CONSENT ORDER

DOCKET NO. CF-2008-7565-S

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Chapter 672a of the General Statutes of Connecticut, the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (“Act”), and Sections 36b-31-2 to 36b-31-33, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies promulgated under the Act (“Regulations”);

WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division (“Division”) of the Department of Banking (“Department”), conducted an investigation pursuant to Section 36b-26(a) of the Act into the activities of Tarini to determine whether he had violated, was violating or was about to violate any provisions of the Act or Regulations (“Investigation”);

WHEREAS, as a result of the Investigation, on July 16, 2009, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Sections 36b-27(a) and 36b-27(d) of the Act, issued an Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”), Notice of Intent to Fine (“Fine Notice”) and Notice of Right to Hearing against Tarini (collectively “Notice”), which Notice is incorporated by reference herein;

WHEREAS, the Notice alleged that during an investigatory deposition conducted by the Division, Tarini testified that, inter alia:  Chad Verdi’s (“Verdi”) basic role was not to specifically solicit anyone’s interest or represent Markland Technologies, Inc. (“Markland”), with respect to detailed negotiations, but only to verify individuals’ identities and introduce investors to Markland.  In fact, Tarini knew that Verdi actively solicited investments from new investors, regularly sent out and received documents regarding this solicitation, including term sheets, and actively participated in negotiations with investors.  The Notice further alleged that Tarini’s statements were, at the time and in light of the circumstances under which they were made, false or misleading in a material respect, in violation of Section 36b-23 of the Act;

WHEREAS, the Fine Notice stated that the Commissioner intended to impose a fine against Tarini, that a hearing would be held on September 17, 2009, on the matters alleged in the Fine Notice (“Fine Hearing”), and that if Tarini failed to appear at the Fine Hearing, the Commissioner may order that a maximum fine of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) be imposed upon Tarini;

WHEREAS, Tarini requested a hearing on the matters alleged in the Order (“Hearing”);

WHEREAS, Tarini and the Division requested continuances of the Fine Hearing and Hearing;

WHEREAS, currently, the Fine Hearing and Hearing have been continued so that the parties may engage in settlement discussions;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-27(a) of the Act authorizes the Commissioner to order any person who has violated, is violating or is about to violate any provision of the Act or any regulation, rule or order adopted or issued under the Act to cease and desist from such violation;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-27(d) of the Act, as amended by Public Act 09-160, authorizes the Commissioner to impose a fine of up to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per violation against any person who has violated any provision of the Act or any regulation, rule or order adopted or issued under the Act;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he commissioner may from time to time make . . . such . . . orders as are necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-33, inclusive”;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(b) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o . . . order may be made . . . unless the commissioner finds that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-33, inclusive”;

WHEREAS, an administrative proceeding initiated under Section 36b-27 of the Act would constitute a “contested case” within the meaning of Section 4-166(2) of the General Statutes of Connecticut;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-27(f) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny time after the issuance of . . . [a] notice provided for in . . . subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of this section, the commissioner may accept an agreement by any respondent named in such . . . notice to enter into a written consent order in lieu of an adjudicative hearing”;

WHEREAS, Section 4-177(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-55(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provide that a contested case may be resolved by consent order, unless precluded by law;

WHEREAS, Tarini and the Commissioner now desire to resolve the matters alleged in the Notice without the need for further administrative proceedings;

AND WHEREAS, Tarini agrees that the Notice may be used in construing the terms of this Consent Order, and agrees to the language in this Consent Order.

II. CONSENT TO WAIVER OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

WHEREAS, Tarini, through his execution of this Consent Order, voluntarily waives the following rights:

1.
To be afforded notice and an opportunity for a hearing within the meaning of Section 36b-27(a) of the Act and Section 36b-27(d)(2) of the Act, as amended, and Section 4-177(a) of the General Statutes of Connecticut;
2.
To present evidence and argument and to otherwise avail himself of Section 36b-27(a) of the Act and Section 36b-27(d)(2) of the Act, as amended, and Section 4-177c(a) of the General Statutes of Connecticut;
3. To present his position in a hearing in which he is represented by counsel;
4. To have a written record of the hearing made and a written decision issued by a hearing officer; and
5. To seek judicial review of, or otherwise challenge or contest the matters described herein, including the validity of this Consent Order.

III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER’S ALLEGATIONS

WHEREAS, Tarini, through his execution of this Consent Order, acknowledges the following allegations of the Commissioner, without admitting or denying them, yet admit [sic] sufficient evidence exists for the Commissioner to enter an order to cease and desist and an order imposing an administrative fine of $100,000 against him:

1.
The entry of this Consent Order is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act; and
2.
During an investigatory deposition Tarini made statements which were, at the time and in light of the circumstances under which they were made, false or misleading in a material respect, in violation of Section 36b-23 of the Act.

WHEREAS, the Commissioner would have the authority to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law after granting Tarini an opportunity for a hearing;

AND WHEREAS, Tarini acknowledges the possible consequences of an administrative hearing and voluntarily agrees to consent to the entry of the sanctions described below.

IV. CONSENT TO ENTRY OF SANCTIONS

WHEREAS, Tarini, through his execution of this Consent Order, consents to the Commissioner’s entry of a Consent Order imposing on him the following sanctions:

1.
For a period of ten (10) years commencing on the date this Consent Order is issued by the Commissioner, Tarini is barred from acting in Connecticut as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser agent, as such terms are defined in the Act;
2.
Tarini shall cease and desist from engaging in conduct constituting or which would constitute a violation of the Act or any regulation or order under the Act; and
3.
No later than the date this Consent Order is issued by the Commissioner, Tarini shall remit to the Department, by cashier’s check, certified check or money order made payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”, the sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) as an administrative fine.

AND WHEREAS, Tarini specifically assures the Commissioner that none of the violations alleged in the Notice or this Consent Order shall occur in the future.

V. CONSENT ORDER

 NOW THEREFORE, the Commissioner enters the following:

1.
The Sanctions set forth above be and are hereby entered;
2.
Entry of this Consent Order by the Commissioner is without prejudice to the right of the Commissioner to take enforcement action against Tarini based upon a violation of this Consent Order or the matters underlying its entry, if the Commissioner determines that compliance with the terms herein is not being observed or if any representations made by Tarini and reflected herein are subsequently discovered to be untrue; and
3.
This Consent Order shall become final when issued.


 Issued at Hartford, Connecticut,        ________/s/_________
 this 19th day of January 2010.  Howard F. Pitkin
   Banking Commissioner

CONSENT TO ENTRY OF ORDER

I, Robert Tarini, state that I have read the foregoing Consent Order; that I know and fully understand its contents; that I agree freely and without threat or coercion of any kind to comply with the terms and conditions stated herein; and that I consent to the issuance of this Consent Order, expressly waiving any right to a hearing on the matters described herein.


_______/s/_______
Robert Tarini

                                    

State of:  Rhode Island

County of:  Washington

On this the 4th day of January 2010, before me, Gayle A. Ashworth, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Robert Tarini, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand.


______________/s/____________________________
Notary Public/Commissioner of the Superior Court
Date Commission Expires:  4/30/12



Administrative Orders and Settlements