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 Howard F. Pitkin, Banking Commissioner, at the Connecticut Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103-1800 or via E-mail. Written comments will be considered only if they are received within ten days from the date of this bulletin.

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires certain applications 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 Financial Institutions Division, (860) 240-8180.

On June 4, 2010, the Commissioner issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in the matter of TDA Advantage Trust and Thomas F. DeSteph, both of 1 Dustin Lane, Jaffrey, New Hampshire.  The Respondents had been the subject of a July 16, 2009 Amended and Restated Order to Cease and Desist and an Amended and Restated Notice of Intent to Fine which superseded an April 7, 2009 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing.  Although the Amended and Restated Order to Cease and Desist and the Amended and Restated Notice of Intent to Fine were contested by respondent DeSteph, no appearance was filed on behalf of TDA Advantage Trust.

Following a hearing, the Commissioner concluded that 1) the respondents had violated Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by selling unregistered limited partnership interests, later documented as a “TDA Note”; and 2) in contravention of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act, TDA Advantage Trust employed respondent DeSteph as an unregistered agent of issuer, and respondent DeSteph acted in such capacity.  In addition, the Commissioner concluded that the respondents violated the antifraud provisions in Section 36b-4(a) of the Act by failing to disclose, among other things, any risk factors associated with the investment, any financial information on the respondents, that the respondents would not make promised payments on the investment or that respondent DeSteph would use the investor’s money to pay for his personal and household expenses.

The Commissioner ordered that the Amended and Restated Order to Cease and Desist issued against each respondent be made permanent; and that each respondent pay a $30,000 fine.